Comment on Bluesky has started honoring takedown requests from Turkish government
73ms@sopuli.xyz 3 days agoPDS is not very significant, it’s just a tiny piece of the puzzle and doesn’t really prove anything about the architecture. See this for more on what I’m getting at: neuromatch.social/@jonny/113365406995624763
Natanael@infosec.pub 3 days ago
That post is very misguided.
First of all, he’s saying “you SHOULD make your PDS invisible to the bluesky servers because otherwise what’s the point”, but that’s exactly equivalent to saying “our community want it’s own Mastodon server - that means we MUST defederate Mastodon.social or what’s the point?”
That’s nonsense. Don’t enforce silos on people.
Also, which relays to support are not chosen by users, it’s chosen by the services the users choose. The PDS choose which relays to sync to, the appview does too, just like feed generators and moderation labelers does.
Also moderation labelers can be shared.
Hosting a PDS is very cheap, it’s just storage and bandwidth for the posts multiplied by the number of relays you directly sync to. With a few users on each that’s nothing. It’s in the range of free tier VPS hosting, RPi grade.
Deduplicating is probably the most trivial part. There’s already code for handling duplicate events in streams. But more practically speaking, there’s algorithms like set reconciliation which can make it significantly more bandwidth efficient to subscribe to multiple relays even when they have overlapping content.
73ms@sopuli.xyz 3 days ago
I don’t think you got the point tbh. It isn’t about wanting to separate but about how dependent you are on Bluesky Corp. in every other scenario (and how hard it would be to deal with the situation if they decide to go rogue).
Natanael@infosec.pub 3 days ago
But that IS the point. The possibility of running independently PLUS the ability of bluesky users to migrate their account wholesale away from bluesky servers to 3rd party servers means you’re not dependent on them.
They’re literally designing for the principle of “the company is a future adversary” (see: Twitter, et al).
73ms@sopuli.xyz 3 days ago
Yes and the thread I linked to explained why it is not looking like it’s particularly well thought out for that case. Even beyond those issues they’ve always seemed very naive about what the company turning adversarial would actually be able to do but then again they obviously also have to worry about making money.