Skip to main content


Unfortunately, Bluesky is unavailable in Mississippi right now, due to a new state law that requires age verification for all users. While intended for child safety, we think this law poses broader challenges & creates significant barriers that limit free speech & harm smaller platforms like ours.

reshared this

in reply to Bluesky

And this is why real decentralization matters. There is nobody that can decide for the fediverse to block Mississippi.
in reply to Eugen Rochko

But aren’t I breaking Mississippi law if I host a Mastodon instance with no age verification that people in MS can access?

Radio Free Trumpistan reshared this.

in reply to Jay 🆘

Technically, you're probably also breaking laws in Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea and so on. The question is, do you care? I'm not a lawyer, so I can't answer that for you specifically, but 10.000+ fediverse operators across the world get to make that decision for themselves.
This entry was edited (1 week ago)

reshared this

in reply to Eugen Rochko

with respect, you are a CEO that operates a subsidiary organisation in the US, caring about laws in the country your organisation operates in seems like a pretty good idea to me
in reply to Laurens Hof

With respect, I'm not the CEO of the fediverse. My reach extends over mastodon.social only. And that is the point. There is no gatekeeper for the fediverse as a whole.

reshared this

in reply to Eugen Rochko

There is no gatekeeper for how you tap into the ATProto network as well. Here's a short list of just some of the ways Bsky PBC can't block a user's access today: bsky.app/profile/jackvalinsky.…

And there's even more options than that out there.

@laurenshof @jsit @bsky.app

in reply to Anuj Ahooja

also it’s waaaay easier to setup a PDS than any AP software. i eventually got this GoToSocial one up, but my atproto PDS was far easier.

i’m 16 and i got my atproto PDS up in less than an hour..lol - with that you can bypass laws with custom scripts to change your region etc 😁

in reply to jack

A PDS is not the same as a GoToSocial or Mastodon server. The latter give you complete autonomy. You connect directly to whoever you want to follow or broadcast messages to. A PDS is only the data layer. It has to be indexed by a cooperating relay, and ingested by a cooperating app view, before you can actually reach anybody. Those are controlled by Bluesky PBC.

reshared this

in reply to Eugen Rochko

If you see the post I linked to one reply above, it'll be clear that no user is beholden to the PBC.

@jack @laurenshof @jsit @bsky.app

in reply to Eugen Rochko

I have read the full back and forth of that conversation, but it doesn't seem like you're looking at what I've sent that proves decentralization.

@jack @laurenshof @jsit @bsky.app

in reply to Anuj Ahooja

I have seen the link you sent. The only client on there that doesn't send me to bsky.app if I want to sign up is blacksky.community, though it requires an invite code.
in reply to Eugen Rochko

Red Dwarf doesn't use Bsky if you're not on their PDSs as well. Blacksky is early and is already the biggest non-Bsky non-bot PDS hoster and has built the whole ATProto stack from scratch in Rust. And there's more. This goes way deeper than you think it does.

@jack @laurenshof @jsit @bsky.app

in reply to Anuj Ahooja

Red Dwarf doesn't have a sign up link and nothing loads on the site. But you're right, it is early. Everything is new, shiny, and full of venture-capital funded marketing right now. We'll see how all of this architecture turns out in a few years, when the investors come calling.
in reply to Eugen Rochko

So are we agreeing that ATProto is decentralized? Because that's different than the fear of what funding will potentially lead to one day in the future.

And if you fear that, then shouldn't we triple down on making sure that the PBC doesn't hold all the power before that happens, do adversarial interop, and make sure it's in it's ideal decentralized state asap?

@jack @laurenshof @jsit @bsky.app

in reply to Anuj Ahooja

Strictly speaking, the question is if Bluesky is decentralized, not if AT Proto is decentralized. Second of all, I am not sure why I should "triple down on making sure" anything about Bluesky or AT Proto. I work on improving the fediverse. The place that is already built with adversarial interoperability.
in reply to Eugen Rochko

I personally believe that if you are a founder and lead programmer of a decentralized social media platform, you should be absolutely sure what you are talking about before you start comparing the protocol that you use with others, because you are effectively representing your own project and have a lot of responsibilities and eyes on you as a result. If someone believes that you are misinformed and says so, then it would make sense to check so that you are sure that you are not using your platform to spread misinformation.
in reply to eblu

the misinformation in question is representing #centralized #socialMedia like #bluesky as if it were decentralized

we all understand the amazing tech that *promises* #decentralization but the *reality* is that it is not

the #fediverse is genuinely decentralized, and bluesky may one day be decentralized

but it isn't now

this upsets people like yourself who view the issue in cultish terms: how dare someone cite reality

This entry was edited (1 week ago)

reshared this

in reply to Joe (TBA) 🇺🇸

the essential problem with #bluesky is that it promises a lot, but delivers little in the realm of #decentralization (reality, not technical potential)

now there's something interesting about that:

bluesky is run by #crypto bros

in crypto, promising a lot, not delivering, but generating devotion off of the promise, is the standard grift template

and you see it in the cultish denial of many commenting here

reshared this

in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦

a more modern take on self hosted/decentralized Bluesky whtwnd.com/bnewbold.net/3lo7a2…

(which I found from pluralistic.net/2025/08/15/dog…)

Cory said he wasn't going to Bluesky until he could self host...and it seems like his criteria are being met finally

in reply to Pusher of Pixels

i read that entire article a few days ago, i don't remember cory saying anything like "his criteria are being met finally"

what i remember is cory being mystified by bluesky's new TOS

do you have a clear indication cory is doing that?

in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦

it's in the link towards the bottom. Search for 'colo' where he says his sysadmin is setting it up
in reply to Pusher of Pixels

thank you

and of course cory's reach on bluesky will be limited in places like mississippi

now the "you don't need to be on bluesky to read that though" reply guys

missing the entire point of bluesky's de facto centralization

This entry was edited (1 week ago)
in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦

yeah, it's a similar thing I say about civil rights. The most interesting cases pit 2 rights against each other.

