This is a fantastic intro to the open social web tech under the hood of the Bluesky app.
I know folks here are sometimes apprehensive about what the Bluesky PBC is building, but I think it's worth understanding why a whole bunch of nerds like me are excited about AT Protocol, even though we also cheer for, build on, and spread the word about ActivityPub.
@mackuba@martianbase.net does a great job of simplifying complex ideas, and I highly recommend giving this a read.
https://martianbase.net/@mackuba/115062459999777419
@quillmatiq@mastodon.social @mackuba@martianbase.net It's an intro to AT Proto. I don't see how calling it an intro to "the open social web tech" is helpful, since there is no such thing--there is ActivityPub, and there is AT Proto, and they are distinct protocols. An intro to one is not an intro to the other.
@Gargron@mastodon.social I think we have two different definitions of "the open social web." I consider any open social protocol that enables cross-platform interop (and cross-protocol interop for that matter) as a part of that umbrella.
ATProto, therefore, is open social web tech in the same way that ActivityPub and Nostr are, based on that definition.
@mackuba@martianbase.net
@Gargron@mastodon.social @quillmatiq@mastodon.social @mackuba@martianbase.net
curious gargron, how do you define 'open social web'? is it activitypub, activitypub+atproto, activitypub+atproto+whatever else? i dont think theres a correct or wrong answer here, just that im seeing different people define the term differently, and wondering where you fall
@quillmatiq@mastodon.social @Gargron@mastodon.social "intro to the open social web tech under the hood of the Bluesky app", i.e. intro to that open social web tech which is under the hood of the Bluesky app
@laurenshof@indieweb.social @quillmatiq@mastodon.social @mackuba@martianbase.net When I was using the term a relatively short period a few years ago, it was a less technical term for "the fediverse" to me. However, as soon as people started using it as an umbrella term for multiple incompatible technologies I moved back to using "fediverse". "Open social web" perfectly describes the abstract goal of where we want these technologies to take us, but it is too broad to be useful when talking about the technologies themselves in my view.
@Gargron@mastodon.social I too have started separating "the Fediverse" from other protocol-based networks, like "the ATmosphere", but also say "open social web" as the combination of these spaces. I'm not sure anyone has decided if these terms have formal meanings, but I'm more than happy to use specific terms if we all ever align on them!
(I doubt we ever will, but I guess the chaos is kinda part of the fun?)
@laurenshof@indieweb.social @mackuba@martianbase.net
@mackuba@martianbase.net @quillmatiq@mastodon.social I am usually a careful and attentive reader, but even I struggled parsing that sentence correctly. What purpose does the "open social web" serve there except marketing Bluesky as part of it?
@quillmatiq@mastodon.social @Gargron@mastodon.social @mackuba@martianbase.net
got bored so drew it out
@laurenshof@indieweb.social @quillmatiq@mastodon.social @mackuba@martianbase.net Well, Threads is part of the fediverse, whether people like it or not, it natively speaks ActivityPub. Should be in that left corner.
It does not natively speak ActivityPub. It can optionally bridge to the Fediverse.
Its core codebase is not โan ActivityPub serverโ and does not internally use AP objects for everything.
@Gargron@mastodon.social @laurenshof@indieweb.social @quillmatiq@mastodon.social @mackuba@martianbase.net What even about diaspora and those other protocols? We need to understand what the Fediverse was, and revive what it truely was
@bmann.ca@bsky.brid.gy @laurenshof@indieweb.social @quillmatiq@mastodon.social @mackuba@martianbase.net By that logic, Mastodon is not "an ActivityPub server", since it does not internally use AP objects for anything. By that logic nothing speaks ActivityPub "natively". Of course, in reality, it, like Mastodon, does speak ActivityPub natively. I can request a Threads actor and receive the JSON-LD directly from the Threads domain without any bridging services.
Then why qualify/exclude bridging services?
Then why qualify/exclude bridging services?
@knowtheory.net@bsky.brid.gy @bmann.ca@bsky.brid.gy @laurenshof@indieweb.social @quillmatiq@mastodon.social @mackuba@martianbase.net Iโm confused by your use of โthenโ. What in my statement relates to bridging services? If you need a bridge to communicate with something, then it doesnโt speak the protocol natively. If you donโt, then it does.
@knowtheory.net@bsky.brid.gy @bmann.ca@bsky.brid.gy @laurenshof@indieweb.social @quillmatiq@mastodon.social @mackuba@martianbase.net Iโm confused by your use of โthenโ. What in my statement relates to bridging services? If you need a bridge to communicate with something, then it doesnโt speak the protocol natively. If you donโt, then it does.
Anuj Ahooja
