Note that accounts on both networks must follow the main bridge account to work.
You must log in or # to comment.
Kinda wish we had actual interoperability standards instead.
We have that, it’s called ActivityPub. BlueSky wouldn’t want that tho, they couldn’t control the entire network then, after all.
If the BlueSky protocol offers tangible benefits over ActivityPub, the BlueSky protocol could become the basis for ActivityPub 2.0. I don’t know much about the details, though.
The BlueSky protocol relies on central servers tho, I’m not sure if there’s much that ActivityPub can take inspiration from
Non technical person here, I would love to hear more about how decentralized (or not decentralized) the Bluesky protocol is compared to ActivityPub
Here is a good blogpost about it
https://taggart-tech.com/20241124-bluesky-questions-pt1/
Check out this mastodon thread and associated links
https://social.wildeboer.net/@jwildeboer/113504285308484716
TL;DR Bluesky is not functionally federated nor decentralized, it is dubious if it ever will be and the layer of post sorting and moderation required to participate in Bluesky’s network is extremely computationally intensive and this aspect of Bluesky is NOT open source and is a proprietary black box.
The fediverse and activity pub are the future, even if the current hype train leaving the station (…who is paying for all the free drinks on that train and why?) makes it feel otherwise in the short term.
The lack of account portability means activitypub is unsuitable for both bsky and just in general.
They could have also worked to implement that into ActivityPub but they still chose to reinvent the wheel
Yeah, bluesky has a bunch of features, notably account portability, which was specifically designed into the ATProtocol.
The purpose of the ATProtocol was never to federate with Activitypub, it was to build a more feature rich and scalable “federated” protocol.
I just wish this was a native function of one or both platforms. What a feather in Bluesky’s cap to say that they’re interoperable with Threads, for instance.
People are repeating the same problems of Twitter.
Yes, although the protocol is already open, which I think mitigates the risk slightly. Bluesky is also organized as a public benefit corp, which mitigates the risk almost not at all but is interesting. If Bluesky begins to go the way of Twitter, other corporations or entities can make interoperable replacements easily. That was not so for Twitter.
But in general, yes. This is the same song but a different verse. People have been so blinded by the brokenness of the internet as it is now that an interoperable protocol doesn’t make any sense to them.
I fear that “public benefit corp” will be less and less “public” and more and more “benefit” as time passes. And opening the code does not help much if a second, third and nth server is not there and nowhere on the horizon. By the time the need arises it might become prohibitively expensive or even technically impossible to deploy a new server, as features unused are also poorly tested.
Bridgy Fed creator thinks about making it opt-in by default on the BlueSky side, there’s a discussion on GitHub that you can see there
It’s easy enough to set up. But fragments the posts. We need native bridging so one post on one platform is auto posted to your account on the others.
It’s just complicated enough that only power users will use it. At least on what it looks like at the moment.
I’ve found some major accounts:
- @nytimes.com@web.brid.gy
- @aoc.bsky.social@atproto.brid.gy
- @askhistorians.bsky.social@bsky.brid.gy
I am wondering why people run away from centralised corp twitter to mastodon only to later return to seemingly equally centralised corp bluesky…
Because Mastodon basically suck unless you know what you’re doing?
Do we know if its the same people? I imagine that some people went to Mastodon and some to Bluesky, and very few use both
If you are using MBin you theoretically can also bridge your account, however it doesn’t work well at the moment
