Well its possible to have a bridge system, like its possible with Discord and Matrix. So from technical standpoint, I think it would be possible, unless they choose to not.
As for the centralized vs decentralized, BlueSky uses the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT_Protocol , which is decentralized. If you do not agree to this, then do you have an explanation to why?
Edit: Funny enough I read this AT_Protocl is Based on ActivityPub, according to the Wikipedia article.
My impression is that AT_Protocol lends itself to decentralized computing resources moreso than decentralized control or authority.
In the fediverse, instance owners have pretty strong control over their instance, the content it hosts, the people who can use it, etc. Bluesky takes advantage of self hosters for more distribution and reliability, but still maintains centralized control over content and user management.
The key difference, to me, is that if someone doesn’t like how the main Mastodon instances are running, they can make their own and have a completely separate network from those bad actors without rebuilding the world. With Bluesky, there’s not really any exit door like that.
Bluesky takes advantage of self hosters for more distribution and reliability, but still maintains centralized control over content and user management.
This is what I don’t understand, why would anyone choose to host when there is zero advantage? I sort of feel is by design so they can claim “decentralized” while still having full control over the data.
Well its possible to have a bridge system, like its possible with Discord and Matrix. So from technical standpoint, I think it would be possible, unless they choose to not.
As for the centralized vs decentralized, BlueSky uses the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT_Protocol , which is decentralized. If you do not agree to this, then do you have an explanation to why?
Edit: Funny enough I read this AT_Protocl is Based on ActivityPub, according to the Wikipedia article.
My impression is that AT_Protocol lends itself to decentralized computing resources moreso than decentralized control or authority.
In the fediverse, instance owners have pretty strong control over their instance, the content it hosts, the people who can use it, etc. Bluesky takes advantage of self hosters for more distribution and reliability, but still maintains centralized control over content and user management.
The key difference, to me, is that if someone doesn’t like how the main Mastodon instances are running, they can make their own and have a completely separate network from those bad actors without rebuilding the world. With Bluesky, there’s not really any exit door like that.
This is what I don’t understand, why would anyone choose to host when there is zero advantage? I sort of feel is by design so they can claim “decentralized” while still having full control over the data.