this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2025
594 points (97.7% liked)

Fediverse

36704 readers
465 users here now

A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, KBin, etc).

If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to !moderators@lemmy.world!

Rules

Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 171 points 1 week ago (11 children)

So why does everyone keep referring to Bluesky as decentralized or even comparable to the fediverse

Bluesky is the newest iteration of privately owned and controlled social media

[–] supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 91 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

Because silicon valley thinks it can define reality however it wants and keep telling us not to believe our lying eyes.

Weirdly this seems to work better on techy people who don't like thinking about politics but understand the technical details of this extremely well than it does on normie progressives because progressives just see the obvious predatory reality and don't get distracted in minutiae connected to very obviously empty promises.

The tech press does not ever talk to progressives though...

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 21 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (8 children)

Does it? None of my normie progressive friends are on the fediverse. The ones that tried it didn't like it.

calling people normies tends to do that

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] tfm@europe.pub 42 points 1 week ago (1 children)

So why does everyone keep referring to Bluesky as decentralized or even comparable to the fediverse

They call it marketing, I call it propaganda.

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 18 points 1 week ago (1 children)

"It's the same picture."

Always has been. The only difference is what they're selling.

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 10 points 1 week ago

I feel like this speaks to an unchallenged myth in our society. That corporate organizations and government organizations are somehow completely categorically different from one another such that they exist in totally separate spheres of reality. But they're both political groups of people, exercising power over the peasants. It's not as different as people think. And they often have similar goals and use similar strategies, like propaganda, to achieve them.

[–] roofuskit@lemmy.world 36 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (7 children)

Because, despite being wildly impractical, it's technically built on tech that COULD be decentralized. Only recent a new host launched called Black sky. So it is no longer just one host. But it's been one host for so long it almost doesn't matter because so few people will switch.

[–] Kirk@startrek.website 11 points 1 week ago

Because, despite being wildly impractical, it’s technically built on tech that COULD be decentralized.

Yes exactly, it reminds me of the logic of cryptocurrency boosters. I just found out that the bluesky CEO (not to mention jack dorsey) are both crypto advocates so it makes a lot more sense now.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Kirk@startrek.website 9 points 1 week ago

I don't understand it at all. Where are all the supposed blueskys? It's so easy to fact check.

[–] hanrahan@slrpnk.net 8 points 1 week ago

So why does everyone keep referring to Bluesky as decentralized or even comparable to the fediverse

Parrot the marketing hyperbole.

The enshitification continies.

[–] EldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Because Bluesky claims that they want to develop their relay tech into a standard like HTTPS or something, and then hand it off to a nonprofit to maintain so that it's usable by everyone. The tech has the possibility to be decentralized/federated baked into it, but whether or not it will be anything other than a pipe dream/marketing hype has yet to really be seen.

They present themselves as basically a Lemmy.world equivalent to those who care about decentralization, which is not a significant portion of their user base. For most people it's just a buzzword, I believe.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] 73QjabParc34Vebq@piefed.blahaj.zone 49 points 1 week ago (1 children)

25% is too high, but at least it's not as embarrassing as 99%

[–] tfm@europe.pub 9 points 1 week ago
[–] Kirk@startrek.website 34 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Wait, there are 1600 BlueSky instances to join? Are they counting people using a custom domain name as an entire instance?

[–] tfm@europe.pub 27 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] Kirk@startrek.website 26 points 1 week ago (2 children)

OK so it sounds like there is still just the single BlueSky that is "federated" with a handful of single-user BlueSkies?

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 39 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

Yes. The relevant metric:

collapsed inline media

99.55% of posts are on a single instance. That is not "federated" in any meaningful sense.

[–] Kirk@startrek.website 13 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I'm moreso curious if it federated in a literal sense. Is it even possible to participate without using bsky.app's servers?

[–] f314@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Self-hosting a Bluesky PDS means running your own Personal Data Server that is capable of federating with the wider Bluesky social network.

Seems like it

[–] Kirk@startrek.website 7 points 1 week ago (2 children)

A PDS still requires BlueSky's servers

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] roofuskit@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

Yes, very recently Black Sky launched. Much too late to make any difference.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] tfm@europe.pub 16 points 1 week ago (1 children)

PDSes only store user data. These are full instances that can be used to browse the network. The idea is to make your account really yours. Bluesky is hosting most of them. But there are some people who do it on their own.

But bluesky controls much more important components in the network, namely the Relay and AppView.

If Bluesky decides to cut off your PDS you are pretty much alone.

Bluesky is pretty much a centralized platform like Twittler.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] froufox@lemmy.blahaj.zone 31 points 1 week ago (3 children)

i'm so tired of these posts. okay, fediverse, you won! you are more decentralized than bluesky. maybe it's time to create real useful and interesting content instead of reveling in your elitism?

[–] GreenShimada@lemmy.world 35 points 1 week ago

But....I came here just for the gloating fediverse content.

What else could there be?

[–] TheFogan@programming.dev 18 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I mean I agree... it's kind of the constant crux isn't it?

The IT nerds pick a protocol that's uncontrolled, you need to select options and servers, because... well obviously that's kind of the definition of uncontrolled.

