In ActivityPub, posts, comments, and users themselves are identified by URLs consisting of DNS names and small sequential IDs, with the same entity having a different ID at each instance it is federated to. For example, the comment I’m replying to is ID 6283426 on its home instance, and 5909380 on my instance, and 5405408 on the home instance of the community this thread is in.
In ATP (bluesky’s protocol) everything is identified by cryptographic hashes and digital signatures, while the DNS-based URL of a user’s current “personal data server” at the time they created a post is not part of the post’s identity.
The difference in data models is a major impediment to bridging the two protocols. If two different bridges convert the same post (or other entity) from either one of these protocols to the other, they will always be creating duplicates.
I’m not an expert on either protocol but it seems to me that the only way to bridge them in a way that works well would be for both protocols to be substantially modified for the specific purpose of interoperating with each other, and so far I haven’t seen any indication that either side is interested in doing that.
They won’t. Blue skies federation is partial at best from everything I’ve heard. And apparently federation is mostly about client-side interface. With things on the server side, being much more centralized and heavy on the server itself. Specifically for algorithm tuning and commercialization. Two goals that are dimetically opposed with what mastodon wants to achieve. I’m not saying that no one will try. I’m just saying that it won’t work well then blue sky has no interest in it.
The only way such a thing happens is if Mastodon just flat out takes over and it is a last ditch attempt to stay relevant in some way for blue sky. Because outside of a situation like that. It would make being subject to an algorithm and advertising major negatives. When you could just go to anywhere else on the network and get the same content without either of those.
I think in many instances threads federating makes a lot more sense. They ultimately want a lot of the same things. But it isn’t their only product and only chance at a payday. Meta gets a lot of money from other sources. And I suspect they’re playing this as part of a long game since they can tie it back into other established services of theirs. Like Instagram. Where Even if someone on Mastodon shares or links to stuff on Instagram, they still get to harvest data and possibly sell advertisement.
It’s always good to have options. Bluesky has really popped off with a lot of subcultures for how simple it is compared to fedi. A lot of furry artists have moved there, for instance.
EDIT: FWIW, said this before, but Bluesky’s server federation is more of a backend thing, ensuring the user doesn’t have to worry about federation too much and ensuring its network is more resilient.
Bluesky’s federation doesn’t exist yet. Maybe they’ve written some code, but I can’t self-host something that Bluesky users can follow.
You can run their code today and federate in their sandbox environment, but yeah, their “production network” still doesn’t federate yet. They said a while ago that the remaining work to be done was mostly around moderation; currently they say they expect to enable federation early next year but they have several other things on their pre-federation TODO now.
You can find details about their federation sandbox here and here.
Agreed, bsky is currently developing and testing its federation capabilities with multiple servers in-house, which is an elaborate way of scaling but doesn’t actually have the critical necessary component for a federation, ie another entity on the other side. Bsky is the sole operator, administrator, moderator, and arbiter.
Feels like there are a metric ton of furry artists on Mastodon too. I think furries are basically just everywhere. (Not that I care. Like what you like!)
I think Threads is going to be a much bigger boost to the fediverse.
I’m not convinced Threads is actually going to federate. They’ve had months to do it, and it’s not like the parent company lacks resources. What it might lack is a business case for federation or serious consequences for not keeping its promises.
Wow 23.7 million active users seems surprisingly high compared to Twitter’s projected 56.1.
Yeah the fediverse’s real-world impact is definitely miniscule currently, but I can’t seem to trust even a tiny bit in Meta to not pull the EEE plug. I understand your opinion tho.
Instagram’s Threads is forecast to have 23.7 million monthly active users in the US by the end of this year as opposed to X’s 56.1 million, according to Insider Intelligence.
I personally prefer staying on Mastodon, but it’s good to see large platforms starting to support federation.
I foresee one or both platforms implementing a bridge api, if they don’t outright switch to the other’s protocol.
The important part is normalizing federated social networks.
