this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2026
118 points (94.7% liked)

Fediverse

40514 readers
799 users here now

A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, Mbin, etc).

If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to !moderators@lemmy.world!

Rules

Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I'm not the author, just sharing.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] irelephant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Copy/pasting a comment from another thread:

That’s the same argument people made about Twitter. “If it goes bad, we’ll just leave.” We know how that played out.

This conclusion is based on a misunderstanding of both what Frazee meant, and how the protocol works. He wasn't saying to switch to a different platform altogether, but to switch to a different appview, akin to switching instances on mastodon.

If I were to make the same argument for mastodon: Mastodon.social has gone evil, there's a new alternative called mstdn.social that people are rushing to. I'm switching to mstdn.social.

In the case of bluesky, the bluesky appview has made some bad moderation decisions, so users annoyed at this can (and do) use blacksky's appview.

Switching appviews doesn't have the hassle of switching mastodon instances though, you just have to go to a different site, and login again. You can continue using your old PDS.

You may recall that there were some articles about how one user on blacksky's servers got banned, but he was still gone from blacksky's app?

That's not even true, the user is available on blacksky's appview: https://staging.blacksky.community/profile/spacelawshitpost.me .

What had happened here was:

  • Link had an account on a blacksky pds (https://blacksky.app/)
  • Blacksky runs a bluesky client (not appview, just the frontend--that makes requests to another appview), pointed towards bluesky) at https://blacksky.community/.
  • Link gets (unfairly) banned from bluesky, but his account is still safe on his PDS, but viewing it on blacksky.community shows that it was banned, because blacksky.community was pointed at bluesky's appview.
  • Some people assume bluesky is the same as fedi (without the split between data storage and applications), and this means bluesky banning him banned him on his home instance, since the client said he was banned.
  • Blacksky didn't run an appview at the time (iirc, they are writing their own implementation from scratch), but they do now.

In reality, his account was still viewable on alternate appviews, like wafrn instances. You could (and still can) also view and intereact his account on https://reddwarf.app/ , a client that works through direct PDS queries, that doesn't rely on a relay or appview.

When you use any ATProto app, it writes data to your Personal Data Server, or PDS. Your Bluesky posts, your Tangled issues, your Leaflet publications, your Grain photos. All of it goes to the same place.

This is done intentionally, and it has a lot of advantages over how the fediverse does things.
Instead of having to make a new account for every different "style" of platform, you can use your existing PDS account. PDSes are also very flexible in what they can hold, you can create a record that contains basically anything.

Also, data isn't just stored on your PDS, it's also stored on relays and appviews. Data is content addressed, meaning that it is portable, you can easily move all your data to another PDS. This isn't possible on the fediverse as all data is "centralised" to it's instance. While you can move your followers, your posts immovable.

You can self-host a PDS. Almost nobody does. Why would they? Bluesky's PDS works out of the box with every app, zero setup, zero maintenance. Self-hosting means running a server, keeping it online, and gaining nothing in return.
To be fair, migration tools exist. You can move your account to a self-hosted PDS for as little as $5 a month

This sounds like the author is implying your only option is to self host, when there's many different PDSes with open signups already.

I was able to migrate to https://altq.net/ (semi-open PDS, you have to ask an admin for an invite code to stop spam), with no self hosting involved.

Bluesky has made this easier over time and even supports moving back. But this only works if you do it before the door closes. If an acquirer disables exports, it doesn't matter that the tools existed yesterday. And we know from every platform transition in history that almost nobody takes proactive steps to protect their data.

This isn't exclusive to atproto. A fediverse instance could decide to block incoming migrations, or to block outgoing migrations (pixelfed.social has had outgoing migrations disabled for a while recently).
It's also possible to move permissionlessly, if you get your rotation key, you can migrate PDSes, even if your old pds is gone, or your admin tries to block exports.

It's not just the PDS. Bluesky controls almost every critical layer:

The Relay. All data flows through it. Bluesky runs the dominant one. Whoever controls the relay controls what gets seen, hidden, or deprioritized.

Relays are less relevant than everyone thinks they are. Appviews don't have to use relays, they just help solve the missing data problem of the fediverse. AppViewLite is a project that lets you crawl PDSes directly--no relay involved!

Relays are also a part of the fediverse, for the same reasons they exist on atproto.

Third parties can run their own, but without the users, it doesn't matter.

This again feels like the article is implying that there isn't third party relays running already. Blacksky runs a relay at https://atproto.africa/ . There's also:

It's worth mentioning that relays aren't that expensive to run. It's possible to run one for $34 a month.

