It's not.
this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2024
174 points (94.8% liked)
Technology
59770 readers
3095 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I'm not even sure it can, unless they want to pay server operators. Who would do that for free for a for-profit company? And if they're ultimately supported by the top, they're still centralized.
Not that it's super expensive to run a server, but it ain't free; at least in a place like the Fediverse, every transaction is voluntary all the way down to the financial support, because any part may choose to participate or leave as they see fit.
I don't see how BlueSky can replicate that and still chase profit.
I thought I read something that said one of the servers or services or something was already like 4.8 terabytes and growing by the day.
but even if you wanted to run that, you cant because they wont release the software or interact with foreign relays.
they dont even let you choose to grab the 4.8tb which is <10% of my home storage
load more comments
(1 replies)
Presently? Hardly at all. It is interesting that a private Corp is even seriously playing with building a decentralized platform, I guess.
The files are out there to host your own server but from the short look I took it's pretty involved. Most people with the knowledge and interest to host their own twitter-like server have probably already started a mastodon instance.
It reminds me of what Google tried to do initially with Google+. They copied Diaspora's concept of aspects, calling them "circles". Over time, though, using the circles became more and more janky until they removed them entirely. Then, of course, Google+ got shuttered completely over security issues.
Likewise, "federation" and "decentralization" are the new hotness in social networks, so here's a big corporation looking to cash in on that. Of course, real decentralization would take too much power away from the corporation, so they have to half-ass it somehow.
"federation" and "decentralization" are the new hotness in social networks,
Are they? I think it only seems like that from inside the fediverse. As far as blue sky goes I think the new hotness is just getting the hell away from anything to do with elon
I'm staying on Lemmy and off Bluesky.
I seek and spread knowledge from/to helpful lemmings and not interested in another Twitter wannabe gossip app, hopping on the "decentralized" train to grain traction.
load more comments
(15 replies)
I'm probably not going to read the article. But there's currently just one bluesky instance, so it's 100% centralized, not decentralized at all.
Jack was talking about the "protocol" at one point... I don't think that matters at all right now. It's just another social media site!
That's a really interesting read (and worth much more attention than the pithy one-liners of people who just want to read the title).
On reflection, I think my take away is that Bluesky will always by necessity of its design be hosted and controlled by a single centralised company. But what their architectural model does allow is the possibility of a wholesale migration from one centralised provider to another. That is, it would be possible for a suitably resourced and motivated company to host its own mirror Relay and other components and have essentially a fully functional Bluesky clone. In the event that Bluesky ever "does a Twitter" and go into terminal decline, in theory this might mean that a successor/competitor could emerge and take on the network without loss of existing content.
I'm not sure that'll ever actually happen, but it's an interesting thought.
Interesting point, and shows that most likely, any instance of Bkuesky will eventually go Twitter
load more comments
(1 replies)
I saw a comment the other day about this saying you'd need like over 4terrabytes of storage to run a BlueSky instance of your own, and that it's growing every day. That's fucking insane.
That’s addressed in the blog post. She was saying it was currently 5TB and growing. So anyone wanting to set up a server would need to pay for that space, and that’s not cheap.
It's also not, like, unattainable
But it's definitely well beyond what any hobbyist is going to set up in a whim
Meh, homelab storage and FTTH are reasonably cheap. Or rented iron like Hetzner.
I thought it takes that much storage to run a relay, not an instance. (Which Bluesky calls a "Personal Data Store.")
Maybe this is just my ignorance showing, but this seems like a really archaic way to design something like this in 2024. Dump all the data into a central repository and then have clients pull from that?
Bluesky (well, atproto, bluesky is the twitter clone running on atproto as a demo app) doesn't actually have instances in the mastodon sense, it's a more modular design for better scaling (because it was designed from the start to replace twitter)
Here's a good article with illustrations https://atproto.com/articles/atproto-for-distsys-engineers
load more comments
(1 replies)
No decentralization atm.
If you want a decentralize Twitter clone. Mastodon is the only pick.
Let's be real, most instances suck. Can't search, can't see how many interactions a post had. It's not the same experience
the shit doesn't even work for me half the time. the app just spins. super great 👍
Im more interested hows the privacy policy? Im too lazy to read it atm
More than Twitter. Less than Mastodon. ¯_(ツ)_/¯
A bit of a counterpoint: https://whtwnd.com/alexia.bsky.cyrneko.eu/3l727v7zlis2i
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›