Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bluesky announces data federation for self hosters

bsky.social

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 471 posts

Re: Bluesky announces data federation for self hosters

#41

Post by pfraze »

emceestork wrote: post #31

I switched to Bluesky but then moved back to twitter. I'm glad that they are trying to compete with Twitter (Twitter is a conservative cesspool), but all of my non-technical friends have stayed on Twitter. So, I end up going where they are. I think the reason my friends did not join Bluesky despite me inviting them is that it just isn't as good of a product as Twitter. You can't post videos or DM. I am not a tech exe…

It's a fair point and we definitely debated it, but it was too important to us that we complete the mission.

Re: Bluesky announces data federation for self hosters

#43

Post by rvz »

Given that there are some so-called Twitter / X alternatives and options to choose from like Threads, Mastodon and Bluesky and are now open for registration, we can now see which platform the most users will choose to go to if a major destructive change happens on X.

Once that happens we now wait for the platform that has the most sign ups.

Re: Bluesky announces data federation for self hosters

#44

Post by rsynnott »

bayindirh wrote: post #3

Does that mean after Bluesky reaches critical mass, it'll turn the federation off, like Google Chat killing its XMPP federation? For clarity: I'd love to see this comment and say "I was wrong" 5 or 10 years later.

That would only work if Bluesky stays the only significant network node. Which is _possible_, but we haven't seen it with, say, Mastodon. Google Chat was arguably a bit of a special case; vast majority of users never used federation at all, whereas any Bluesky user will, pretty much, just by naturally using Bluesky.

Re: Bluesky announces data federation for self hosters

#45

Post by Eric_WVGG »

bayindirh wrote: post #3

Does that mean after Bluesky reaches critical mass, it'll turn the federation off, like Google Chat killing its XMPP federation? For clarity: I'd love to see this comment and say "I was wrong" 5 or 10 years later.

… and if not, what the heck is the business model here?

Re: Bluesky announces data federation for self hosters

#46

Post by numpad0 »

Bluesky is starting to look like an elaborate reboot of Mastodon with a fancy username redirect, but I'm guessing its technical aspects, while those are series of great achievements, were not the crucial part to its success so far; the part that worked was community building.

Nostr worked to some extent despite existence of Mastodon because Mastodon bodged that part. Mastodon took off because Twitter broke its community. Bluesky's successes is really making me feel that the first S of the abbreviation S.N.S. do stand for what it stands.

Re: Bluesky announces data federation for self hosters

#47

Post by Arathorn »

tamimio wrote: post #34
jakebsky wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is just for a brief period during polishing/debugging since this is the first time third-party PDS hosts have been added to the network. The goal is just to help PDS operators join the network and make sure that if there's a problem we have a channel of communication open.

Bluesky has a Matrix dev group (afaik it’s an official one) why not use that too in addition to Discord (or other comms channels)?

Unfortunately they declared they didn't have moderation bandwidth to maintain it as an official channel, and then apparently moved to Discord :(

Re: Bluesky announces data federation for self hosters

#48

Post by colesantiago »

orthecreedence wrote: post #38
colesantiago wrote: post #29

This is good and all but, sigh are we really celebrating letting self hosting get into the hands of bad actors to federate with Bluesky? And don’t say “lets defederate with said bad actors” since they would still exist and anyone can join said bad actors instances. It’s akin to telling antelopes surrounded by lions to close their eyes and the lions are ‘gone’ yet the lions still exist around them.

Your argument against federation and open communication is that bad people might use it? What's to stop bad people from using the main Bluesky instance?

There is a form of moderation on the main instance.

A self hosted instance will have no such moderation.

Re: Bluesky announces data federation for self hosters

#49

Post by steveklabnik »

itsanaccount wrote: post #33
steveklabnik wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being jaded is understandable, but because this critique is generic, it is applicable to literally anything and everything. I don't see how you can ever get something that's considered good if you always assume it will turn into something bad regardless of its current stance.

Thats easy, you don't have a structure made with a single large actor capable of changing the rules of the game mid flight. You get something good system by sharing power, not by once again falling for "trust us bro." You get it by understanding power imbalances and avoiding them the same way my dog avoids objects with large amounts of potential energy, because they're predictably dangerous.

I understand this, yet, when presented with exactly this, the response was "well what about EEE."

Re: Bluesky announces data federation for self hosters

#50

Post by rsynnott »

colesantiago wrote: post #29

This is good and all but, sigh are we really celebrating letting self hosting get into the hands of bad actors to federate with Bluesky? And don’t say “lets defederate with said bad actors” since they would still exist and anyone can join said bad actors instances. It’s akin to telling antelopes surrounded by lions to close their eyes and the lions are ‘gone’ yet the lions still exist around them.

> And don’t say “lets defederate with said bad actors” since they would still exist and anyone can join said bad actors instances.

Er... fine, and who cares? If everyone defederates (slightly more a nuclear option on Bluesky than Mastodon but still I think possible?), then, well, the bad instance is its own problem.

Or are you saying that even an unfederated instance with bad people would be bad? Like, the only solution there is to ban all open-source social networking software.

Post reply on HN