@poVoq@VanHalbgott You should brush up your knowledge of Bluesky. It has become open source. People have started to write plugins for it and people run their own instances that federate. And there is also a bridge to ActivityPub.
If Bluesky was just another ActivityPub using site you could just defederate from it. This isn’t really possible when there are many bridges that relay messages.
But you also seem to have completely misunderstood what people objected to about the ATProto bridge. It wasn’t the optional possibility to reach people on Bluesky. It was the automatic opt-in that most people objected to.
The Fediverse is, by definition, anything that supports ActivityPub. If BlueSky supported ActivityPub – which is what the bridge was meant to accomplish – then it would be a part of the Fediverse.
A bridge by definition does not make Bluesky compatible with ActivityPub and also does not make it part of the Fediverse. There used to be bridges to Twitter as well, but that doesn’t mean Twitter supports activitypub or is part of the Fediverse.
And that’s only the frontend “server” that can be self hosted, the “relay”, that’s more equivalent to a mastodon instance, doesn’t seem to be self hostable.
@poVoq @VanHalbgott You should brush up your knowledge of Bluesky. It has become open source. People have started to write plugins for it and people run their own instances that federate. And there is also a bridge to ActivityPub.
I didn’t claim that it wasn’t open-source. And a 3rd party bridge doesn’t make it compatible with ActivityPub.
Seeing the reaction to the bridge, it seems that most Mastodon users don’t want AtProto to be compatible with ActivityPub.
Many Mastodon users are against both Bluesky and Threads federation because they want the Fediverse to remain only Mastodon.
Little do they know that the Fediverse has never been only Mastodon.
If Bluesky was just another ActivityPub using site you could just defederate from it. This isn’t really possible when there are many bridges that relay messages.
But you also seem to have completely misunderstood what people objected to about the ATProto bridge. It wasn’t the optional possibility to reach people on Bluesky. It was the automatic opt-in that most people objected to.
By using the Fediverse, you implicitly opt in to having your content federated between different platforms. How is this any different?
Not between platforms but within the Fediverse. Bluesky is not part of the Fediverse.
The Fediverse is, by definition, anything that supports ActivityPub. If BlueSky supported ActivityPub – which is what the bridge was meant to accomplish – then it would be a part of the Fediverse.
A bridge by definition does not make Bluesky compatible with ActivityPub and also does not make it part of the Fediverse. There used to be bridges to Twitter as well, but that doesn’t mean Twitter supports activitypub or is part of the Fediverse.
Self hosted instances are artificially limited to 10 accounts, however https://docs.bsky.app/blog/self-host-federation
And that’s only the frontend “server” that can be self hosted, the “relay”, that’s more equivalent to a mastodon instance, doesn’t seem to be self hostable.