Headline:
Rewrite:
In the midst of the ongoing Bluesky vs. Fediverse discourse, here's a deep dive into the dynamics, motives, and potential outcomes of this notable clash.
Conclusion:
While the conflict between Bluesky and Fediverse may seem misguided, it has sparked a flurry of activity within the Fediverse community. Despite differences, efforts are underway to bridge the gap between the two, exemplified by initiatives like @[email protected]. Ultimately, both sides share a common goal of advancing the Open Social Web.
Links to Knowledge:
- Bridging Efforts: [Link]
- W3C Social Web Incubation Community Group: [Link]
Hashtags:
#Bluesky #Fediverse #OpenSocialWeb #Decentralization #ProtocolBridges #CommunityEngagement
Disclaimer:
Opinions expressed in this piece are solely those of the author and do not represent any official stance of the involved parties.
Nobody:
Me: Let me tell you all about my thoughts on the recent rivalry (read: fairly one-sided grumbling on the Fedi side) between Bluesky and the Fediverse.
What I think of the “conflict”: Wholly misguided. But I’m glad it’s happening, because it’s galvanized a bunch of people and projects on the Fediverse side.
I have no doubt that a bridge between Bluesky and Fediverse will go up in very short order (already being worked on at @[email protected]). Some instances will block it, most others won’t, and people will continue posting and interacting as usual.
What I think of Bluesky: As always, I look at who’s doing the project first, and at the code and architecture a distant second. And the Bluesky team (Jay, Paul, Emily, David, Why, many others) are some top-notch humans — I’ve met and talked to many of them in person and online. I think I understand, overall, their motives and what they’re trying to achieve, and I want them to succeed (just as I do with the Fediverse).
What I think of the Bluesky data model: Siiiigh, ok, so, do I wish they at least started with the ActivityStreams2 data model for posts and tried to extend from there? Yes. Do I understand why they studied it and decided to not use it? After a bunch of discussion, yes :/ Regardless, I think we (the builders of the protocol bridges, and the larger Social Web) will be able to translate between the two data models fairly easily.
What I think of the AT Protocol: Do I wish the team didn’t re-invent JSON-RPC and JSON Schemas? Yeah, my heart always leans towards interop- and existing spec-first. Do I understand why they did it? Yeah, maybe, grudgingly. Change is bad, but also, they wanted to play around with some new options and technologies, and I highly suspect it will help improve the Social Web overall.
What I think of the Bluesky architecture: Ok, so, this is where I’m kind of boggled by the current Fediverse discourse. That architecture? Is almost exactly what the Fediverse will end up with, as it scales. Third-party search indexing (opt-in, of course) is a general tool of a decentralized Web, there’s nothing AT-specific about it. Same with all the other pieces.
What I think of the source of Bluesky funding: Heeeere’s the thing. If a billionaire wanted to give me a million $ or ten, and I saw it as an opportunity to further the cause of the Open Social Web, would I do the same thing Bluesky is doing? Yes, IN A HEARTBEAT. (So, if you know any extra $ burning people’s pockets, hook me up.) Except I think I’d re-use existing tech more.
Just whose team am I on? Uh… I’m on team Plurality, Queer Post-Scarcity Space Anarchism, and Libre and Liberatory Software. I’m against fascism, and for trying to survive the current Multicrisis/Jackpot with the least loss of human lives and least species extinctions. (Except for deer ticks, those can seriously go to hell.) So in that regard, I think (until proof to the contrary) that the Bluesky team is on our side.
But so, where am I going to be spending my time and effort? On the Fediverse side, of course.
Btw, I’m not really thrilled with the term “Fediverse”. It’s better than “Mastodon”, of course, for obvious reasons. And better than “ActivityPub” (since that’s just ONE protocol of the whole stack). But the thing is.. there’s nothing sacred about federation. It’s just one (albeit important) tool in the distributed system toolbox. To name our whole scene after it, is like naming us “Array-ists”, or “Linked List-ists”. It’s just a low level detail.
Let’s just call us for what we are: the Open Social Web.
Anyways, what do I think of the current Fediverse: Well, it’s my people. I love it and use it, and am hoping to help it in whatever ways possible (paying instance admins, reviving the W3C Social Web Incubation Community Group for standards work, building bridges). Do I think it needs some improvements? Oh, hells yes — and I’m’a tell you all about those, shortly.
So, we have a lot of work to do. And remember, we’re aiming for the Pluriverse. And lots of bridges.
Fediverse - the social network of the future: "Reflections on the Bluesky vs. Fediverse Rivalry: A Call for Collaboration"
https://fediverse-decentralize.blogspot.com/2024/03/reflections-on-bluesky-vs-fediverse.html