I’ll stick to Signal for private communications and publish my public takes with ActivityPub based Mastodon. No need for proprietary stuff anymore.
Bluesky adds direct messages
81–90 of 208 posts
Re: Bluesky adds direct messages
#82Wake me up when the non tech people are using it.
Re: Bluesky adds direct messages
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
> By making the protocol centralized and stupid-simple, it's also stupid-simple to replace in when everyone is done painting the perfect bikeshed. Can you recall any example of anyone replacing a centralized protocol with a decentralized one?
Facebook messenger is not completely decentralized, but it is E2E encrypted now after years of struggle with governments and UX. It's definitely possible to move centralized systems to be more decentralized.
How is that an answer to the question?
Re: Bluesky adds direct messages
#84I'm building a Twitter/Bluesky/Mastadon/Farcaster competitor targeted at the average HN reader. Usable but not yet launched. Anyone want to beta test it?
Absolutely! mrinfinity@micg.net
Re: Bluesky adds direct messages
#85Not only are they not end-to-end encrypted, Bluesky's DMs seem like they're entirely centralized. From their 2024 roadmap: > We looked closely at alternatives like linking to external services, re-using an existing protocol like Matrix, or rushing out on-protocol encrypted DMs, but ultimately decided to launch a basic centralized system to take the time pressure off our team and make our user community happy. https:/…
I feel for them, because even if they (and weirdos like us on this site) value decentralization and other related values the average customer just DOES NOT CARE. They're trying to compete with other platforms without this handicap and very people people are willing to give them any "credit" for it
> the average customer just DOES NOT CARE
They're not targeting the average customer (by whatever metric you measure an average customer). They're targeting people that value decentralization.
Re: Bluesky adds direct messages
#86I have a question that is not relevant to this post. Has anyone tried to implement the Bluesky federated protocol?
I know folks are hosting their own PDSs, at least in the sandbox, and I want to say in prod?
I'm not sure there are any non-bluesky Relays
I know folks are hosting their own labellers.
and I know folks are hosting their own appviews
I've seen repeated kerfuffles about people running mastodon-bluesky bridges
Re: Bluesky adds direct messages
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
Facebook messenger is not completely decentralized, but it is E2E encrypted now after years of struggle with governments and UX. It's definitely possible to move centralized systems to be more decentralized.
How is that an answer to the question?
It's an example of somebody replacing a centralized protocol with a more decentralized one. It's also one of the biggest direct messaging platforms in the world with E2E encryption.
Re: Bluesky adds direct messages
#88Not only are they not end-to-end encrypted, Bluesky's DMs seem like they're entirely centralized. From their 2024 roadmap: > We looked closely at alternatives like linking to external services, re-using an existing protocol like Matrix, or rushing out on-protocol encrypted DMs, but ultimately decided to launch a basic centralized system to take the time pressure off our team and make our user community happy. https:/…
It's nice that they are being honest about how the existing thing is not encrypted. Typically what happens with these things is that some entity announces that they have end to end encryption. But it turns out that they mean that end to end encryption is only possible. The user has to compare some ridiculously long number to achieve it and few users actually end up doing that. In most cases they are not even provided with any concepts to allow them to initially make things secure and maintain this security over time.
Re: Bluesky adds direct messages
#89Not only are they not end-to-end encrypted, Bluesky's DMs seem like they're entirely centralized. From their 2024 roadmap: > We looked closely at alternatives like linking to external services, re-using an existing protocol like Matrix, or rushing out on-protocol encrypted DMs, but ultimately decided to launch a basic centralized system to take the time pressure off our team and make our user community happy. https:/…
I feel for them, because even if they (and weirdos like us on this site) value decentralization and other related values the average customer just DOES NOT CARE. They're trying to compete with other platforms without this handicap and very people people are willing to give them any "credit" for it
This is spot on. BlueSky and Threads have just become "left-wing Twitter", intentionally in quotes because it's actually a very small subset of users that left to found their own hug-box, due to some irrational hate of Musk, or that people they don't like at the old place are allowed to have opinions again.
Nobody cares about protocols, except maybe the handful of infosec nerds on Mastodon. It's about a middle school-level rearranging of friend groups. A VIP lounge where they only hang out with their own.
There was an exodus of a small subset of users, and BlueSky was there like an abandoned building that was squatted. It being invite-only added to the exclusivity as invites were passed amongst like-minded peers online, further adding to the echo-chamber.
Re: Bluesky adds direct messages
#90Bluesky is going to have the same problem as orkut. While they’re building out, keeping it exclusive and taking their sweet-ass time, something else will come along and eat their lunch. I am saying this as a bitter outsider without a Bluesky account but with FOMO.
[deleted]