Part 2 of "Decentralization" and Erasure: Blacksky, Bluesky, and the ATmosphere

While most of this post is about Blacksky, there are a couple of sections that focus on the fediverse – “And yet…” and “A great learning opportunity for the ActivityPub Fediverse”

  • flamingos-cant (hopepunk arc)@feddit.ukEnglish
    3·
    23 hours ago

    Right now blacksky.community is an app that uses Bluesky’s AppView, which in turn uses Bluesky’s Relay. They’re working on their own AppView (which will have the equivalent of local-only posts) and that will use their Relay.

    Interesting, from what I understand of ATProto, this would be hard to do on protocol, it’ll be fascinating to see how they do it. Maybe something off protocol like the recent bookmark feature Bluesky got.

    I didn’t mean to undercut your point though, they often talk about PDSs as analogous to web pages, so your “different search engines” analogy is very accurate, it’s just not quite there yet.

    I’d love to take credit for this, but the ATProto docs themselves make this comparison which is where I’m getting this from.

    if I recall correctly either in (((streams))) or Forte (or maybe both) MIke implemented the nomadic identity over ActivityPub as well

    This sent me down a bit a of a rabbit hole. It seems (streams) used an updated version of Zot, Zot/11 but was renamed to just Nomad. I can’t find anything about this, the (streams) repo only contains the spec for Zot/6, so I’m not sure about it’s APub compatibility. Apparently, Nomad had been discontinued in Forte in favour of pure APub, anyway.

    If you’re thinking about this kind of stuff for Lemmy, it’s also worth looking at https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/fep-ef61-portable-objects/3738

    Oh, I know about Silverpill’s work, it’s really interesting! I even mentioned it recently. I’m glad we have someone smart like them working on this stuff.

    I do think some kind of separation of user data from servers, like what AT Proto does, is actually quite desirable. I just don’t like that PDSes can have their data harvested by whoever, I think data sharing with a server should be opt-in.

    • Blaze (he/him)@lemmy.zipEnglish
      2·
      23 hours ago

      I do think some kind of separation of user data from servers, like what AT Proto does, is actually quite desirable.

      Curious as well to see how Blacksky develops, having that split would be useful.

      I just don’t like that PDSes can have their data harvested by whoever, I think data sharing with a server should be opt-in.

      Same

      • thenexusofprivacy@piefed.socialOPEnglish
        2·
        14 hours ago

        Also agreed that sharing should be opt-in (and here on fedi as well).

        In terms of Blacksky’s approach to private data, Rudy shared this earlier today https://blog.smokesignal.events/posts/3lvehxge7oo2a-atprotocol-record-hydration-building-privacy-aware-views … the working group on private data is having its first meeting this week, and there are a couple of other proposals as well, so it’ll be interesting to see how things converge. Bluesky has said they’re going to add it to the protocol but the timeframe isn’t clear. My guess is people will go ahead with off-protocil implementations initally and plan to adapt once it’s standardized (famous last words).