I see why people might say it but "Bluesky is centralized" isn't an especially accurate criticism. The protocol allows essentially any aspect of Bluesky to be decentralized, up to and including starting a competing service that still interoperates with Bluesky users—no permission required.
IMO Bluesky (really atproto) is decentralized along the axes that matter, while Mastodon is decentralized along the axes that don't. It's sort of a figure-ground inversion in thinking about a social media protocol so I think a lot of the criticism is coming from people who haven't taken any time to understand it.
It's an open protocol, but more like the www than email. You can port your identity to another host at any time. You can self host if you want. You have complete control over how your chosen feed algorithm aggregates posts from the firehose. If you want to make a competing service to Bluesky you can even do that, and it will still interoperate with all the Bluesky users.
Whereas with Mastodon, when you pick an instance you're essentially picking which benevolent dictator you want mediating your experience. Mastodon is decentralized in the sense that it breaks the platform up into smaller fiefdoms; Bluesky is decentralized in the sense that you retain control over your own experience.
> You can port your identity to another host at any time. You can self host if you want. You have complete control over how your chosen feed algorithm aggregates posts from the firehose. If you want to make a competing service to Bluesky you can even do that, and it will still interoperate with all the Bluesky users.
> Whereas with Mastodon, when you pick an instance you're essentially picking which benevolent dictator
Wait what? All of the benefits you mention for Bluesky apply equally to Mastodon (in both cases you can host your own thing if you like), and the latter (downside) applies to Bluesky when you sign up with the official server right? What's the difference you're pointing out?
> (in both cases you can host your own thing if you like), and the latter (downside) applies to Bluesky when you sign up with the official server right?
You can host things, sure, but atproto (this is really more about the protocol than the application layer) has true account portability, whereas Mastodon does not. Moving your account on Mastodon account has multiple options, all of which are closer to redirects: https://docs.joinmastodon.org/user/moving/
This all also requires cooperation from your host; if you're kicked out, then you can't do any of this. A profile redirect only stays up as long as that host is up.
Whereas with atproto, you can move between PDSes, and nothing will change with regards to your social graph. If your old PDS kicks you out or dies, you can recreate all of your data onto your new PDS by replaying it off of the relay.
That is, with Mastodon, your identity and your data storage are linked, so changing your identity requires changing your data storage, and changing your data storage requires changing your identity. But with atproto, these two things are separated, so changing one does not require changing the other.
Even if you sign up via bsky.app, there isn't even one official server: they partitioned their userbase among a bunch of different PDSes.
> Moving your account on Mastodon account has multiple options, all of which are closer to redirects
My understanding is that Mastodon wants to build the feature where you truly move your data into a new identity. They have the export working, but not import. So ultimately this will work as well.
I was replying to a post claiming Bluesky is centralized, since it's not, really. Maybe I should have left Mastodon out of it :)
I think they're both good, but different tools for different jobs. Mastodon is good for tighter knit community. I think Bluesky has potential to be a decentralized replacement for social media with n >> dunbar's number.
The difference is in the protocol. Bluesky's atproto is IMO very clever and well designed. It's not every day I read something and think to myself, "I wish I'd thought of that!" I'd encourage anybody whose interest is piqued to dig in and read up.
It's great the union was pushing for unscented cleaning supplies.
I have a friend who is very sensitive to scents. She may not be able to work in a typical office again because of it. I'm very sensitive to harsh fluorescent lighting and noisy office environments and get migraines. You can push through for a while but eventually you burn out.
We've also realized we're both "mildly" autistic [1] over the last few years, along with quite a few other software engineer friends. The sensory sensitivities fall under that umbrella.
Tech has traditionally been more accepting of neurodiversity than other careers, so it's great to see a tech union raising issue like this that don't cost much but make a big difference for anyone affected.
On the topic of objective curation, I've been appreciating The New Paper [1] enough that I started paying when they went subscription-only.
Top five or so stories of the day with a few lines of detail so you can understand what happened and why it's important, focusing on the actual events, not the narratives around them.
Not exactly what you're describing, but here's where someone did a fairly detailed analysis of which federal, state, and local programs their salary goes to using a Sankey diagram:
> There are around 20 climbers aspiring to summit, and claim a winter K2 summit. Some have acclimatized to Camp 3 but most have only reached Camp 1. Some will end their effort based on today’s first summit, and citing rockfall danger, others will still retain their motivation. We’ll see what the final K2 winter 2020/21 total is in a few weeks.