The DID Directory. Your identity on ATProto resolves through a centralized directory run by Bluesky. They've called it a "placeholder" since 2023 and said they plan to decentralize it. There's still no timeline.

Plc.directory is currently in the process of being moved to an independent swiss company. It's just taking time because legal stuff takes time.
If plc.directory disappears, the network doesn't fall apart, there's many different mirrors. I have a mirror on a PC in my attic.

There's also a second supported did: did:web. This runs entirely independently of bluesky.

At every layer, the answer is "anyone can run their own." At every layer, almost nobody does.

This ignores the fact that people do run stuff.

The protocol says you can leave. But the company that just paid billions for the network has no incentive to let you.

The protocol is designed so you can leave, even if your PDS/host has been taken over. This is why they did stuff like portable objects/identity, which the fediverse doesn't do.
If bluesky gets taken over, they don't have a way of stopping exports, whereas a malicious mastodon instance can.

[–] 73ms@sopuli.xyz 2 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

This is exactly the dynamic the article was describing: concerns about power concentration get answered with lists of theoretical protocol features instead of engaging with how the network actually operates. Listing technical escape hatches doesn’t address who controls the dominant infrastructure in practice.

The overwhelming majority of users rely on hosted PDSes, the main relay, and the default appview. Whoever controls those layers controls visibility, discovery, moderation signals, and reach. That’s where practical power sits. Doesn't matter whether migration is technically possible under ideal conditions because if you'll need it they won't be ideal.

Acquisitions and policy changes can happen quickly. Tools that exist “yesterday” are irrelevant if users don’t act before control consolidates, and history shows that most don’t. Claiming decentralization can wait until the last possible moment ignores how network effects and defaults entrench power long before any formal lock-in occurs.

It’s also worth noting that the original article isn’t even arguing “the fediverse is better,” yet the response immediately reframes the debate as a comparison. Even if we entertain that framing, the situations aren’t symmetrical. Yes, a fediverse instance can block migrations or misbehave but no single party in the fediverse comes close to the infrastructural dominance Bluesky Corp currently holds across relays, appviews, and user gravity. An individual Mastodon instance misbehaving affects its users. Bluesky Corp fully controls the experience of over 99% of the users on the protocol and so holds the power to shape the experience of the entire network.

The issue isn’t whether both systems have theoretical weaknesses. It’s where systemic leverage concentrates in practice. And ATProto’s architecture, particularly the cost and complexity of running the more demanding components that need to have a global view of the network, structurally favors concentration at those layers.

[–] irelephant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 45 minutes ago (1 children)

answered with lists of theoretical protocol features instead of engaging with how the network actually operates

I'm not just listing theoretical features, these are things that happen in the network right now. Is there anything I mentioned in my comment that I forgot to give an example for?

Doesn’t matter whether migration is technically possible under ideal conditions because if you’ll need it they won’t be ideal.

I don't see why so many people say migration is only "technically" possible, migration can be done today. If there is more demand for third party servers, say, if Bluesky starts fucking up with moderation more, more third party servers will pop up, because right now the user concentration isn't a technical problem or fault of the protocol. I don't disagree that it's a problem.

And ATProto’s architecture, particularly the cost and complexity of running the more demanding components that need to have a global view of the network, structurally favors concentration at those layers.

It's not necessary to have a global view of the network to participate in the network.
It is possible to have a global view of the network without a relay using constellation, constellation instances are very cheap to run, and work by indexing backlinks. It's what powers reddwarf and recently wafrn (wafrn optionally supports relays as well).

Atproto isn't significantly more complicated than AP, it's just different.

[–] 73ms@sopuli.xyz 1 points 32 minutes ago* (last edited 29 minutes ago)

The features are theoretical in the sense that there is no real guarantee they'd be possible after BSky corp changes their behavior and that they are in use only in the least significant way possible, for tiny and irrelevant numbers of users. But of course this is just restating the obvious again. For a network truly to be shielded against this sort of thing it should be decentralized already before.

See this for how constellation makes no difference.

[–] rako@tarte.nuage-libre.fr 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I'm sorry, but it's like you haven't read the post:

But every counter-argument to the concerns above rests on the same foundation: technically, users can leave. Technically, you can self-host. Technically, you can run your own relay. The capability exists at every layer. But people don't do these things. They never have with any protocol. Not email, not RSS, not XMPP. The default wins. Always.

