FR version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
59% Positive
Analyzed from 6550 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#atproto#instances#bluesky#more#app#don#relays#apps#moderation#mastodon
Discussion (110 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
I feel like you've (perhaps purposefully?) misinterpreted "instances" just to plug ATProto specifically at the expense of ActivityPub (and RSS, a bit). I think you lower yourself by doing this:
1. it forces you to omit and contort the interesting technical truths about ATProto and Activitypub, like Relays and their pros/cons for ATProto and account migrations and pros/cons for ActivityPub
2. it creates unnecessary conflict and criticism and seems unnecessarily divisive for 2 platforms solving problems in such a similar space
It's also just seems a bit silly: why would you assume that when someone asks "where are the instances?" they're not using the common mainstream use of the word "instances", like, servers, or running software, or VMs, or containers?
Sorry if this is overly harsh or I've misunderstood, but it gives me a strong vibe that it was motivated by disdain and frustration towards ActivityPub and ActivityPub users rather than wanting to legitimately inform the world about ActivityPub.
I did enjoy the diagrams and the explainers though! I just felt like the subtle digs and pops at activitypub were an unnecessary distraction.
Of course depends on the context, but in a lot of discussions about ATProto, ActivityPub, Mastodon and nearby areas, people talk about "instances" as in "ActivityPub instances that host my data and my profile uses its URL as a 'name'". The blog post is specifically for that context I think.
It's less about trying to hide around the issue, and more reframing how you see the concepts, as people start to associate words with concepts and structures. So when people talk about "decentralized social media", lots of people think about ActivityPub, which typically (always?) has a kind of federated architecture, and the instance is one of those nodes in the network. When these people see ATProto, instinctively (and perhaps rightly so) they literally ask "But why is there only one Bluesky instance that people join?" as those concepts map close to what they know.
Overall I think the post is a good and useful addition to the discourse, with perhaps not a completely novel perspective, but posted publicly for future reference when this inevitably gets asks again sometime in the future, specifically for the people who have these previous associations already formed in their head.
Swarms of content.
Cryptographic identities and content signing/attribution.
Cryptographic hashes for content uniqueness/immutability.
Immutability in general.
Ephemerality (content lives as long as some node cares to retain it, otherwise it gets forgotten).
Concrete but extensible ontology for core concepts.
You don't need login. You don't need to agree on a common platform. 3rd party tools and extensions can filter content, provide trust graphs, interest graphs, etc.
You can just slurp up and score whatever might interest you. Your agent or algorithm might do pre-filtering against your preferred heuristics to downsample to relevancy.
My article was an attempt to dig at this specific misunderstanding by comparing it to "But where are Google Reader instances?" which I think illustrates its absurdity. I genuinely do think that the two pictures I provide close to the end clear this up in a way a lot of early atproto/ActivityPub discussions completely gloss over.
Re: Relays, I wrote here on why I didn't include them: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48600963. They're kind of incidental perf optimizations rather than essential to the model. In the post, I wanted to focus on the model.
What I hoped to read in the article is how we approach topics like centralization, censorship, moderation, data ownership--and with a technical lens. But I feel like all I got was "here's why instances are the wrong vocabulary" without substantively talking about the part I personally care about and want to marry the technical understanding with. Maybe I just read too shallowly and need to sit with it.
If you ask a list of specific questions, that would help a lot. I might be able to write something or reply inline here.
I completely agree with the point in your link that relays are different to instances - I love architectures involving dumb-relay or zero-trust type nodes. But I think Relays should still be mentioned in your post, since they're probably the main architectural element which protect PDS instances from the scale issues heavily federated AP instances might face, right? (I only have a high level understanding of ATProto and very little experience with AP, happy to be told I just need to learn more for this to make sense.)
Even if it’s not open source, anyone who wants to write the code can still get it back up with all public data intact.
I think it’s a substantial difference with “takes the whole thing down”. Can we acknowledge that?
Instead of decrees over the "filioque" we get blog posts about the definition of "federation" where both parties talk past each other.
I'm not saying ATProto is bad at all, but I feel like this blog post adds more confusion than it clarifies anything.
While relays are among the more intensive parts of AT Protocol infrastructure, their cost of operation is still something most people can afford: approximately $30/mo now. What is truly expensive and difficult is something that will be immutably so regardless of how centralized or decentralized you are: moderation.
The author of this piece wrote about this common misconception about relays 9 months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45077291#45078223
As the blog mentions, the big improvement vs Mastodon is that Relays, AppViews and PDSes are separate services with their own distinct scaling demands. It's a rather beautiful solution to a system design problem.
[1] https://atproto.com/guides/glossary
https://docs.bsky.app/blog/blueskys-moderation-architecture#...
However there is very little incentive to mirror any of the firehouse if someone else is doing it for free.