I'm happy BS (my name for them haha) is slowly getting to some de-centralization capability...but how that will play with their monied backers will be an interesting thing to watch.

in reply to Pusher of Pixels

yup

the looming issue with #bluesky:

bluesky is financially backdoored such that as it grows in popularity it will suffer the same fate that befell #twitter

investors will demand a return, a return that can't be delivered without centralization

and then they engineer a takeover putting an elon #musk type at the helm

this is how #plutocracy destroys #socialMedia

enjoy bluesky

but it's doomed

Ben Royce 🇺🇦 reshared this.

in reply to Clinton Anderson SwordForHire

jumping into this branch of replies to say that Bluesky did anticipate this and specifically built atproto to allow you to move off of their servers and onto an independently operated one in case the shareholders come knocking. the only issue is that most people aren't really aware of this
in reply to eblu

"we understand vulture capital will destroy #bluesky, and we've prepared for that by making it possible to have rebel bases"

"why don't you just use something that is already decentralized, like #mastodon/ #fediverse"

"you don't understand, this is a cult-centered discussion"

...

"in case the shareholders come knocking"

"in case"

🤦‍♂️

This entry was edited (1 week ago)

Ben Royce 🇺🇦 reshared this.

in reply to Joe (TBA) 🇺🇸

exactly

the person i responded to is talking about "in case" shareholders come knocking

like "in case" my mouth goes on fire after eating chili peppers

🤦

bluesky is doomed

the crypto bro venture capitalists *will* demand a return on their investment, and apparently some believe you just send them away

no. they send you away:

they replace the leadership to get their money

This entry was edited (1 week ago)
in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦

I'm not an expert, but my understanding is that they can't replace the leadership if they don't own a controlling share of the company
in reply to Kuba Suder • @mackuba.eu on 🦋

if i loan you $200, i want my money back

you, a board, whatever entity you are, needs to pay it back

you need to make moves to satisfy me, your investor

if you don't, i can go after you

so usually you will say "ok, i'll do this to earn some money"

this is how venture capital can destroy anything

app.dealroom.co/companies/blue…

in reply to Joe (TBA) 🇺🇸

And Twitter was initially built from the beginning as a decentralized network meant to be a decentralized version of an earlier centralized social network, right? Because that's how Bluesky started. So if Twitter wasn't built like that, then it's not really a perfect case study, is it?
in reply to Kuba Suder • @mackuba.eu on 🦋

i don't understand what you're saying

"something else failed so this other thing over here won't fail"?

in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦

No, I was just referring to Twitter being a "case study" of what will happen to Bluesky - it's not the same thing, so it can't be a case study of what will happen. I'm not saying this means this thing won't fail, rather that Twitter failing doesn't mean we can be sure this will fail too in the same way.
in reply to Kuba Suder • @mackuba.eu on 🦋

bluesky will fail in the same way any entity controlled by venture capital will fail if it doesn't earn enough. like twitter didn't. instead, the ghouls moved in when they didn't get their money back

it doesn't matter about the technology. it doesn't matter if it's a social media company or if they are a high end waffle restaurant: they need to earn money on an investment

This entry was edited (1 week ago)
in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦

oh no trust me I believe they absolutely will. that's the point here, they let you migrate to a level that mastodon doesn't support (you can't move your posts between instances for example)
in reply to eblu

will they let you migrate?

what did twitter do to interop when elon musk took over?

in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦

twitter never had interop, they just had an API that you already had to pay for before they forced Musk to buy it. it's already possible to migrate your user data right now, and there are other servers that you can migrate said data to running, not to mention that people have independently hosted their own version of every part of bluesky's infrastructure.

I'm not saying that bluesky is perfect or better than mastodon though. they don't really expose any of this to users and you can't move back to bluesky last I heard. I just don't think that being dismissive of innovations from other places, even if they come from a VC-backed company, is very productive. don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, as they say

in reply to eblu

api is interop

"they just had an API that you already had to pay for"

vvv

in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦

my point to you is:

you understand the malice crypto bro venture capital represents to bluesky

but

you think the interop you rely on won't be blocked

why do you believe it won't be blocked?

This entry was edited (1 week ago)
in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦

I always knew that bluesky was never meant to leverage anything open. It was always meant to be a closed-loop system. However, it cannot and never will control the fediverse.
in reply to cultdev

Look, despite how much time I spend posting on Mastodon, I want to make very clear that there are plenty of other #Fediverse options out there.
in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦

Also, it's literally solving a solved problem but in the way that makes it most compatible with corporate interests.

If they were serious they'd just be contributing to the existing standard and modeling their advancements like dozens of forked projects are doing on Fedi.

in reply to Eugen Rochko

You seem to, from what I'm seeing, have a basic understanding of how the AT protocol works but not how it is decentralized in practice, and I think you might be confusing it with ActivityPub's model of distribution, but I could be wrong. A lot of us in this thread have been trying to explain this but you seem to be dismissive about it instead of understanding. I totally understand as someone who was also like this but it helps to read up about the subject from those who currently work with the protocol itself.

