Because the protocol doesn't support private data, Blacksky is launching a bunch of features in a centralized (Blacksky-only) way, including mutes and private posts.
-
@jdp23 I shan't beat this drum at you too much, but, they did have $30 million to do that with. I suspect things would be a lot better here if we had that kind of cash.
Hell, if I could go full time developing fedi software, I absolutely would.
@jdp23 @noracodes the good moving UIs over there are all third party so they haven't even spent any money on it, they're using volunteer labor
(but part of it is, really, that the protocol makes it quite easy)
-
@jdp23 @noracodes the good moving UIs over there are all third party so they haven't even spent any money on it, they're using volunteer labor
(but part of it is, really, that the protocol makes it quite easy)
-
@jdp23 @noracodes fuck it, I'll help fund it if there's a way to
-
Because the protocol doesn't support private data, Blacksky is launching a bunch of features in a centralized (Blacksky-only) way, including mutes and private posts.
These are good features, and it's great that they're building them, but it frustrates me that Blacksky is constrained by the protocol from making them participate in any of the benefits of the ATProto system such as account portability.
@noracodes permissioned data is on Bluesky PBC's Q1 roadmap, per today's office hours stream. Private data that's shared directly between PDS and an App is relatively simple (that already exists with the preferences API, but I'd guess they'd make something more lexicon aware)
Bluesky is also getting drafts imminently: https://github.com/bluesky-social/atproto/pull/4549 / https://github.com/bluesky-social/social-app/pull/9691
-
@noracodes permissioned data is on Bluesky PBC's Q1 roadmap, per today's office hours stream. Private data that's shared directly between PDS and an App is relatively simple (that already exists with the preferences API, but I'd guess they'd make something more lexicon aware)
Bluesky is also getting drafts imminently: https://github.com/bluesky-social/atproto/pull/4549 / https://github.com/bluesky-social/social-app/pull/9691
@noracodes it should be noted that blacksky's drafts aren't federated either.
-
@jdp23 I shan't beat this drum at you too much, but, they did have $30 million to do that with. I suspect things would be a lot better here if we had that kind of cash.
Hell, if I could go full time developing fedi software, I absolutely would.
@noracodes @jdp23
Also, the specific task of rehoming data is borderline trivial when all of the documents are public, immutable, and self authenticating. -
@jdp23 I shan't beat this drum at you too much, but, they did have $30 million to do that with. I suspect things would be a lot better here if we had that kind of cash.
Hell, if I could go full time developing fedi software, I absolutely would.
Agreed about the funding difference, but in this case the nice UIs were actually developed by an independent developers (who has a ko-fi) and by Blacksky. It's the same dynamic as here, the dominant platform doesn't really have an incentive to make the migration all that smooth.
-
@noracodes not sure, i think they might be implementing their own appview from scratch?
Agreed that local-only posts should migrate between PDSs. Bluesky says they're working on private data this year and depending what the implementation is that might support something like that. Rudy doesn't want to be in a situation where he has to wait for that so is going the appview route for now, will potentially migrate it later.
It is odd, an artifact of AT Proto basically being all-public, so anything non-public has to be tucked in somewhere. I'm skeptical as to how well they can shoehorn private data into it, and even if it's there at the protocol level it's not clear to me what the challenges will be to making it usable in practice.
@jdp23 @noracodes I think I disagree about migrating local-only posts. I can think of a number of scenarios where that would violate people's expectations around "local-only" in potentially unsafe ways.
-
@jdp23 @noracodes I think I disagree about migrating local-only posts. I can think of a number of scenarios where that would violate people's expectations around "local-only" in potentially unsafe ways.
Quite possibly, it really depends on the semantics and implementation of "private data". Hmm, I wonder how this works with ActivityPods?
-
@noracodes @jdp23
Also, the specific task of rehoming data is borderline trivial when all of the documents are public, immutable, and self authenticating.A fair point that it's eassier. I don't actually think it's trivial once you take different jurisdictions rules for illegal content, and different moderation policies, into account ... but currently nobody does so at least for now that's kind of a moot point.
-
A fair point that it's eassier. I don't actually think it's trivial once you take different jurisdictions rules for illegal content, and different moderation policies, into account ... but currently nobody does so at least for now that's kind of a moot point.
@jdp23 @noracodes
I guess? Like, sure, deciding whether you should move some data, and to where, and whether to accept it, are very much not trivial. But people do routinely choose to do that. So that feels like a very peripheral concern
