I’d say no.
I don’t think they federate. Least ways, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a post from a bluesky account, on lemmy or mastodon, and SDF hadn’t blocked them server side last I checked.
I think they’re a bit like truth social, not federating and off doing their own thing.
Nope. If I create a post on Bluesky, my posts aren’t going to appear on other sites unless I or someone else shares them.
Is it federated? It only works with its own protocol, so it can’t be part of the fediverse by definition.
No, because I can’t use it on entirely thord-party infrastructure and interact with BlueSky users. It should be possible in theory, but if it was practical in reality, somebody would be doing it.
No, because it’s not
What counts as apart of the Fediverse then? Is it the protocol of ActivityPub or that it connects all together? As there is a bridge for Bluesky.
The reason is because it’s just more corporate sloth that has fake federation. If it was even remotely realistic to run a Federated service people would be by the dozens because they have way more users than we do. The only working Federate ironically the activity Pub Bridge
Basically yes… I mean… you could just look it up and see the sources say the same thing about activitypub
No. They’re another Twitter clone that is already starting to show their bullshit. And the people there never learn.
Do you think the people on there will move across to the Fediverse or just go to another shitty clone?
What do you think? Of course the latter.
While the Fediverse has traditionally been the network most commonly referred to and used as an example regarding the subject of decentralized social networks, alternatives to it and the accompanying ActivityPub have been developed and deployed. A major protocol in competition with the Fediverse is the AT Protocol, which powers the Bluesky social network and has formed its own separate network dubbed by developers as the Atmosphere
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fediverse
So no it is not. Basically Fediverse = activitypub
Bluesky doesnt even properly federate with instance using their own protocol so its not even in any way comparable to the fediverse.So what about the bridge, users can bridge there accounts across between here and bluesky and the otherway.
Thats exactly what it sounds like, a “bridge”. An island doesnt stop being an island because it is connected to mainland with a bridge. You could also bridge twitter or facebook to mastodon, but that wouldnt make them part of the fediverse.
A bridge is just a piece of software that receives data from one protocol and re-formats it into another protocol. You could bridge SMS to bluesky if you wanted.
Okay, but is bluesky at least a setting stone for people to be in a slightly better place than Faceook or Twitter? I don’t like Bluesky as the next Fediverse user, especially as they’ve went out of there way to create a protocol that’s unsecure and a platform that is semi-centralised but people are learning about alternatives like us from them what is at least helpful in someway.
It’s better in some ways for now. All commercial social media platforms start out by being less bad than the competition. That’s how they attract users. When they have enough of a user base for network effects to take hold, that’s when they enshittify.
at least a setting stone for people to be in a slightly better place than Faceook or Twitter?
No, not really. It has already started caving to Turkish political censorship requests for example. They are implementing checkmark bullshit and from the start they required you to have an account to view all content.
but people are learning about alternatives like us
99% of bluesky users have never heard of the fediverse or anything like that. They just blindly follow the herd to the next platform like always. In a few years bluesky will turn to complete shit and then they will once again jump to the next garbage platform.
They’ve already started heading that direction step by step
Currently not, because it’s not de-facto decentralized. There would need to be multiple relays, managed by different organizations, AND multiple app views, also managed by different orgs, for me to consider it such.
The non-existence of de facto decentralization indicates that the ecosystem doesn’t actually promote decentralization, even though it technically allows for it.
Yeah from my understanding they call it decentralized but they put it through a centralized one they control through there protocol to verify content for everyone to see, so not so decentralized in the whole of everything.
Well, you can theoretically make a second app-view “instance”, call it “Greenearth” or something, and have different policies than Bluesky on how to verify or select content. But until someone actually does so, it’s not really decentralized. I’m not sure what’s stopping people from doing so, but it’s been a while, so I assume there must be some roadblock.
There’s also the issue of how Blueky itself was depicted as the decentralized network - when it’s more akin to a single instance, instead.
It’s designed so other relays need to handle every message sent on all of bluesky, so server costs would be way too high for most people. Like car prices for minimal bluesky relay setup, and way more if you want to actually store all the messages you’re processing.
