Discussion · bonfire.cafe

@golemwire@fosstodon.org replied · 2 months ago

@rysiek#BlueSky isn't decentralized, in the same sense mastodon.social isn't decentralized. It's just one service on the #ATprotocol, just like mastodon.social is just one service on the #ActivityPub protocol.

wakest ⁂

@liaizon@social.wake.st replied · 2 months ago

@golemwire @rysiek Bluesky is actually more decentralized then mastodon.social if you think about the fact that any account can move *all* its content to a different PDS and AppView without loosing any connections

Sascha Foerster :bonndigital:

@Sascha@bonn.social replied · 2 months ago

@liaizon @golemwire @rysiek … if you are not in Mississippi right now, I guess. ;)

wakest ⁂

@liaizon@social.wake.st replied · 2 months ago

@Sascha @golemwire @rysiek you can still use it through any of the other apps like Deer.social even if you are in Mississippi

Sascha Foerster :bonndigital:

@Sascha@bonn.social replied · 2 months ago

@liaizon I am no expert. How does Bluesky then enforce this? Only via webinterface and their own app, but not for other apps (which use an API at Bluesky or a different API?)

wakest ⁂

@liaizon@social.wake.st replied · 2 months ago

@Sascha their official client is just checking IP addresses. If you use a different IP address that's not assigned to the state of Mississippi then it would work there anyway

1 more replies (not shown)

victor yodaiken

@vyodaiken@discuss.systems replied · 2 months ago

@rysiek is there some reason to believe Mississippi won’t take action against operators of mastodon instances?

Michał "rysiek" Woźniak · 🇺🇦

@rysiek@mstdn.social replied · 2 months ago

@vyodaiken it might. But Mississippi taking action against any Mastodon instance will not block Fediverse (the social network) in Mississippi.

If, hypothetically, Mastodon GmbH decided to block access to mastodon.social (which it operates) for folks in Mississippi, they would definitely not phrase it as "blocking access to Mastodon", but instead as "blocking access to mastodon.social".

Useful Chickadee

@usefulchickadee@norcal.social replied · 2 months ago

@rysiek
@vyodaiken

Yup. Here's how I just explained it: https://norcal.social/@usefulchickadee/115078535862724960

Michał "rysiek" Woźniak · 🇺🇦

@rysiek@mstdn.social replied · 2 months ago

@vyodaiken the issue is partially that BlueSky-the-company insists on using the term "BlueSky" in an ambiguous way.

When they want to win an argument about decentralization, they mean it as "everything using atproto, including independently operated Relays and AppViews."

When they want to win an argument about usability, they mean "BlueSky-the-company-operated Relay and AppView and mobile app and web UI".

They can't have it both ways.

Michał "rysiek" Woźniak · 🇺🇦

@rysiek@mstdn.social replied · 2 months ago

@vyodaiken this Mississippi thing forced them, for once, to collapse that meaning. And it collapsed into "We, BlueSky-the-company, blocked people from Mississippi from accessing BlueSky-the-social-network."

Which only makes sense if "BlueSky-the-social-network" here is understood as "the parts that BlueSky-the-company controls."

Nice of them to be honest about what BlueSky actually is. But if it is that, then it is not decentralized.

Emil Jacobs - Collectifission

@collectifission@greennuclear.online replied · 2 months ago

@rysiek It was already settled when they blocked critical Turkish account on the request of the Ankara regime, and doubly so when they implemented age verification in the UK.

Oblomov

@oblomov@sociale.network replied · 2 months ago

@collectifission @rysiek yeah, but sadly no amount of settling will actually convince its users or the tech “journalists”

Boerps ☑️

@Boerps@nrw.social replied · 2 months ago

@rysiek
Freedom of speech in the US

#uspolitics #freedomofspeech

Mastodon Migration

@mastodonmigration@mastodon.online replied · 2 months ago

@rysiek

You'd hope so, but the way these things work, expect them to double down on it.