I also feel that you believe that Mastodon is above the law because it doesn't have any official presence in areas where age-verification laws exist, however the Mississippi law that Bluesky is protesting, for example, applies nondiscriminately to all platforms, regardless of where they are based.

I really don't want to come off as saying that Bluesky is a better platform, rather that I want to hold you accountable for any "not invented here" biases that you might have.

in reply to eblu

Two separate discussions here. I'll start with the second one. This isn't about Mastodon the organization. Mastodon gGmbH is certainly not above the law. But even if Mastodon gGmbH was legally forced to block users from Mississippi, the only thing we could do is block them from mastodon.social. The fediverse does not have an owner that can make this call. Every operator decides this individually.

reshared this

in reply to Eugen Rochko

in reply to eblu

The major difference between AT Proto and ActivityPub is that in ActivityPub, nodes communicate directly with each other, without relying on a third party. Mastodon (as an organization) could disappear along with mastodon.social overnight, and the fediverse would continue to function flawlessly (although you'd stop getting cool new software updates from us, until someone else stepped in).

reshared this

in reply to Eugen Rochko

In AT Proto, and Bluesky specifically, technically all components can be hosted by other parties, but the interdependency of these components favours control by Bluesky PBC. For example, if Bluesky PBC decides to ban your account from their relay, you could get indexed by another relay, but unless all your friends switched to an app view that uses that relay, it would be of little use to you.

reshared this

in reply to Eugen Rochko

Not to mention that the decentralized ID ledger is currently another central piece of infrastructure controlled by Bluesky PBC, so they could stop you from registering an account or moving it if they wanted to. Sure, DIDs have some advantages in terms of data portability, but at least usernames in the fediverse don't rely on a single authority.

reshared this

in reply to Eugen Rochko

@bsky.app@bsky.brid.gy I mean, yes, but: in the Fediverse, identity is tightly coupled to instances. You can move to other instances or platforms, but there’s a bunch of conditions as to whether or not it will actually work. If your instance permanently goes down all of a sudden, you basically have to start over from scratch.

I think one thing Bluesky actually got right with AT Protocol is that your identity, your PDS, and your social stream all effectively exist on separate layers. Trying to make ActivityPub do a similar thing is…technically possible, but also really, really difficult. It would require a massive undertaking.

in reply to Sean Tilley

"You can move to other instances or platforms, but there’s a bunch of conditions as to whether or not it will actually work. If your instance permanently goes down all of a sudden, you basically have to start over from scratch."

I've moved my Mastodon instance twice so far, and each went without a hitch.

And if my current instance _did_ close without a warning, I would not "start over from scratch" either - since I semi-regularly back up my user data, and could import these to a new instance.

in reply to Eugen Rochko

This is an important point that gets down into the weeds of the AT Proto architecture. Real independence from Bluesky PBC technology is much more difficult to achieve. Just because you might be on a different data server (PDS)[only a tiny fraction are now on an independent PDS] your traffic still flows through Bluesky hosted technologies, and your link to the network can be severed there.
in reply to Eugen Rochko

@eblu @quillmatiq @jack @laurenshof @jsit @bsky.app @benroyce But what if the state of Mississippi sued every Mastodon operator, at least in the US. I suspect most would have to block Mississippi rather than pay huge legal fees. I doubt they could sue nonUS sites but perhaps this will end up being an excuse to separate the US internet from the rest if the world.
This entry was edited (1 week ago)
in reply to Paul Chernoff

@eblu @quillmatiq @jack @laurenshof @jsit @bsky.app

they won't because the servers are small potatoes

if the servers grew large it would become an issue

you could do tricks like requiring a credit card number. it doesn't have to be charged for anything, but you have to be 18 in the usa to have your own credit card

some people will grumble about that

but the alternative is to shut down

and people should be donating to their mastodon server anyways

in reply to Eugen Rochko

It's a third-party client Eugen, the venture capital funding line doesn't work here.
in reply to Chris Lowles

a web browser is a third party client

an 8 year old, living anywhere, can view a comments in a web browser not logged in, no matter what the laws are

this issue of some third party client has no meaning

the issue is bluesky, which is where people interact with bluesky

and that is what matters because bluesky is de facto centralized, despite the exciting promises being made

This entry was edited (1 week ago)
in reply to Anuj Ahooja

Oh cool. Does that mean there's a BlueSky server someone from the state of Mississippi can join and actually see content on? @Gargron @jack @laurenshof @jsit @benroyce
in reply to Deb Nam-Krane

That's not how ATProto works, but yes - there are ATProto constructs that enable folks from Mississippi to continue interacting with the network in the same way an ActivityPub server can.

@Gargron @jack @laurenshof @jsit @benroyce

in reply to Deb Nam-Krane

jack and anuj are doing the doing the hand waving thing:

"yes bluesky is not decentralized, but like you can view twitter without being logged in, from anywhere, at any age, in this way someday bluesky can be decentralized, because there is a protocol to view something that bluesky users have nothing to do with"

it's about quasireligious devotion to a promise over reality with these types

This entry was edited (1 week ago)
in reply to Deb Nam-Krane

if you're talking about location-blocking within Bluesky, you have to talk about atproto if you're getting around it
in reply to jack

So there is a *BlueSky* server someone from MS can sign up on now so they can see content on it, if not the rest of the *BlueSky* network? @quillmatiq @Gargron @laurenshof @jsit
in reply to Anuj Ahooja

I think you either don't understand how people sign up for the service and interact with it, or you're dancing (with jazz hands!). Either way, I've had enough. @jack @Gargron @laurenshof @jsit @benroyce
in reply to Deb Nam-Krane

