Comment on Bluesky
PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 4 weeks agoIt’s not Fediverse™ because it’s not activitypub.
But that doesn’t make it not federated
Just because it uses a different mechanism to achieve federation you’re going to say that it doesn’t count as federation? That’s wild.
PDSs get federated by relays.
You can have multiple relays which means you have multiple federations. This is similar to how the Fediverse ends up with pockets completely defederated from each other.
Except that a PDS can be in multiple relays (federations) which the Fediverse can’t do.
You’re right that currently there is no meaningful federation because there is only one relay, and it’s a problem that the cost is so prohibitive. But to say that it isn’t a Fediverse is kinda disingenuous.
Genius@lemmy.zip 4 weeks ago
No. I’m going to say it doesn’t count as federation because it doesn’t achieve federation.
Actually, we need some new language to describe what Bluesky is. Federations are geopolitical alliances between equals. But Bluesky instances are centralised, with one relay acting as a truth source for many PDS servers. So to extend the analogy with a hierarchical geopolitical alliance… well that’s an empire. Bluesky is an empire. Bluesky is designed with an imperial mechanism. Bluesky is imperialised. That’s the new word for what Bluesky is.
PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 4 weeks ago
You’re being intentionally obstinate. You keep implying that you can’t host your own relay, to which many PDSs (that also link to other relays) can’t exist.
With bluesky, people choose what federations to join by selecting which relays their PDSs will join.
The analogy of geopolitical federation is cute, but that’s an analogy, it’s not actually what federation is when talking about technology. You seem upset that bluesky achieves federation with a different architecture, and idk why you’d be upset about that, or even care