AJ

@ajt@mas.to replied · 2 months ago

I've ALWAYS known that Bluesky isn't decentralized

John Breen

@jab01701mid@mastodon.social replied · 2 months ago

@rysiek Tom Sawyer rode the Mississippi on a VPN

Happy Pride! Happy Summer! 🌈 😎

@RVLara23@mastodon.social replied · 2 months ago

@rysiek

Same shit that drove Porn Hub out of many states. Same shit going down in the UK.

It's all so gross. Using the kids excuse to hijack our privacy.

Michał "rysiek" Woźniak · 🇺🇦

@rysiek@mstdn.social replied · 2 months ago

@RVLara23

Bo Elder

@boelder@shakedown.social replied · 2 months ago

@rysiek

DING DING DING DING!

SpaceLifeForm

@SpaceLifeForm@infosec.exchange replied · 2 months ago

@rysiek

They are not decentralized until they block all states.

nasd1066

@nasd1066@toot.community replied · 2 months ago

@rysiek Kinda surprised there's still people defending it really is when it's been shown time and time again that the only decentralized feature is that you can create your own data server... If you're dumb enough to have them save their money and, in the meantime, wasting yours on infrastructure, while they still have control on whether you're able to interact or not with the rest of the accounts.

Becca

@bweller@mstdn.social replied · 2 months ago

@rysiek Welcome to all the new 🐘 fediverse users 🥳

Jon

@jdp23@neuromatch.social replied · 2 months ago

@rysiek to the contrary.

Michał "rysiek" Woźniak · 🇺🇦

@rysiek@mstdn.social replied · 2 months ago

@jdp23 so, a single company decides to block people from a specific area from accessing a platform, but that does not show that the platform is not decentralized?

Jon

@jdp23@neuromatch.social replied · 2 months ago

Bluesky's not actually blocking people from the platform, just from the app. But really I just meant that this isn't going to change anybody's minds.

The hundreds of people who migrated their accounts to Blacksky over the last few weeks will still think it's decentralized, and so will people who see infrastructure that's run by independent parties as decentralization.

Conversely the people who think that doesn't matter still won't think it's decentralized even though other apps built on the protocol aren't affected by Bluesky's decision to shut off access to Mississippi.

@rysiek

Michał "rysiek" Woźniak · 🇺🇦

@rysiek@mstdn.social replied · 2 months ago

@jdp23 Blacksky is an amazing project and I really want it to succeed!

But the question was about BlueSky. And BlueSky-the-company just showed how centralized BlueSky is.

If people manage to ignore that decision – which I really, really hope will happen! – it will show that the broader ecosystem can perhaps be meaningfully decentralized.

Also, BlueSky blocked people from the app, but also from the relay, no? This also means that their moderation services and such also go, right?

Kuba Suder • @mackuba.eu on 🦋

@mackuba@martianbase.net replied · 2 months ago

@rysiek @jdp23 They can't IP-block people on the relay and AppView level, because you don't connect with those services directly, so they have no knowledge of your IP. They can only do IP filtering on the client app level or PDS level.

Michał "rysiek" Woźniak · 🇺🇦

@rysiek@mstdn.social replied · 2 months ago

@jdp23 anyway, I agree that this will probably not change people's minds.

But what I want to point out here is that we need to stop calling the broader ecosystem "BlueSky", because that conflates the social network BlueSky-the-company fully controls, with the broader space where projects like Blacksky are trying to do interesting things independently.

And once we do that, it's pretty clear BlueSky is pretty centralized.

Jon

@jdp23@neuromatch.social replied · 2 months ago

Agreed that it's important to distinguish between the broader ecosystem (the ATmosphere), the Bluesky social network, and Bluesky PBC the company.

People who have migrated their accounts to the Blacksky PDS, and people who are using the Blacksky app, can all still participate as part of the Bluesky social network. Does that mean the Bluesky social network is decentralized? Opinions differ! But I really wasn't trying to relitigate anything, just that the conclusions I see people drawing here (as with the Online Safety Act) match their priors.

Bluesky is only blocking at the client level, not the AppView, Relay, or even their own PDSs. They took the same approach with the Online Safety Act. That said it's still TBD what regulators and the courts think about this approach.

@rysiek

1 more replies (not shown)