Some big name with big VC backing makes a big platform, makes it simple as possible, no choices, no control but good defaults. Average joes all flock there, build huge communities, users happy. Obviously the bulk of the creative types, celebrities etc... that most people care about flock there.

Big corp or VCs start demanding more monetization, or political censorship, or whatever kind of enshittification they inevitably always will. Users complain, but it all continues to amplify... open communities announce "hey we've got our alternative here", they say "thanks but nah that's too complicated, and you don't have the users that I want to see anyway". People complain more... and either adapt and accept the enshitification as normal... or maybe another big VC backed individual or other corp opens an alternative and pulls off the impossible critical mass goal, and process repeats.

I don't really know the solution, just know the pattern. Bluesky is IMO the new twitter... fundimentally I don't see it as super different than the old twitter. Only way I really see everything working is if say... a corporate backed giant actually played nicely and allowed interoperability with a federated protocol that's actually... well hostable.

It's basically like exactly what happens out in the real world... walmart comes offers better convenience and lower prices than local competitors... local economy adapts to walmart, individual stores shut down... half of owners, etc... forced to working for walmart for garbage pay.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] dil@lemmy.zip 7 points 1 week ago (2 children)

It would be fair to say something like that if you yourself made content but your last post was 3 months ago lol

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Fizz@lemmy.nz 27 points 1 week ago (2 children)

There are a lot of cool features from at protocol that activity pub should steal. The way users can pick their algorithm is game changing

[–] airportline@lemmy.zip 17 points 1 week ago (2 children)

The tradeoffs Bluesky made to achieve that means that Bluesky doesn’t have private posts. In fact, Bluesky doesn’t have private blocks.

[–] Natanael@infosec.pub 10 points 1 week ago (13 children)

Private posts is planned, but it's not trivial. Mastodon can't exactly brag about their nonintuitive technically just not broadcasted posts, where multiple implementations keep making private messages publicly discoverable due to bugs.

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] StupidBrotherInLaw@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago

I do enjoy how that couch fucking fascist cunt is the most blocked person.

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (5 children)

Wouldn't that work more with a client or a server software than the protocol itself? The protocol shares the posts. It's the client and the instance which chooses what the user sees.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Regrettable_incident@lemmy.world 25 points 1 week ago (11 children)

Yeah, but bluesky has users.

[–] tfm@europe.pub 36 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I'm pretty happy with engagement in the Fediverse.

[–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 17 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Exactly.

Communities are not higher quality with a million people. Small communities where you can know who the other posters are are a much better experience.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 14 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Anyone have the numbers for Lemmy specifically?

[–] tfm@europe.pub 21 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Lemmy has about 40,000 monthly active users. Lemmy.world accounts for about 15,500 of that. That's about 40%.

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Thanks. Yeah .world is definitely a bit too big, but it's still miles better than bluesky.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago (5 children)

Alternate history: Bluesky never happens. Instead, some company opens up a Mastodon instance as a Twitter replacement. So instead of Bluesky with 12M+ users, there's a Mastodon instance with 12M+ users. Now what?

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] evujumenuk@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago (1 children)

If your idea of a federated Twitter is a bunch of mini-Twitters that sometimes exchange indirect replies or something, then the Fediverse fulfills that purpose completely. Mission accomplished, we can all go home now.

If your idea is that the replies to every post look the same to any user, anywhere, at any time, even the thing Mastodon merged half a year ago that supposedly fetches all replies if you remember to navigate to the topmost post, and wait up to 15 minutes for your view of the thread to coalesce, falls short.

And this is why hosting Mastodon is cheap, it fundamentally cannot provide the functionality BlueSky offers. Of course, you might think that such functionality is not desirable anyway, and that's entirely fair. But if you're looking for the immediacy that centralized Twitter gave users, I don't see a way for Fedi to ever provide that, whereas there is a path to BlueSky decentralization. It's a fact that your UX is diminished if all of your followers and followeds are not on the same instance.

But in the end, I think there is space for both.

[–] flamingos@feddit.uk 8 points 1 week ago (4 children)

If your idea is that the replies to every post look the same to any user, anywhere, at any time

This is only true of Bluesky because everyone is using Bluesky's infrastructure at the moment. If Bluesky ever deindexes someone and they start posting to an alternative relay, you suddenly don't have a guarantee of a full view of a post's replies.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Cocopanda@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Im trying to get more content on a few hobby communities on lemmy. I’m not really a big poster. I love to comment. But I’m willing to go through and start trying to build some momentum.

load more comments (1 replies)

It is my understanding Bluesky outright is not decentralized. It may have an API that allows satellite instances but if the main official instance goes down the platform dies.

Mastodon, Lemmy and their siblings are decentralized in that no one instance is sacred. If sh.ijust.works were to go offline right now, the rest of Lemmy would keep right on trucking. Hell, all of "Lemmy" could die and Mastodon and Peertube et al would keep right on trucking.

[–] tomenzgg@midwest.social 9 points 1 week ago

For those who enjoy in-depth write-ups, Christine Webber has looked at how decentralized BlueSky is really, before: https://social.coop/@cwebber/113527462572885698

load more comments
view more: next ›