Bem-vendos aos fediverses!

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/17686207

It’s a very long post, but a lot of it is a detailed discussion of terminology in the appendix – no need to read that unless you’re into definitional struggles.

  • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
    845·
    1 month ago

    bluesky is run by a single org, and you have to beg them to let their router include your ‘independent’ instance. it is a closed garden.

    it is like federating with facebook (not threads) by begging facebook to include your server and content into their garden.

    thats not open federation. even after they let you in, they could take their ball home and lock it down at any moment.

    • The Nexus of Privacy@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOPEnglish
      66·
      1 month ago

      Agreed that Bluesky’s run by a single corporation so it’s different than today’s ActivityPub Fediverse, but the Fediverse’s historical approach to “open federation” isn’t the only approach. Even in the ActivityPub world we’re seeing more and more experimentation with allow-list federation.

      • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
        143·
        1 month ago

        allow lists run by individual instances…not a gatekeeping board of a single entity.

        my points stand. if you want to join a true federating twitter clone youre not using the atprotocol.

        • The Nexus of Privacy@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOPEnglish
          71·
          1 month ago

          For people who want to join a twitter clone there aren’t any good ActivityPub options – Mastodon’s good at other things, but isn’t a good Twitter alternative let along clone. And ActivityPub’s version of “true federation” isn’t the only kind of federation. That said, I agree that AT isn’t an option for people who want to join a federating-in-theActivityPub-sense-of-the-word Twitter clone,