In ActivityPub, posts, comments, and users themselves are identified by URLs consisting of DNS names and small sequential IDs, with the same entity having a different ID at each instance it is federated to. For example, the comment I’m replying to is ID 6283426 on its home instance, and 5909380 on my instance, and 5405408 on the home instance of the community this thread is in.
In ATP (bluesky’s protocol) everything is identified by cryptographic hashes and digital signatures, while the DNS-based URL of a user’s current “personal data server” at the time they created a post is not part of the post’s identity.
The difference in data models is a major impediment to bridging the two protocols. If two different bridges convert the same post (or other entity) from either one of these protocols to the other, they will always be creating duplicates.
I’m not an expert on either protocol but it seems to me that the only way to bridge them in a way that works well would be for both protocols to be substantially modified for the specific purpose of interoperating with each other, and so far I haven’t seen any indication that either side is interested in doing that.
They won’t. Blue skies federation is partial at best from everything I’ve heard. And apparently federation is mostly about client-side interface. With things on the server side, being much more centralized and heavy on the server itself. Specifically for algorithm tuning and commercialization. Two goals that are dimetically opposed with what mastodon wants to achieve. I’m not saying that no one will try. I’m just saying that it won’t work well then blue sky has no interest in it.
The only way such a thing happens is if Mastodon just flat out takes over and it is a last ditch attempt to stay relevant in some way for blue sky. Because outside of a situation like that. It would make being subject to an algorithm and advertising major negatives. When you could just go to anywhere else on the network and get the same content without either of those.
I think in many instances threads federating makes a lot more sense. They ultimately want a lot of the same things. But it isn’t their only product and only chance at a payday. Meta gets a lot of money from other sources. And I suspect they’re playing this as part of a long game since they can tie it back into other established services of theirs. Like Instagram. Where Even if someone on Mastodon shares or links to stuff on Instagram, they still get to harvest data and possibly sell advertisement.
It’s always good to have options. Bluesky has really popped off with a lot of subcultures for how simple it is compared to fedi. A lot of furry artists have moved there, for instance.
EDIT: FWIW, said this before, but Bluesky’s server federation is more of a backend thing, ensuring the user doesn’t have to worry about federation too much and ensuring its network is more resilient.
Bluesky’s federation doesn’t exist yet. Maybe they’ve written some code, but I can’t self-host something that Bluesky users can follow.
You can run their code today and federate in their sandbox environment, but yeah, their “production network” still doesn’t federate yet. They said a while ago that the remaining work to be done was mostly around moderation; currently they say they expect to enable federation early next year but they have several other things on their pre-federation TODO now.
You can find details about their federation sandbox here and here.
I’m glad to hear it’s not vaporware. Launching without open federation doesn’t give me a lot of confidence they view it as a core feature.
Agreed, bsky is currently developing and testing its federation capabilities with multiple servers in-house, which is an elaborate way of scaling but doesn’t actually have the critical necessary component for a federation, ie another entity on the other side. Bsky is the sole operator, administrator, moderator, and arbiter.
deleted by creator
Feels like there are a metric ton of furry artists on Mastodon too. I think furries are basically just everywhere. (Not that I care. Like what you like!)
They really are lol, and they make themselves known when they do.
deleted by creator
I’m not convinced Threads is actually going to federate. They’ve had months to do it, and it’s not like the parent company lacks resources. What it might lack is a business case for federation or serious consequences for not keeping its promises.
deleted by creator
Not to mention the fedi pact…
It could be but we risk getting an EEE situation again.
deleted by creator
Wow 23.7 million active users seems surprisingly high compared to Twitter’s projected 56.1.
Yeah the fediverse’s real-world impact is definitely miniscule currently, but I can’t seem to trust even a tiny bit in Meta to not pull the EEE plug. I understand your opinion tho.
deleted by creator
deleted
It’s in the source:
Literally no one uses Threads… https://gizmodo.com/threads-has-lost-more-than-80-of-daily-active-users-1850707329
deleted by creator
That’s not literally no one
deleted by creator
Who?
deleted by creator
Yeah, and which people
Big ≠ good
deleted by creator