Deb, i regret to inform you that your comment means you are no longer allowed in the cult

leave the holy sanctuary now

in reply to Eugen Rochko

Not *anybody*, there are multiple third party relays and appviews in operation - look at microcosm.blue/

and you could argue that mastodon.social connects a lot of the fediverse. this morning I finished setting up this instance and when I boosted it from my old acc on mastodon.social the instances that federated with this GTS instance went up by over 100… if you started blocking many instances, or had to shutdown, the fediverse would be very broken

in reply to jack

mastodon.social plays no role in connecting other servers to each other. All connections in the fediverse are direct.
in reply to Eugen Rochko

Again, if you look at the link I've sent you in this thread, you'll see why this isn't true (specifically, see Red Dwarf)

@jack @laurenshof @jsit @bsky.app

in reply to Anuj Ahooja

"go read this" is not a real response. it means you don't have a reply to eugen's point and are just waving your hands
in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦

would you say eugen is just waving his hands?
This entry was edited (1 week ago)
in reply to jack

on the contrary, a "go read this" reply to a "go read this" comment is quite funny

but please by all means continue missing the point, and providing more to laugh at

in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦

honestly your profile is the funniest thing i've seen today, so thanks 😭🙏

you are supposedly so excited for federation yet want to block Bluesky and Threads.. 🤡

in reply to jack

bluesky is not decentralized

threads is run by meta

which should end the discussion

but i am sure a stunt commenter like yourself, not interested in honesty, will find a nice angle to posture on

please, go right ahead

🍿

also, nice job changing the topic, being unable to admit my point, another clear indication of what you're all about

This entry was edited (1 week ago)
in reply to Eugen Rochko

Putting aside the technical issues and the Fediverse overall, will mastodon.social block Mississippi users because of this law?

@bsky.app

in reply to Eugen Rochko

I think what people need to understand is that using the Fediverse instead of Bluesky doesn't mean you aren't subject to these laws. It just means that the people who run your instance are more free to flaunt them if they choose.

I think what people are trying to say to you Eugen is that it might be advisable to tell Fediverse instance operators that this is something they should be aware of and make an informed decision about.

This entry was edited (1 week ago)
in reply to Jay 🆘

the person running a server for 100 people in glasgow scotland will get right on that pronto, yes sir

and if you understand that point, you understand the larger point

but i think rather that you are avoiding the point

in reply to Eugen Rochko

Presumably US (and EU, UK, etc.) residents do actually care about opening themselves up to potentially life ruining legal liability, as should board members of the Mastodon non-profits…
in reply to videah θΔ

@jsit @bsky.app Sure. But there are fediverse servers that are operated from Japan, China, Switzerland, anywhere really. We have seen this when FOSTA/SESTA was passed in the US. The fediverse provided a refuge for sex workers through services in Austria and so on.
in reply to Eugen Rochko

THIS, 1173%.

This is why CORPORATE (namely vc crypto techbros) owned social media will always be Twitter2.0

in reply to Jay 🆘

I think people are framing this as #Bluesky being self-serving or (cringe) "enshittifying," but what they're doing would also be a reasonable thing for a Fediverse instance owner to do.
in reply to Jay 🆘

yes, it would be, if they were running a de facto centralized network like bluesky

but they're not, so it's not

in reply to Eugen Rochko

@bsky.app@bsky.brid.gy does the law specific any way how to decide it a user is from MS? If not, why not just ask users "are you from MS?" and it they answer yes forward them to a specific page with information about why they can't user BSKY. And if the answer no you can just let them go about their business.
in reply to Eugen Rochko

I feel like this is potentially misleading, Eugen? Both because others can host their own views of the network, but also will the largest instances, which you run, be willing to pay the $10k/user fines in Mississippi? Because the state can still go after instances, no?
in reply to Nemes Content

It's really not meant to be a gotcha kinda thing. I'm just trying to understand the actual complaint.
in reply to Mike Masnick

Fair point, and I believe you but I've see how conversations between fedi and bluesky usually goes. Many people still think atproto is centralized and corporate controlled on the fedi side. I am curious how eugene will respond since fedi runs tge whole instance as a site that talks to other sites.
in reply to Nemes Content

My larger point is simply that this is a bad law that impacts both Mastodon and Bluesky (and the wider Fediverse/Atmosphere) and it seems like a reason to work together to fix the law (i.e., with @gargron.mastodon.social.ap.brid.gy) than to use it to take potshots at each other. The law is bad.
in reply to Mike Masnick

The law is bad, nobody said otherwise. But decentralized systems are supposed to be resilient. If the US makes a law banning all mentions of LGBT from social media, which sounds less unlikely by the minute, what will Bluesky do? All of your infrastructure is controlled by one US company…
in reply to Eugen Rochko

Your final point is incorrect. Please don't spread misinfo about stuff like that.
in reply to Mike Masnick

The key point here matters @gargron.mastodon.social.ap.brid.gy: this law equally impacts both ActivityPub and ATproto instances. Using this law (and the fact that some Mastodon servers plan to not comply and risk liability) is not a statement regarding which network architecture is better.
in reply to Mike Masnick

It's just a statement over which systems are willing to risk ruinous liability over a bad law.
in reply to Mike Masnick

@gargron.mastodon.social.ap.brid.gy@mastodon.social

I continue to feel this is wrong.

*Anyone* can start a fediverse instance and be a publisher literally of 1. And yet they remain every bit as equal a participant in the overall global network.

