Original post: https://bsky.app/profile/ssg.dev/post/3lmuz3nr62k26
Email from Bluesky in the screenshot:
Hi there,
We are writing to inform you that we have received a formal request from a legal authority in Turkey regarding the removal of your account associated with the following handle (@carekavga.bsky.social) on Bluesky.
The legal authority has claimed that this content violates local laws in Turkey. As a result, we are required to review the request in accordance with local regulations and Bluesky's policies.
Following a thorough review, we have determined that the content in question violates local laws in Turkey, as outlined in the legal request. In compliance with these legal provisions, we have restricted access to your account for users.
PDS is not very significant, it's just a tiny piece of the puzzle and doesn't really prove anything about the architecture. See this for more on what I'm getting at: https://neuromatch.social/@jonny/113365406995624763
That post is very misguided.
First of all, he's saying "you SHOULD make your PDS invisible to the bluesky servers because otherwise what's the point", but that's exactly equivalent to saying "our community want it's own Mastodon server - that means we MUST defederate Mastodon.social or what's the point?"
That's nonsense. Don't enforce silos on people.
Also, which relays to support are not chosen by users, it's chosen by the services the users choose. The PDS choose which relays to sync to, the appview does too, just like feed generators and moderation labelers does. They can trivially sync to multiple.
What people will choose is what app to use. This app will choose default appviews, and that appview chooses a relay, etc. Then they register an account, and the app suggests a default PDS server, or they host their own.
Also moderation labelers can be shared. Communities can run their own, and different communities who trust each other can import labels generated by the others.
Hosting a PDS is very cheap, it's just storage and bandwidth for the posts multiplied by the number of relays you directly sync to. With a few users on each that's nothing. It's in the range of free tier VPS hosting, RPi grade.
Deduplicating is probably the most trivial part. There's already code for handling duplicate events in streams. But more practically speaking, there's algorithms like set reconciliation which can make it significantly more bandwidth efficient to subscribe to multiple relays even when they have overlapping content.
Tldr no there won't be bubbles, unless that's what the users want. They surely CAN choose services which filter out the bluesky servers and which don't make them visible to bluesky, but why?
As for the DID part, the alternative is DID:Web, which requires permanent control over your domain name. With DID:PLC you can control your data by registering your own keys, although there's possibility for censorship. Their goal is to separate out running the DID:PLC service to an independent foundation.
As for the followup comments, just a few months ago bluesky made it significantly cheaper to authenticate jetstream events via Merkle tree diffs (jetstream is the lower bandwidth version of the relay firehose service). This means you can verify correctness quickly just by having a copy of the Merkle root hash & pubkey for the accounts you're interested in, you don't need to store the whole user repositories (excellent for feed generators and moderation labelers and anybody else doing partial sync)
I don't think you got the point tbh. It isn't about wanting to separate but about how dependent you are on Bluesky Corp. in every other scenario (and how hard it would be to deal with the situation if they decide to go rogue).
But that IS the point. The possibility of running independently PLUS the ability of bluesky users to migrate their account wholesale away from bluesky servers to 3rd party servers means you're not dependent on them.
They're literally designing for the principle of "the company is a future adversary" (see: Twitter, et al).
Yes and the thread I linked to explained why it is not looking like it's particularly well thought out for that case. Even beyond those issues they've always seemed very naive about what the company turning adversarial would actually be able to do but then again they obviously also have to worry about making money.