Whenever the AT protocol of BlueSky is set for others to deploy, won't it have similar problems as ActivityPub instances? (lemm.ee)

submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) by ALostInquirer@lemm.ee to c/fediverse@lemmy.world

21 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I feel like I may be missing something when it comes to BlueSky, or maybe both I and those trying it out are but in different ways. My understanding is that BlueSky is currently like the Mastodon Social instance is for Mastodon but of the AT Protocol under development, with the long term aim being that once their protocol is sufficiently developed to their liking, they'll put out the version capable of federation for others to spin up their own instances with.

However, once they do that, won't it basically create some of the same problems people already have with ActivityPub, i.e. instance choice, federation confusion, etc.?

What's supposed to set it apart and address existing issues rather than reinvent things and add their own distinct issues?

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

[-] spiritedpause@sh.itjust.works 5 points 10 months ago

I'm working on a client/app called Agora that integrates bridges like bridgy-fed so that you don't have to think about those quirks, you just search something like "aoc.bsky.social" on it while logged in to a Mastodon account, it'll automatically pull up the bridged version of the account for you to follow.

https://agorasocial.app