Bluesky doesn't normally work that way - everything in the PDS gets replicated. They are also encouraging people to put put full blog posts in the PDS for easy replication. So, anyone who wants to index it gets a copy and you have no control over what they do.
You don't have to do it that way, though. You can publish your blog on your own website and just publish links to it on Bluesky.
How does this differ from scrapers hitting the blog directly?
With a PDS, the replication happens first, before anyone reads it, and the UI is out of your control.
Maybe that’s okay, but people should understand the tradeoffs.
But I also found it a little frustrating, because it answered one part of the question but failed to answer the question so what does ATProto do to solve the problems that instances solve?
For example, when this article dismisses defederation as merely a mysterious reason you might not see posts from your friends, it fails to answer "so how does atproto solve the problems that defederation solves?". Because the default reasonable answer to assume, given this framing, is "it doesn't".
At the hosting level, the hosting you use will likely ban you for clearly illegal stuff. Same as blogspot dot com or Cloudflare could ban you for certain things.
At the application level, application admins/mods would moderate as any app does. This is similar to running any web service today with user generated content. It’s up to app developers to choose. Apps can also provide primitives for userland moderation, like Reddit does, or even ability to plug your own extra moderation services (which Bluesky allows). But again, this is largely how it works on any app with user-generated content.
There’s no “defederation” because there’s no analog of “community instances” that may fight with each other. There’s hosting, there’s apps, and there’s app-level moderation that works according to each app’s developer’s choices.
Does this help clarify it?
This is the part I would be looking for, in an article talking about "there are no instances". Is there a standard protocol for this, so that anyone can spin up a shared moderation service that people can subscribe to if they're aligned with it, and be able to plug that into any standard app built on the protocol (not just Bluesky-the-company's app)? Or is this something specific to Bluesky-the-company?
If this is a standardized part of the protocol, then that answers the question of "how does ATProto solve the same problems defederation solves".
There are several other things I can think of in the category of "how do you solve the problems that ActivityPub uses instances to solve", but they're things I've already asked in other parts of this thread, namely "how do you make the parts of the system not shown in the tidy hosts->apps M:N graph decentralized, too".
Of course, nothing stops an app from doing moderation differently and not using any of that. This is more for better composability and interoperability.
The better way to ask this is, how does ActivityPub solve the problems that defederation causes? It's essentially the thing Microsoft does with email. Discard messages from all but the largest providers, defederate by default, forcing users to use Microsoft or another major incumbent if they want their messages to be delivered. Then new instances can't have their messages delivered, therefore can't get users. Which is obviously a perverse incentive for the major incumbents to not federate with new instances.
It's an architectural choice that has the long-term effect of cementing an oligopoly.
Meanwhile the claim is that it's necessary to prevent spam, but there are other providers that don't do this, e.g. in general you can deliver to Gmail as long as you have DKIM and reverse DNS etc. configured correctly, and those providers don't have any more of a spam problem than the ones who block innocent small servers by default.
Moreover, there is an obvious way to do this without giving the major instances a perverse incentive. You do the filtering on the client so that the filter list(s) you use are provided by something in the nature of uBlock rather than something in the nature of Microsoft, since the former doesn't operate any instances and therefore isn't trying to pressure everyone to use theirs.
I’m running an atproto app and it’s perfectly capable of ingesting the entire firehouse as it comes in. It costs me maybe $10/mo and mostly because I haven’t fixed some memory leaks.
Of course, few of records that come through are relevant to my app so I don’t store them.
If I wanted to store gigabytes of records (like Bluesky) for millions of users forever then yes it would be more expensive. Which would be the case with any tech! What are you comparing it to? How is this a downside of atproto?
Mastodon instances aren’t a valid comparison point because by definition they’re small-world. They don’t serve millions of users.
If your point is that you want small-world atproto, that’s absolutely possible. Take the Bluesky server codebase and make it so that it ignores incoming content beyond some criteria (like “follows of server member list”). You can recreate Mastodon experience on atproto, it just hasn’t been very interesting to anyone so far AFAIK.
At least that's how I understand it, because running an AP node is much more accessible to regular selfhosters than running one of those content relays in AT.
So all you'll ever "decentralize" in AT is your own data, it's more about owning your data rather than collectively owning a part of the network.
And we've been over this many times before on HN.
With ActivityPub, because running an instance requires hosting the data, the application, and dealing with all the subsequent scaling challenges, you kinda have to choose between being taking on active ops responsibilities or tying yourself to someone else's instance (which will probably be one of the bigger, more centralized ones).
If you decide you don't like an instance you picked and decide to move (unless things have changed) you're kinda stuck needing to start fresh.
With AtProto, it's trivial to jump ship to a different application platform and continue using your same identity. Exporting your data from a platform and self-hosting is a bit of a UX challenge, but at least it's possible.
