Comment on Be Wary of Bluesky
rako@tarte.nuage-libre.fr 4 days agoI’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 4 days ago
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.
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.
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 4 days ago
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.
Yes it’s possible. It’s just not the default. That’s the issue
true, although no one said the contrary
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 4 days 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.
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.