Could someone please explain to me whether Bluesky is decentralized? Maybe send me some blogposts. Thanks!
in reply to Christine Lemmer-Webber

well ok. There is this thread connected to the blog post, from a person that looks like she knows what she is talking about:

social.coop/@cwebber/113527462…


How Decentralized Is Bluesky Really? dustycloud.org/blog/how-decent…

A technical deep-dive, since people have been asking me for my thoughts. I'll expand a bit on some of the key points here in a thread. 🧵

This entry was edited (8 months ago)

Christine Lemmer-Webber reshared this.

in reply to lgsp is moving

Seriously, the other interesting piece (not from you) I could read about the topic (bit I bet you already know) is this one

social.wildeboer.net/@jwildebo…


IMHO: #BlueSky isn't decentralised or federated. The outage on 2024-11-14 is obvious proof. It may *look* decentralised and they definitely love to outsource traffic/storage costs by claiming that running your own PDS (Personal Data Server) is somehow something federated, but that's all smoke and mirrors. You have to go deep on [1] to find "networking through Relays instead of server-to-server" as their current implementation choice. THEY run the relays. No one else.

[1] bsky.social/about/blog/5-5-202…

Christine Lemmer-Webber reshared this.

in reply to Seth of the Fediverse

@phillycodehound It's funny to me how people keep buying into this idea that it will actually be decentralized when in reality that needed to be baked in from the very beginning to have any chance of being viable. It will likely always be an 'on paper' decentralized network but in reality, tightly controlled like every other corp social network.

AstroMancer5G (she/her) reshared this.

in reply to David Fleetwood - RG Admin

@reflex @phillycodehound exactly. If you already have all your users centralised in one location you're not going to move mountains to completely re-architect your system... For what? You already have user capture.

No way is a tech company giving up the power of potentially being the next Twitter

reshared this

in reply to Seth of the Fediverse

in reply to Jan Beta

@Jan Beta @Christine Lemmer-Webber this is completely wrong. Decentralization means mostly that the servers that contains and redirect the data of the social are phisically situated in different places. Where users are is not significant at all. Bluesky IS NOT DECENTRALIZED.
in reply to Christine Lemmer-Webber

You ovbiously havnet researcht this very carfully, I believe one Lemmy Webster has written alot about this and you really should read up before asking dumb quetions maybe the internet is not for you.

(Note to onlookers: this post is intended to be humorously satirical. Please laugh politely. Thank you.)

This entry was edited (8 months ago)

Christine Lemmer-Webber reshared this.

in reply to Christine Lemmer-Webber

reshared this

in reply to Christine Lemmer-Webber

in reply to Christine Lemmer-Webber

I liked this answer that you received on Bluesky, which I'm duplicating in Mastodon so people don't need to go to Bluesky to find it:

phillipjreese.com/the-social-n…

in reply to Christine Lemmer-Webber

technically one might say it isn't, but that would be besides the point. You see "centralized" is only bad if it's centralized around bad people like Ramk Zuckembrog or Melon Sumk. But as long as it's centralized around nice people with a good moral compass who respect the law and have all the best intentions it's actually as good as, no! It's better than decentralized! And since it has only the best woke VCs backing it who have business plans with a goal for human societal prosperity and not RoI, we need not ask about decentralization.

reshared this

in reply to Christine Lemmer-Webber

As I understand it:

ATProto is built to be decentralized. Right now, Bluesky is a company that both originated the protocol and is building a platform on it, so the impact is that it is functionally centralized as there is only one implementation on only one platform.

But if someone else built an ATProto implementation then it would no longer be only Bluesky, and then it would be decentralized.

Again, as I understand it.

in reply to Christine Lemmer-Webber

At the risk of asking a serious question, what's the deal with all these alternative ATProto apps? Are there any that have significant independent infrastructure?

techcrunch.com/2025/04/04/beyo…

I'm guessing that the answer is that they mostly share the same infrastructure and just provide a different AppView and possibly a different lexicon (not sure that's the right term) as far as the data they store and can interact with. But given that I have a very limited understanding of how Bluesky works under the hood, I'd be interested in a (much) more knowledgeable perspective.

Christine Lemmer-Webber reshared this.

in reply to Christine Lemmer-Webber

it's decentralized by design, but running a second node is an expensive endeavour, which requires you to download the entire database of everything that has happened on the entirety of bluesky and running a computer that is able to search such a database. Only big companies are able to do so, and so far no one has. So effectively there is only a single node in bluesky.