It is always technically possible to do differently. It's computers after all: anything can be coded. And most people won't because they have their life to live. What matters is the default, and all the incentives point to the default being shittier as time goes on.

The most crucial point is the relay. Yes, appviews can work without, but then you miss everything that is happening which is probably the number one reason people go to bluesky rather than the fedi. Relays are a fundamental part of what makes bluesky attractive and they require large capital to run and maintain, so it all points to bluesky still running the main one that most will connect to

[–] irelephant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It feels like you haven't read my comment thoroughly.

To start, relays do not require large capital to run. This has been a misconception from the very beginning. I linked to this blog post, where a bluesky engineer runs a relay for ~$34 a month. If relays really had astronomical costs to run, I doubt Bluesky would run a whole separate one.
AppViews aren't limited to one relay, most I know point to blacksky's one as well.

technically, users can leave. Technically, you can self-host. Technically, you can run your own relay. The capability exists at every layer.

There's no need to self host as there's already public third party instances you can switch to. The alternatives already exist at each layer.

I do agree that too many users are on bluesky's servers, but that's not a fault of the protocol, and it's not something the fediverse is immune to either.

They never have with any protocol. Not email, not RSS, not XMPP. The default wins. Always.

This is just incorrect. RSS is probably one of the least centralised protocols right now, it's not even federated, which makes me question why the author even included it as an example. If anything, this reads as an argument against federation, rather than an argument for the fediverse.

[–] rako@tarte.nuage-libre.fr 1 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

It costs $34 a month for an experiment. It doesn't cost anywhere near that for a node that is running, used by thousands/millions of people, ingesting millions of pdses. Don't be misled by a nice experiment. You need servers, backups, people to run that. See what real world deployment looks like: a little bit under 100k a year for the only independent full stack.

There's no need to self host as there's already public third party instances you can switch to.

Yes it's possible. It's just not the default. That's the issue

it's not something the fediverse is immune to either.

true, although no one said the contrary

This is just incorrect. RSS is probably one of the least centralised protocols right now, it's not even federated, which makes me question why the author even included it as an example

The argument isn't whether something exists, it's what people use: rss is amazing but it's far from being mainstream. The default path to following isn't rss, which is the point (and the problem).

It's not an argument against federation. It's an argument to look beyond the niceness of a tech.

[–] irelephant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 22 hours ago

Blacksky doesn't just run a relay, they run an appview (way more expensive than a relay) and pds (admittedly pretty cheap).

The point of atproto isn't to have many different groups running the entire stack, you can use an appview by one group, powered by a relay by another, while using a pds by a third.

A relay I listed in the comment is a real-world one that is currently only costing the creator $30/month, which is ingesting all PDSes, and being used by a lot of apps.

true, although no one said the contrary

While the article itself didn't say it, the overall attitude of most people on the fediverse is that.

I do agree with you that users aren't exposed enough to third party infrastructure, and that most users using bluesky's servers is a problem, but the alternative is the jankiness of the fediverse, which completely puts new users off.

[–] CMLVI@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

Insanely well said. It seems like the goal with much of the discourse is just "my choice is right and everything else is wrong, and I'll work backwards from there". Not everyone uses social media the same way, not everyone has the same goals, not everyone wants the same features, not everyone values the same levels of privacy. And the running narrative with differing opinions on this seems to just be base-level tribalism. Just look at the insults here, lobbed solely because someone made an account with a social media platform that doesn't align with your preferences.

[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 50 points 3 days ago (5 children)

I mean.....yeah. The guy who created Bluesky is the same guy who created Twitter originally. What makes you think anything would be different? I'm honestly surprised they're even humoring the idea of decentralization.

[–] Stern@lemmy.world 44 points 3 days ago (2 children)

He also left Bluesky in 2024 after it didn't become the libertarian techbro wankfest he envisioned and was instead heavily populated by folks who didn't want to slob Elon's knob.

[–] 73ms@sopuli.xyz 13 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

He publicly distanced himself but Bluesky's ownership is very opaque and they do dishonest PR very well so I would not be at all surprised if Dorsey still owns a part of it.

[–] SendMePhotos@lemmy.world 7 points 3 days ago (1 children)

And he fucked a potato after peeling it and putting it in a sandwich baggy!

[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 7 points 3 days ago

Are you asking people to send you photos of that?

[–] irelephant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 3 days ago

Jack dorsey didn't create bluesky, and he had little effect on it.
He started the team for bluesky after reading protocols, not platforms. They were given a lot of independence from twitter (so much so that they were able to continue as a separate thing after twitter got musk-ed), but the goal was to eventually implement the protocol they come up with/choose on twitter.

