←back to thread

Are we decentralized yet?

(arewedecentralizedyet.online)
487 points Bogdanp | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
d4mi3n ◴[] No.45077410[source]
Neat! I'm not surprised at the findings here. BlueSky (for the average user) is pretty much a drop in replacement for Twitter.

Despite the smaller total numbers in Mastadon, it's great to see that the ecosystem seems to be successfully avoiding centralization like we've seen in the AT-Proto ecosystem.

I suspect that the cost of running AT proto servers/relays is prohibitive for smaller players compared to a Mastadon server selectively syndicating with a few peers, but I say this with only a vague understanding of the internals of both of these ecosystems.

replies(6): >>45077507 #>>45077986 #>>45078151 #>>45078889 #>>45079652 #>>45080382 #
grishka ◴[] No.45080382[source]
This is due to different design goals.

Bluesky's architecture was pretty much dictated by the premise that anyone needs to be able to see any post on the entire system, regardless of whether they have any connections with the author. That algorithmic entertainment-style feeds need to exist. You do need that firehose and other expensive infrastructure for that, there's no going around it.

The fediverse, on the other hand, entirely relies on people following each other. Each server only receives and stores data that is relevant to its users. ActivityPub works like an automated email list management system. You follow someone, they start sending you their updates and forwarding any updates from others that they consider relevant, like replies to their posts.

replies(2): >>45081666 #>>45086134 #
1. qwm ◴[] No.45086134[source]
I think the Twitter format sucks in both cases, but having central, algorithmically-curated feeds are just bad for people psychologically. They just created another Twitter clone with the same problems. The only difference is fewer "nazis".