Who today is successfully running 1-person ATProto infra and still enjoying all the features of Bluesky?

in reply to Jared White (ResistanceNet ✊)

yeah, only governments and massive businesses have the money required to run their own ATproto PDS, relay, and appview.
in reply to Kuba Suder • @mackuba.eu on 🦋

The question no one seems able to answer is who has a completely independent ATproto PDS, relay, and AppView where users can sign up?

If running all three of these is just $250 per month, why aren't there dozens of such independent AT Proto instances?

Seriously trying to understand why no one answers this question.

It seems the closest to this is currently Blacksky and they're still missing the AppView piece. Right?

cc: @folkerschamel

This entry was edited (1 week ago)
in reply to Mastodon Migration

The reason it is important to answer this question is because bold claims are being made without citing any evidence by people officially associated with Bluesky, like in this thread from earlier today involving Mike Masnick and @folkerschamel: mastodon.social/@folkerschamel…

If we are to have this conversation it should be with real facts and examples not aggressive hyperbolic assertions.


Fixing the law and arguing for a truly decentralized social network should not be an either/or proposition.

This entry was edited (1 week ago)
in reply to Mastodon Migration

If Blacksky is the best example of a scaled "independent" Bluesky (ATProto) instance. Then it becomes possible to talk about how independent it actually is (no AppView yet, the DID repository). It's then also possible to look at what percentage of users are "independent" of Bluesky PBC technology.

Leaving aside the issue of the DID database, it seems like right now there are no users fully independent, or at least very few. That's just a fact.

in reply to Mastodon Migration

And while rambling along here, it does not seem like we should exempt the DID database from scrutiny. The entire premise is "what if #Bluesky becomes evil?" This is the formulation of the argument by Jay Graber. If that happens then the owner of the DID database holds the keys to the castle. According to Kuba, they intend to transfer this resource to an independent "non-profit" (see mackuba.eu/2025/08/20/introduc…). What are they waiting for?
This entry was edited (1 week ago)
in reply to Mastodon Migration

So, trying to imagine what a truly decentralized Bluesky ATProto would look like, and it seems like it would need to have multiple independent PDSs, sure, but also multiple instances of the other major components capable of running at scale, such that should Bluesky "become evil" all these other folks could keep right on interacting together. Kind of a "cut the cord" test.
This entry was edited (1 week ago)
in reply to Mastodon Migration

And, the number of users on the non-Bluesky side of the cut the cord test would need to be significant, say at least 25% (or pick a number) of the total ATProto user base.

Finally, the DID has to be secured in a public non-profit lock box.

This seems like the bare minimum necessary for Bluesky to claim they are truly decentralized.

in reply to Mastodon Migration

yeah, I'd like to see something like what you're describing eventually; not sure when and if we will get there
in reply to Kuba Suder • @mackuba.eu on 🦋

btw, there's this post by Bryan from Bluesky written some time ago, which implies that things like "multiple independent Relay services" and "multiple independent AppView services" are goals that they also care about: bnewbold.net/2024/atproto_prog…
in reply to Kuba Suder • @mackuba.eu on 🦋

And even this is only the technical perspective, which is the simple one.

Even if all these points are fulfilled, this does not mean decentralization in practice.

To demonstrate the absurdity of the purely technical argument, you could even argue cynically that #twitter has a "credible exit" because every user can export their tweets and following list, and import it into a not-yet-existing new system ...

in reply to Folker

As they say, the purpose of a system is what it does.

Until we actually see many examples of non-nerds engaging successfully in the ATmosphere without utilizing *any* infrastructure controlled in any way by Bluesky, then the claim it's a decentralized social networking protocol rings hollow.

in reply to Jared White (ResistanceNet ✊)

Agreed. What is important from a user perspective is not technological potential or corporate aspirations, but ground truth current reality.

It is nice to know the potential may exist, but until it is realized it is just a possibility.

The thing that is most troubling about Bluesky and Mike Masnick's assertions is conflating this possibility with reality.

in reply to Mastodon Migration

I would say users mostly don't care about things as much, and you need to explain to them why they are important at all, which is one of the reasons why more people came to Bluesky which keeps the decentralization aspects mostly hidden than Mastodon which has them front and center… Only some subset of more "decentralization conscious" users cares about either potential or current reality.
in reply to Kuba Suder • @mackuba.eu on 🦋

The fact that users "don't care" about something does not mean that it is not an important characteristic, as we are learning with each successive instance of autocratic centralized action.

Twitter people didn't care about it either, until the hammer came down.

This entry was edited (1 week ago)
in reply to Mastodon Migration

yeah, most people probably would care if someone explained the benefits of decentralization to them properly
in reply to Mastodon Migration

I'm thinking about writing another blog post specifically about the "status of decentralization", but probably not very soon
in reply to Mastodon Migration

so, there's a few reasons:
- while PDS and relay are very easy to set up now, the AppView isn't - there isn't much documentation about it and I think it's missing some pieces like a part that indexes the existing posts created earlier; I think it took Futur who wrote a blog post about running AppView a few months to figure it out (though now he's blazed the trail a bit)
in reply to Mike Masnick

Okay. Please help me understand:

- Who owns bsky.app and the apps named "Bluesky" in the app stores?
- Who owns the app view the above connect to?
- Who owns the relay the above app view uses?
- Where are the parties that own the above domiciled?

in reply to Mike Masnick

@Gargron wait, what infrastructure is beyond Bluesky Social PBC's control?
in reply to Glyph

