There's still some quirks, and every bridged account has to opt in to it, but it's a promising moment for people that want to communicate across networks.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] DaseinPickle@leminal.space 26 points 7 months ago (12 children)

I still dont understand why we need bluesky.

[–] deadsuperhero@lemmy.world 26 points 7 months ago (9 children)

It's a different approach with different ideas. It uses open protocols, focuses on data and account portability, and incorporates peer-to-peer concepts in its architecture. The vision behind Bluesky is to build a global square with these concepts.

I definitely wish they would've extended ActivityPub and collaborated on the wider network, but I kind of understand wanting to start from scratch and not get involved with the cultural debt Mastodon brought to the network.

[–] abrahambelch@programming.dev 8 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I don't see any need for BlueSky at all when there already is a great network in the form of Mastodon. I mean all (most) of the ideas you mentioned apply one-to-one to Mastodon as well. To me they have very similar ideas.

[–] clgoh@lemmy.ca 6 points 7 months ago

Unlike ActivityPub, account migration with the AT protocol should allow to move content.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (7 replies)

load more comments (9 replies)