I wouldn’t call it fake, but the concern is about who created, maintains, and/or controls the protocol
ActivityPub was developed by W3C, and it’s properly decentralized. For Atproto, the concern is that Bluesky will exert control over the protocol once shareholders and profit get in the way of making a good product.
Last I heard they were discussing potentially moving the necessary registry/directory to a separate non-profit “like ICANN”, but even with that they seemed noncommittal about it.
I’d love to see more diversity in the federated space. Competition and iterative development is how we make things better. But I need Bluesky to take those necessary steps before I feel comfortable endorsing it over ActivityPub
https://atproto.com/guides/applications
You can use atproto to build other federated applications.
Just because one implementation of atproto (bluesky) doesn’t have feature parity, doesn’t mean it’s a fake federated protocol.
‘actual fediverse’ and ‘bluesky fediverse’ doesn’t make sense as a comparison.
It’s more like, ActivityPub vs ATProto.
https://github.com/bluesky-social/atproto
Bluesky is just one implementation of the protocol, that implementation happens to have a lot of steam, but it’s not fake or anything.
I wouldn’t call it fake, but the concern is about who created, maintains, and/or controls the protocol
ActivityPub was developed by W3C, and it’s properly decentralized. For Atproto, the concern is that Bluesky will exert control over the protocol once shareholders and profit get in the way of making a good product.
Last I heard they were discussing potentially moving the necessary registry/directory to a separate non-profit “like ICANN”, but even with that they seemed noncommittal about it.
I’d love to see more diversity in the federated space. Competition and iterative development is how we make things better. But I need Bluesky to take those necessary steps before I feel comfortable endorsing it over ActivityPub