A lot? There are independent instances of ATproto infrastructure that are not controlled by Bluesky. There are totally independent PDS's, relays, and appviews.
in reply to Mike Masnick

@glyph @Gargron
Only a tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny fraction of #atproto users is not dependent on #bluesky infrastructure. Basically all #atproto users - and literally all #bluesky users - are dependent on #bluesky and their decisions. That's a simple reality which cannot be taken away by all the tech talk how cool #atproto is in theory.
in reply to Folker

what fraction is this? What software are they using? I would really like to even understand how this *might* work. (the fediverse is also, after all, still relatively centralized in practice, with a substantial majority of users still on mastodon ggmbh infrastructure. But other active independent instances do point a way to a less central future)
in reply to Glyph

one datapoint is that I believe there's less than one thousand users on a third party PDS out of the 30+ million registered users total. So roughly 1 out of like 30,000 or 0.003%... For the other services like third party web apps it's almost certainly even worse since you can count them with one hand and they're tiny or just experimentation by some dev. It's just not at all comparable to Mastodon.
in reply to ikuturso

What you believe and what reality may be are two different things. It's pretty silly to make your arguments based on false info someone told you.
in reply to Mike Masnick

This stupid Mastodon hate for Bluesky which always involves blatant disinformation is so stupid. We both face the same issues and should work together on it. Instead you want to have a purity contest. What the fuck?
in reply to Mike Masnick

Ikuturso's estimate is admittedly unsourced, but for this to rise to the bar of "disinformation", there would have to be accurate information somewhere that is being suppressed or ignored. If 0.003% is incorrect, do you have a better number?
in reply to Glyph

The big example being repeatedly touted as the big Bluesky-independent group is Blacksky. But Blacksky is very small. opencollective.com/blacksky shows 965 contributors, which is right in line with that 1000-user estimate (not every blacksky user is on their PDS, a few other indie devs operate experimental PDSes, but it seems like it'd be a wash to me)
This entry was edited (1 week ago)
in reply to Glyph

Blacksky only opened up its PDS like a week ago and has been slowly letting people in. So that's 1000 people in a week. Give it at least a bit of time. But I see you moving goalposts. "Oh it's not decentralized." "Oh it is, but not enough." "Oh, the other providers are too small"
in reply to Mike Masnick

The whole point is that people are building a decentralized thing here. Really decentralized. And, yes, building takes time. Some people are helping. But you and a small group of others want to run a purity contest with moving goalposts. It's such a waste of time.
in reply to Mike Masnick

@glyph @folkerschamel @Gargron maybe actually say what you think is disinformation and why? not very convincing when you just accuse people of spreading it without being able to give any specifics.
This entry was edited (1 week ago)
in reply to ikuturso

It's disinformation to say that the the ATmosphere, powered by ATproto, is entirely centralized and controlled by one company.
in reply to Mike Masnick

@ikuturso @glyph @folkerschamel I said it about Bluesky, not the "ATmosphere". As you have described to me, "Bluesky" as people know and use it, is a stack controlled by Bluesky PBC. And for what it's worth, I don't think pointing out the importance of decentralization is a "potshot" either.
in reply to Eugen Rochko

If we're comparing to Bluesky alone then the very same thing applies to Mastodon GMBH. You're comparing apples to oranges. Also does this mean that mastodon.social intends to not comply with Mississippi's law?
in reply to Mike Masnick

@ikuturso @glyph @folkerschamel That's kind of my point. Bluesky is like mastodon.social. When people use Mastodon, it does not mean they are using Mastodon gGmbH infrastructure. They login directly to their provider--be it hachyderm.io, infosec.exchange, mas.to, and so on, which exist all over the world in various jurisdictions without any dependency on us and provide more or less the same Mastodon experience. Today. Not in a hypothetical.
in reply to Mike Masnick

@Gargron @ikuturso @glyph @folkerschamel I think the point here is that of course both ActivityPub and AT are decentralized protocols. However, in practice AT almost wholly consists of traffic controlled by Bluesky Social PBC. It seems that's changing for the better every day. But right now "Bluesky" is more centralized *in practice* than "Mastodon."
in reply to Nathan A. Stine

Yes but also AT is newer. Give it time. And all this feels like is a pointless wasteful purity battle when what we should be doing is working together to push back on bad laws. At no point in this convo has anyone insulted AP yet it feels like many AP people can't wait to attack AT.
in reply to Mike Masnick

@stinerman @ikuturso @glyph @folkerschamel It is interesting that you are characterizing this discussion about decentralization of power as an attack on AT Proto, and it is interesting that this is the only context in which I hear about working together since Bluesky launched nearly two years ago. Well, I believe you have my e-mail address.
in reply to Eugen Rochko

The reason I claim it's an attack on AT Proto is because (if you scroll up) you responded implying that Mastodon was somehow better positioned to weather this law, and I don't see how that's true, other than if the hope is that it's so small no one in Mississippi decides to sue?
in reply to Mike Masnick

@Gargron @stinerman @ikuturso @glyph

Of course #mastadon is better positioned to wheather this mississippi law, because a) different #mastodon instances can decide differently (e.g. implementing some kind of age verification instead of blocking, giving users choices instead of #bluesky forcing down their decision to everyone's throat), and b) most instances are outside the us jurisdiction anyway and therefore don't have to worry about the mississippi law.

in reply to J.R. Cruciani

Unlike #bluesky, #mastodon is not blocked centrally in Mississippi.

Glad to hear it.