As for the identity system, I didn't fully understand it, but I remember something on the line of "if the company goes down the entire identity system will shut down with no backup"

And finally the DM system was centralised last time I read something about it, but I have good faith that it's in their timeline to decentralise it. The two issues above are more concerning.

This entry was edited (8 months ago)
in reply to Christine Lemmer-Webber

somewhat, but if bluesky the company goes down the network collapses

you can store your own data on your server

but bluesky owns:
- the main appview
- the main moderation service (which is hardcoded into their appview and can just disappear your account from everyone else)
- the main relay (AFAIK there are no real alternatives, they can also ban you on this level if you run your own data server)
- the service storing information about user IDs (DID:PLC, IIUC if this ever goes down most accounts are immediately gone)

reshared this

in reply to Christine Lemmer-Webber

BlueSky is split up into several separately hosted components. I forget the technical terminology

Contend providers actually provide posts in a way similar to an RSS feed. They are very easy to self-host

Aggregators collect these providers and create people's feeds. These require huge resources to self-host because you have to store the entire network (a very very high storage cost only businesses can afford)

There are also servers that provide moderation - something a client consults to go "should I consider this person banned?". These can be self-hosted, but in the default app it's hardcoded

If you use a non-default app, you can't see profiles that require logins (so any artist who wants to avoid AI scrapers)

DMs are entirely centralised

in reply to Christine Lemmer-Webber

from what I read it can be decentralised, in the sense that if you really try hard, you'd be able to host your own instance, but it will never be peer-to-peer, so the traffic will always go through the bluesky central hub.

I am not really a technical guy so I might misunderstood it, so I am looking forward to read the replies too.

Christine Lemmer-Webber reshared this.

in reply to Christine Lemmer-Webber

it's decentralised, yeah. you can have it on your phone, but other people can have it on their phone, so it's not all centralised on one phone and you can still talk to each other. that's why people say it reminds them of twitter so much, because twitter was also decentralised like that.

reshared this

in reply to Christine Lemmer-Webber

Oooh good question! Uhhh so basically Fediverse is based on the concept of a federation, which is a form of hegemonic imperialism and therefore not decentralised.

Whereas BlueSky runs in the cloud, which is a distributed computing system and thus decentralised.

Hope this helps! Feel free to ask me if you have any more questions.

This entry was edited (8 months ago)

Christine Lemmer-Webber reshared this.

in reply to Christine Lemmer-Webber

OK, hear me out... maybe it's controlled by a single entity, but that entity could have some kind of "offering" to sell shares of the company to the "public". Like, anyone could buy one! Then, naturally, the VCs will celebrate by purchasing billions of slices of avocado toast and lattes, and that wealth will "trickle-down" to everyone else, who will then buy their own shares. I will take my nobel prize in economics now, thank you.

Christine Lemmer-Webber reshared this.

in reply to Christine Lemmer-Webber

it's pseudo decentralized
you can run your own data server which hosts your account and everything you post (including media) but the relay is pretty much centralized because it provides and coordinates the whole network (that's why search across the whole network works)
it's possible to also host your own relay but this comes at the cost of several TB of data
basically it's the same concept as blockchain without the chain
in reply to Christine Lemmer-Webber

Can I jump on with a related question? Could someone explain to me how to make something like komoot decentralised? A platform to share and find GPS tracks, and planned routes, to mark and recommend locations, to comment on your friend's activity, etc. It's obviously integrated in a map, but it's also a social network. And komoot just got bought by an investor with a bad record...
in reply to Christine Lemmer-Webber

this post may help:
How Does BlueSky Work?, by @steveklabnik.com

steveklabnik.com/writing/how-d…

> One of the reasons I am enthusiastic about BlueSky is because of the way that it works. So in this post, I am going to lay out some of the design and the principles behind this design, as I understand them. I am not on the BlueSky team, so these are my takes only.

Christine Lemmer-Webber reshared this.

in reply to Christine Lemmer-Webber

I have seen zero evidence that it is so, so my current operating assumption, which I share freely, is "in now way or shape or form".

They have - for the moment - implemented the protocol and platform (which are two things) in such a way as to cede control over some aspects of algorithmic feed manipulation to the user, but maintain final say on whatever they feel like, so far as I know, because there's no other way to run an open platform like that. This fact is how we came to have Section 230.

But basically, no, they are a single-entryway platform which requires huge sums of capital to live its short-ass lifespan, with enshittification as inevitable as the death of stars.

To those who choose it over this place, I get why, but I also know it's just a matter of time.