He was on their board for a short period of time, but ragequit and deleted his account after they started moderating content.

I also find the idea the people working on bluesky are "holding back" the decentralisation efforts funny, considering they are making literally no money right now.

[–] Strider@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

I really really REALLY don't get people who leave one company turned bad to turn to another company trying the same thing.

They'll be the good guys for sure!

[–] morrowind@lemmy.ml 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I do think the people behind it like the idea of data portability and decen, just not enough to compromise their business for it.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Kushan@lemmy.world 27 points 3 days ago (3 children)

The main argument against bsky is that they're still holding all of your data, unless you self host your own server.

I don't actually see how Lemmy is much different. Most users are not self hosting on Lemmy either, you're trusting your data to a 3rd party. The main difference seems to be that there's much more centralisation on bsky.

I think it's entirely reasonable to be wary of any service, be ready to delete your account if it goes to shit or whatever it is you need to do to feel safe.

But right now, I like blue sky. I've had far more positive interactions on there than I ever had on twitter (even before musk took it over), the lists feature that lets you pre-emptively block entire swathes of dickheads is a game changer (I just block one group, anyone Maga) and I'm having a good time.

I expect I'll get downvoted for this but honestly I don't care, the world has gone to shit far too much for me to give a crap about what internet strangers think over my own health and wellbeing and right now I'm having a good time and will not apologise for it.

The second that stops, I'll be leaving bsky.

[–] rako@tarte.nuage-libre.fr 1 points 1 day ago

No, the main argument is that the main relay is, and for the foreseeable future will be operated by bluesky. This means that bluesky can decide what is and isn't visible, but that's not my biggest issue: to me the bigger problem is that bluesky sees everything that everyone says or thinks about anything.

Yes, it is possible to change. As TFA says:

But every counter-argument to the concerns above rests on the same foundation: technically, users can leave. Technically, you can self-host. Technically, you can run your own relay. The capability exists at every layer. But people don't do these things. They never have with any protocol. Not email, not RSS, not XMPP. The default wins. Always.

It doesn't matter that a few can be free: the vast majority goes where the lowest friction is because they have their life to live, and the lowest friction leads to the centralized bluesky

[–] 73ms@sopuli.xyz 26 points 3 days ago (1 children)

You're right that the issue isn't just trusting a third party in general, that's how it is for most users on Lemmy or Mastodon too.

The difference isn’t whether you personally run a server. It’s whether the network depends on a single company.

Bluesky operating basically all of the infrastructure on that network means:

  • they decide moderation policy and what content gets boosted or hidden for everyone
  • they alone can change the rules for access and in general (ads, pay to be seen etc.)
  • they can de-prioritize or cut off third-party infrastructure
  • if the company fails, pivots or is pressured legally (I'm sure the current US government could never do such a thing), the network can effectively collapse

Here on Lemmy there is no single company that has all that power. If your admin goes bad there are real options to move to and the network will still exist even if they shut their service down. You also have much more leverage over here because you have those options and no operator is drawing in tens or hundreds of millions from investors who get to make the decisions.

[–] Scrollone@feddit.it 4 points 2 days ago

I agree. But it's a bit scary even for Lemmy, given that all the most active communities are currently hosted on the same 1 or 2 biggest instances.

Also, see what recently happened to LemmyNSFW...

[–] alonsohmtz@feddit.uk 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The main argument against bsky is that they’re still holding all of your data, unless you self host your own server.

That's not the main argument against it. The main argument is that it's not federated.

[–] Blisterexe@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 day ago

Bluesky is federated though. Like, you can selfhost every part of it and communicate with bsky users just fine: see wafrn and blacksky.

You can argue that it's not decentralised because one instance has 99% of the users though

[–] alonsohmtz@feddit.uk 41 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I just facepalm internally whenever I see someone recommending bluesky on the fediverse.

I know I should stop holding them to a higher standard, but still.

[–] Retail4068@lemmy.world 10 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Yeah, but it has a good UI and isn't a massive echo chamber so what cha gonna do?

Normies just get screeched at by tankies and nerds and leave 🤷‍♂️

[–] 73ms@sopuli.xyz 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)

lol, how is it not a massive echo chamber when that has been the constant complaint in countless articles that keep getting made fun of instead of being taken seriously on Bluesky.