It wouldn't have been technically possible anyway, since #mastodon is decentralized.

techcrunch.com/2025/08/29/mast…

#decentralization #activitypub #atproto #bluesky #decentralizationwashing

in reply to Folker

For the record, BS also isn't centrally blocked - if you run your own server or use an alt client, there's no block
in reply to Cory Doctorow

"Bluesky is unavailable in Mississippi right now" as by the company #bluesky Social, PB itself. See the original post of this thread.

Plain, simple, and correct.

Your post is what I mean by #decentralizationwashing: Claiming theoretical #decentralization, but without real-world relevance. Basically nobody is using an own Personal Data Servers or alt client. And wouldn't evade the block anyway.

in reply to Folker

Unlike #bluesky, #mastodon is not blocked centrally in Mississippi.

Glad to hear it.

It wouldn't have been technically possible anyway, since #mastodon is decentralized.

techcrunch.com/2025/08/29/mast…

(Posting reply mastodon.social/@folkerschamel…, which wasn't bridged, again, but this time as reply to myself to see if bridging is working then.)

#decentralization #activitypub #atproto #decentralizationwashing


Unlike #bluesky, #mastodon is not blocked centrally in Mississippi.

Glad to hear it.

It wouldn't have been technically possible anyway, since #mastodon is decentralized.

techcrunch.com/2025/08/29/mast…

#decentralization #activitypub #atproto #bluesky #decentralizationwashing


in reply to Folker

You're misrepresenting again. Why? ATproto is not blocked. Other ATproto providers are still available in Mississippi. The fact that Mastodon GMBH is choosing to ignore the law is not about decentralization. If it obeyed the law then yes some Mastodon instances would be centrally blocked.
in reply to Mike Masnick

@Gargron @stinerman @ikuturso @glyph

Discuss that with Bluesky Social PBC @bsky.app and their VC investors. As said before, I'm only the messenger.😉 Well, not even that, I'm only the message-repeater "Bluesky is unavailable in Mississippi right now"
mastodon.social/@bsky.app@bsky…

What are "mastodon instances"? I never understood that concept techies are talking like crazy about all the time. Are they the cause for "centrally block[ing]" as you say?😉

in reply to Folker

You again are misrepresenting. Why? mastodon.social which you are on is centralized. If it decides to obey the law you would be blocked in Mississippi. That's different than what Bluesky is doing. With Bluesky if you login with an alternative client, you're most likely not blocked.
in reply to Mike Masnick

Indeed the ATproto setup seems much better. Your only recourse if your server blocks is to start all over again somewhere else. With ATproto you can just login somewhere else with all your content intact
in reply to Mike Masnick

Well, I'm just relaying what your colleagues of Bluesky Social PBC are saying, see my previous post - argue with them instead of me.

Or with the people of the Mississippi Free Press, who said that the action of #bluesky is a "significant blow" to them mississippifreepress.org/edito….

But yes, personally I like like the decentralized world of #mastodon and #activitypub without a single corporation controlling the infrastructure and data most users are dependent on.

in reply to Folker

There is a big difference between truly decentralized and technically decentralizable.

See: Are we decentralized yet >>> arewedecentralizedyet.online/

Mastodon Migration reshared this.

in reply to Mike Masnick

@ikuturso @glyph @Gargron

Nobody said or implied that in this thread, on the contrary.

The point is that in practice #bluesky is quite centralized, because nearly all #atproto users are dependent on #bluesky, which is controlled by one company, and their centralized decisions.

As we can witness right now.

in reply to Mike Masnick

This is misinformation. It does not serve your purpose to continue to misrepresent the current state of AT Protocol decentralization.
in reply to Mike Masnick

This is kinda fundamental. You say "a lot?", but that's not as convincing as a full search engine of sites who want you to join them and are all, by definition, 100% independent of any other mastodon instance. Heck, even Truth Social is a Mastodon instance. joinmastodon.org/servers

Servers

in reply to Vault Boy

I get that the Mastodon folks are out of date and don't realize how much development has happened on ATproto in the last year, but it makes them all sound silly when they repeat things as if it were still 2023.
in reply to Mike Masnick

That's a deflection again. Nobody doubts that technically both #activitypub and #atproto support decentralization.

But the point is that *in practice* basically all #bluesky users are concentrated on infrastructure of a single company under US jurisdiction, while #mastodon users are distributed over many servers in many jurisdictions all over the world.

The consequences can be seen with Mississippi.

mastodon.social/@ikuturso/1151…

mastodon.social/@mastodonmigra…

in reply to Folker

The technique Mike Masnick employs is to ignore the substance of the critique. #Bluesky may technically be capable of decentralization, but in practice it is still highly centralized. Instead, he repeats the mantra there are some examples of decentralization.

Stipulated Mike.

Now move on to addressing the reality that for all intents and purposes, which is what matters for these censorship issues, it is centralized.

arewedecentralizedyet.online/

This entry was edited (2 days ago)

Mastodon Migration reshared this.

in reply to Mike Masnick

Fixing the law and arguing for a truly decentralized social network should not be an either/or proposition.
in reply to Folker

Yeah, but come on. This is nitpicking different approaches to centralization as a total distraction from the simple fact the law is bad for both approaches.
in reply to Mike Masnick

@Gargron
Well, I don't see it as nitpicking...
Nobody was questioning the architecture of #twitter either as long as everybody was happy with their governance... We should do better this time.
in reply to Folker

It is nitpicking PRECISELY because this law DOES NOT CHANGE ITS ANALYSIS based on the architecture of a website. It implies you dunking on Bluesky for ideological reasons, which makes no sense because THE LAW IS JUST AS BAD FOR MASTODON. Stop it.
in reply to Mike Masnick

@folkerschamel

Using caps and issuing admonishments does not make your argument stronger.

