This is just not correct. It runs on a protocol - anyone can create software that uses the same protocol and communicate with Bluesky users as equals.
Were they right to develop their own protocol rather than to improve upon AP? Probably not. Is ATproto completely dominated by Bluesky? Yes. But is not like Twitter.
I can - and do - communicate both ways with Bluesky users through Mastodon and Bridgy Fed. That would simply not be possible with Twitter.
the proof is right there…in the fact it requires bridged accounting rather than just bridging the protocol.
when i see a 100% independent bluesky instance including the internal router, ill believe it.
as it is, you have to beg them for access to their network (inclusion in their proprietary routers) or have accounts on their servers. thats not open federation.
pffft. i hate how they gloss over the not-so-federated system bluesky is using. its the same walled garden twitter ever was
This is just not correct. It runs on a protocol - anyone can create software that uses the same protocol and communicate with Bluesky users as equals.
Were they right to develop their own protocol rather than to improve upon AP? Probably not. Is ATproto completely dominated by Bluesky? Yes. But is not like Twitter.
I can - and do - communicate both ways with Bluesky users through Mastodon and Bridgy Fed. That would simply not be possible with Twitter.
the proof is right there…in the fact it requires bridged accounting rather than just bridging the protocol.
when i see a 100% independent bluesky instance including the internal router, ill believe it.
as it is, you have to beg them for access to their network (inclusion in their proprietary routers) or have accounts on their servers. thats not open federation.
Its less open, but its definitely federated. Whether its a walled garden or not depends on the definition ;)
not a single independent instance exists to communicate with it. i wouldnt call that federation