6 ms·
One thing I’m curious about here is how BlueSky can credibly commit to only use the open portions of the protocol. BlueSky appears to be de facto quite centrali
by taion 3y ago
One thing I’m curious about here is how BlueSky can credibly commit to only use the open portions of the protocol. BlueSky appears to be de facto quite centralized – given that, it seems like there’s no technical reason why first-party BlueSky clients have to be ATProto clients. Obviously it would be a major betrayal of user trust to do so any time in the near-to-medium-term future, but it seems like the de facto decentralization of ActivityPub gives stronger guardrails here.
- steveklabnik 3y agoI mean, the code for everything is open source. It's credible because they're doing it. If they started changing to not do it, people would notice, very quickly.
- taion 3y agoThat makes sense. So first they have to go closed-source before that attack vector is even feasible, and doing so would be sufficient on its own to raise alarms.
- charcircuit 3y agoWhat are first party BlueSky clients? Do you mean that a first party relay and PDS could communicate over a different protocol. I don't really understand what you are worried about. 2 activitypub clients could talk to each other over a protocol that is not activitypub.