Bluesky, which uses it, has been opened to federation now, and the standard basically just looks better than ActivityPub. Has anyone heard about a project to make a Lemmy-style “link aggregator” service on it?

  • rglullis@communick.newsEnglish
    13·
    6 hours ago

    And they are either in for one of the following:

    • a $30 Million lesson where they learn that they will have to reinvent ActivityPub in order to be “properly” decentralized
    • a rug pull where they come up with a second relay like Bluesky but fork to give exclusive access for large institutions and the enterprise.
    • jackalope@lemmy.mlEnglish
      1·
      2 hours ago

      There are important features that ATPro has that activity pub doesn’t. I’d prefer activity pub be the winner but they really need to improve some things. Namely, identity. Bluesky identity is more portable.

      • rglullis@communick.newsEnglish
        2·
        2 hours ago

        We still don’t need ATProto for that. ActivityPods solves that.

        ActivityPub itself is built around the principle that the server owns your identity: the best you can do is abandon an identity (i.e, your actor URL) and tell everyone else (via the Move Activity) that you are adopting a new identity.

        • jackalope@lemmy.mlEnglish
          1·
          43 minutes ago

          The move activity ain’t a great solution. We need federated identity or else ux will continue to lag. When I want to move servers, I can set the move activity but there’s no guarantee my followers will subscribe to the new account. It’s bad ux. Mass adoption is not going to happen with that kind of flow.

          Activity Pods is cool bit not implemented on mastodon.

          • rglullis@communick.newsEnglish
            1·
            7 minutes ago

            We need federated identity or else ux will continue to lag

            What I am saying is that the ActivityPub protocol is inherently built towards a server-centric system, where identities are owned by the server. Go read the spec: even the “Client-to-Server” specification assumes that the server owns the keys and dictates that the client (i.e, users) must do everything through the API provided by the server (i.e, the client’s outbox).

            Anything that is built with a design where the client owns the keys may even be able to interoperate with ActivityPub, but is not ActivityPub.

            Activity Pods is cool bit not implemented on mastodon.

            It’s the other way around. We shouldn’t be looking for “Mastodon on ActivityPods”, but “ActivityPods applications that can talk with Mastodon servers”, and those do exist.

    • MysticKetchup@lemmy.worldEnglish
      7·
      6 hours ago

      It’s ridiculous they were asking for $30m to do something that ActivityPub already does. Wasted money that could have gone anywhere else