What he said is true. It may be a bad law, but the for all intents and purposes centralized Bluesky network is more vulnerable to it.

This entry was edited (1 week ago)
in reply to Mike Masnick

@Gargron

Yes, but my point is that the consequences for the users are much worse for #bluesky users because of lack of decentralization mastodon.social/@folkerschamel…

A bad law does not eliminate the difference between effectively centralized and decentralized social networks.

in reply to Folker

If your instance blocks you from accessing on Mastodon due to a law you need to use a VPN. The instance is aware of your IP. If Bluesky blocks you from accessing due to a law, it can trivially be bypassed by using a different app or your browser lying to the code. You're not blocked from ATProto.
in reply to Aaron Mills 🏳️‍⚧️

@mmasnick.bsky.social @Gargron
Theoretically yes, but in practice basically all #atproto users depend on #bluesky and are affected by the block without having the technical expertise or willingness to circumvent it. On the other hand #fediverse users are distributed over many #mastodon instances making their own decisions.
#activitypub and #atproto both support decentralization, but in practice #mastodon is decentralized, #bluesky is centralized.
in reply to Mike Masnick

@Gargron @bsky.app

I think @Gargron is right.

I think it is an insincere excuse to imply that most users can host their own views or use such other views.

And I think it is a straw man to imply that many instances potentially making similar decisions is remotely the same as one company making a central decision and forcing it on everyone.

in reply to Folker

I think it's insincere to pretend that Mastodon is somehow not subject to the law. It is. If an instance operator chooses to ignore that (and faces massive fines) that's a choice, but it's wrong to imply that the liability isn't there. The problem is the law.
in reply to Mike Masnick

@Gargron @bsky.app

I'm not implying that.

My point is: Decentralzation gives real choices to all the instances. For example, some instance can decide to do the same as Blueskye and cut off Mississippi, others could also decide for individual age verification - not to say that I suggest that, but they have that option.

Central decisions don't allow that. In practice every user of bluesky is forced to accept the central decision of bluesky.

in reply to Folker

A bad law does not obliterate the advantages of decentralization.
in reply to Folker

Yes, and atproto is decentralized and more and more people on on independent systems. So this point you're trying to make is totally meaningless as it relates to the issue here: which is the law.
in reply to Mike Masnick

@Gargron @bsky.app

I think I gave a very specific argument why it is not meaningless.

I would respect an argument along the line "well, I know that the #atproto fediverse / mastodon is much better regarding #decentralization than #bluesky, but overall #bluesky is still much better because of x y z", but I smells disingenuous to me to claim that #bluesky is as decentralized as #mastodon.

in reply to Folker

No. You're just arguing semantics of what is your preferred architecture. But this thread is about the law, under which IT DOES NOT MATTER. Which means that you're just disingenuously using a bad law that is bad for both systems as an ideological cudgel over who is more pure. It's not great.
in reply to Mike Masnick

@Gargron @bsky.app

Social media means that the topic of an thread can expand 😉 - in this case which architecture is fundamentally better. I don't see it as a ideological discussion, but having large real-world consequences. As we can experience live right now with the Mississippi situation. I can definitely tell you that there won't be a central decision for all #fediverse instances to block all Mississippi users.🙂

in reply to Folker

Nor is there a central decision for all Atmosphere PDS's or AppViews to block Mississippi. Some may choose not to comply, just as some ActivityPub instances can choose not to comply and face massive liability. Your point makes no sense. It's equally bad for both.
in reply to Mike Masnick

@Gargron @bsky.app

I think it's claim that the current consequences for #bluesky users and #mastodon users are the same is denying reality. But I believe this discussion landed in a non-constructive dead end.

To switch topic to an exciting aspect: I'm excited that bidgy works much better than I expected. It's still a long way, but it gives me hope that one day we will truly break down the walls between all platform and protocol silos.

in reply to Folker

If Mastodon instances choose to disobey the law, I would think the consequences could be significantly worse for those instances. So, I strongly disagree.
in reply to Mike Masnick

@Gargron @bsky.app That's not my argument, see mastodon.social/@folkerschamel….


@Gargron @bsky.app

I'm not implying that.

My point is: Decentralzation gives real choices to all the instances. For example, some instance can decide to do the same as Blueskye and cut off Mississippi, others could also decide for individual age verification - not to say that I suggest that, but they have that option.

Central decisions don't allow that. In practice every user of bluesky is forced to accept the central decision of bluesky.


in reply to Folker

Read through this entire thread and just wanted to commend the clarity and persistence with which you stuck to your well grounded arguments. His responses were a toxic brew of misinformation, and outright bullying from someone who has been elevated to a spokesperson's role. It was frankly embarrassing to read, and you did very well to maintain a civil tone.
in reply to Eugen Rochko

In principle, isn't mastodon.social subject to this law the same way bluesky is?
in reply to Eugen Rochko

I really hope similar laws aren't planned in the majority of jurisdictions where fedi instances are hosted :blobcatlolsob:
in reply to Eugen Rochko

but obviously you won't fix the spam "document 1 of 23 " for screenreaders. lol.
I would rather go to a censored platform than one that stil has a lot of accessibility bugs.
in reply to Bluesky

With legal challenges to this law pending, we cannot justify building the expensive required infrastructure. For now, we have made the difficult decision to block access in Mississippi. To learn more, read our blog post:

Our Response to Mississippi’s ...

Unknown parent