|
Top-level
 What I will *not* accept is the goalposts being moved on decentralization and federation. Bluesky is neither decentralized nor federated. If Bluesky wants to become so, it has an enormous amount of work to do, particularly in terms of architectural design. Blogs are decentralized, Google is not. 30 comments
And here it is. We have reached the final part. I am not even going to take a tea break. I am not even going to go to the bathroom. I kinda have to, but we are powering through. We have reached the conclusion of this megathread, and "summary" of an equally long article. I laid out definitions of "decentralization" and "federation", and Bluesky meets neither, without major rearchitecting or moving the goalposts on those terms, which I cannot accept. However, "credible exit" is a good goal for Bluesky. Bluesky created that term and it's a good and feasible goal. I laid out a strong critique, but let me end on a call to empathy. Bluesky is built by good people, and the fediverse is built by good people. Neither reflect the designs I presently would like to see today, but ultimately these are built by humans trying their absolute hardest. The infrastructure we build reflects our social dynamics, and our social dynamics are made possible by our infrastructure. This thread has been long, and I have said everything I have to say. Thanks for listening. I hope we can build a good future for each other. 💜   @cwebber thanks for taking the time to write his down. It has been really interesting. @cwebber People build infrastructure. For example, my grandfather helped build Rt 128 near Boston, MA as a civil engineer.  @cwebber I am very much looking forward to reading this thread in full with my morning coffee tomorrow. thanks for putting in the time and energy to clear up the misconceptions around these topics. 💜 @cwebber This was a fun read over the course of the day. I would check out with your breaks and come check back in an hour or two later to continue. Great analysis and I think you did a good job to be fair to the Bluesky folks and evenly critical of the many challenges we have here on the fediverse side. Thank you for writing it all up. many details I don't know and would take me long time to understand in detail. The problem with collisions because of shortened hashes I know from another system too, it's indeed a bad idea and leads to problems. @cwebber 🍻 cheers. This was an enjoyable read. Perfectly distracted me while I waited for my wife to finish their appointment. 😊  @cwebber This thread was the best part of my day. Thank you so much, Christine! @cwebber Woohoo, I made it to the end!!! @cwebber Thank you for taking your time to write this amazingly elaborate and informative thread. It helped me understand the Bluesky/Fediverse discussion a little better 👏🤩   @cwebber Thanks for such a very helpful thread. I generally prefer blogs to long threads, but I suspect the long thread was really necessary this time. I can now read the blog if I want to. Please advise: does the blog have anything significant beyond the thread? (I'm particularly interested in content addressable storage and decentralisation, having spent over a year on docker/OCI image relocation. We don't want CAS to be another "Google" design decision.)  @cwebber now refill that cup of tea now and do nostr 🥺 Joke aside, thanks for this thread 🙏 I think the whole debate is spoiled by the lack of vocabulary, we should stop using "decentralized" and coin some more strictly defined terms 😔 @cwebber God DAMN. What an epic thread. Well written, explained, accessible to the pleb (me), it took me a while to get through it, but I have absolutely no regrets. Thanks for sharing your experience and your take on this. :amaze: @cwebber Thank you for the long thread. I learned quite a bit and probably didn't properly understand half of it, but that's on me. |
Gregory's Server
Bluesky will face every pressure to be enshittified. Bluesky has even, correctly, acknowledged this. It is up to Bluesky and its community to rise to the challenge of "credible exit" knowing that this is a likely, perhaps inevitable, risk.
The org is indeed a future adversary. So what now?