Because the most common people complaining about Bluesky fall into 1 of 2 groups:

People upset that Bluesky isn't tolerating their behavior (mostly Nazis and transphobes angry about the community not letting it become Truth Social 2 or allowing transphobes to harass users, but also certain leftist groups, much like the tankies here on Lemmy)

People upset that the infrastructure isn't FOSS or some similar complaint about it not being enough (purity test behavior like in every comment section on Lemmy)

And people saying that Bluesky is an echo chamber tend to fall very heavily into group 1.

[–] RalfWausE@feddit.org 32 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Bluesky is in its essence a corpo methadone for the Twitter addicts... its not freedom, its a packaged, tailored simulacrum of it.

[–] JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)

IMO this is unfair and conspiratorial. The people behind Bluesky have been quite clear about where they are trying to go (i.e. not simply replace Twitter), some of those people have a lot of credibility in this area, built up over years. Maybe they make different assumptions about tech and user preferences but I see no reason to assume evil intentions.

[–] kazerniel@lemmy.world 13 points 3 days ago (2 children)

It not necessarily about evil intentions, instead that without an easy off-ramp for users, a platform is eventually guaranteed to get enshittified, especially if they rely on investor money (which Bluesky does, see their post 1, post 2).

Cory Doctorow wrote a few pieces about the topic:

[–] isidro_carle@lemmy.today 4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

From the second article:

But I'm not on Bluesky and I don't have any plans to join it anytime soon. I wrote about this in 2023: I will never again devote my energies to building up an audience on a platform whose management can sever my relationship to that audience at will

[–] JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Fair enough. But, as you know already, AT Protocol is not chained to Bluesky. Other things are already being built on it (Blacksky for instance). Sure, the startup costs of federation are high, but that was a technical choice. To insist that it's all a plot to become the next evil Twitter continues to feel a bit swivel-eyed to me.

[–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago

the startup costs of federation are high, but that was a technical choice.

that tells a lot.

[–] 73ms@sopuli.xyz 5 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

This is yet another version of the ridiculous "we're decentralized in theory so it doesn't matter that we aren't in practice" argument which the article does address. In practice it is chained because they are in complete control of the real-world use of it.

People are even worried about Google's control over Android recently and Google has much less power over AOSP than Bluesky Corp. has over ATproto.

What is swivel-eyed is believing that Venture Capitalists won't do the thing they've historically always done in the past when they're in control.

[–] JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (3 children)

they are in complete control of the real-world use of it

They're not. I mentioned Blacksky.

As I understand it, their endgame is that Bluesky will be a big fish in a pond of other fish, and that the best way to get that fishpond is to make Bluesky as good a product as possible, hence the (limited) VC money.

As a strategy it has risks but so does the alternative. To make the obvious comparison, UX on the fediverse is rubbish, with an incomprehensible onboarding funnel, amateurish design, servers that keep disappearing. There's a reason Bluesky has eaten the fediverse's lunch.

With respect, I think people here are making this into a sterile religious war when really it's a disagreement about strategy. Some of the people who vouch for Bluesky I have been following for years. They want exactly the same things as most people here. Personally, I see no reason to question their intentions.

[–] KentNavalesi@mstdn.social 3 points 3 days ago

@JubilantJaguar @73ms

I'll take the "eeewww ugly UI" risk over the "high barriers to decentralization" risk.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] cerebralhawks@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 3 days ago (3 children)

Why would people here consider Bluesky when Mastodon already exists?

[–] Auth@lemmy.world 7 points 3 days ago (5 children)

Bluesky built the platform that people actually want.

Mainly an algorithmic feed and more relaxed and diverse userbase.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] statelesz@slrpnk.net 7 points 3 days ago

Network effects.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Retail4068@lemmy.world 13 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (4 children)

It's popularity had nothing to do with the protocol and making cries to such does nothing.

Make fediverse competitive client wise, and stop screeching at peoples in the center when they call Gavin progressive 🤷‍♂️. It's not the tech that keeps people away, it's the users.

[–] cinoreus@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

With the fediverse it IS the tech. Lack of recommendation engines, and overall more sluggish experience compared to established social media does deter a lot of people away. Some things might change, but lot of stuff that makes social media better for most people is against what fediverse wants

[–] Chais@sh.itjust.works 7 points 3 days ago

The cries are about how Bluesky uses it and implements the required infrastructure, not the protocol itself.

[–] MalReynolds@slrpnk.net 6 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (3 children)

Agreed. They're both open on the internet and the data is in many repositories. Moot point (OPs', not yours).

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›