As an example, I recently started using Tangled for the first time and was able to login using my existing bsky-backed domain (h14h.com). No need to create a new account or pick a new username -- it was as if I were already there. Then getting set up w/ self-hosting my git repos on a VPS was an afternoon of work at most, and it's just some backend service chugging away that I almost never have to think about.
The worst that will ever happen is I see a banner message in tangled.org saying something like "your repo is out of date and may be compatible with the latest version of Tangled", which I can solve by simply rebuilding & redeploying a docker image w/ the latest versions.
Granted, AtProto is definitely harder to wrap your head around architecturally. But actually interfacing it with a user is much simpler, IMO.
AT doesn’t just give consistency, but a shared data model across apps. So apps can reference and render content from other apps. It’s really kind of like a web of typed JSON. Different apps are lenses through which you can see the same network. Anyone can build new experiences on top of old data. There’s nothing remotely equivalent in AP.
AP couples data to apps. In AT, it’s more like there’s one global database with entire world’s data that every app can query.
I don’t understand why the discussion always bumps into Relays. Running a Relay if you want to is cheap-ish ($30/mo) these days. There’s multiple existing ones (Bluesky or community) you can use for free. And many apps don’t use one at all and rely on community indexes like Constellation (https://constellation.microcosm.blue/). Some don’t even run their own server or database.
FWIW, in the AP world there are several individuals and small teams running relays/mirrors/caches/AppViews and so on -- but you're right that this could get more expensive as things grow.
I mostly skipped over it because a Relay is an optimization and not essential to the shape of the network. It's not a fundamental element in the same way that PDS (hosting) and AppViews (app servers) are. It's more like a "next reasonable thing" an engineer would bolt on to make it easy to create apps.
An app can work without a Relay (like https://reddwarf.app/ does). There are caches like Constellation (https://constellation.microcosm.blue/) that you can just query directly.
A Relay is not an "instance" in any meaningful sense because it is a dumb retransmitter. It is cheap to run one, and it is easy to pool them between multiple apps. (Fun fact for nerds: the Relay's API for subscriptions is literally the same as a single server's. So a Relay is kind of a facade for "a bunch of servers" that lets you listen to their events combined.)
Early on (more than a year ago), running a Relay used to be more expensive because any Relay was expected to store the entire network archive. This is no longer a part of the contract, but a lot of discussions still reference or assume that. The current cost of running your own Relay (if you don't want to pool with anyone) is about $30/month. There are community-run Relays like https://firehose.network/ that you can use too.
I wonder why you are vagueposting here instead of stating your position firmly. Maybe because you are afraid to be shown wrong, but who knows ?
It's not centralized in any way that matters. The Relay Bluesky uses is open source, you can run your own for $30/month if you really insist on doing that, it's trivial to pool between multiple apps if you want to lower costs, and there are already a few independent ones you can just use directly now, for example:
- https://pdsls.dev/firehose?instance=wss%3A%2F%2Fatproto.afri...
- https://pdsls.dev/firehose?instance=wss%3A%2F%2Feurope.fireh...
The one down side of the system is the cost. It's cheap to host a PDS but expensive for other components. Users could not relies on "someone" for running those components for free forever.
The difference is that it's easy to scale ATProto AppViews up beyond the reach of their users. It can scale down though. It is not easy to scale ActivityPub instances up beyond the scope of the people who use it, and it would probably be way more expensive if you tried.
- Relay as an optimization. That's cheap-ish ($30/mo) or free-ish if you pool with others.
- Your own app server. That's on par with normal web apps as long as you can keep a socket open. What's expensive is if the app you're making is a fully capable copy of Bluesky itself with gigabytes of existing posts — but is that the app you're making? The economics here are identical to normal web app stuff.
It feels almost "Freudian" to claim a thing is decentralized and then by analogy keep pointing to a massive (social) centralization of a decentralized ecosystem as a good thing. But especially one that we already know the ending for. Google Reader united a lot of RSS houses, value added a social graph and social commentary between them, and then at the whims of executives Google Reader fell and nearly killed RSS, but certainly destroyed an impressive social graph.
As an analogy that doesn't give me a lot of confidence in ATProto.
So in this analogy, anyone would be able to bring Google Reader back to life or compete while using that same graph.
That’s actually how http://leaflet.pub works now if you’re curious.
My concern isn't technology or culture, it's money. At the moment, ATProto is existentially dependent on Bluesky PBC, a venture-funded startup ($100M from Bain Capital). There are people doing good work to make it more decentralized, more power to them, but at the moment it's still deeply centralized. And it's hard to see what the business model is that will support what Bsky PBC does at a global scale. Eventually Bain will want to see a revenue stream that justifies their investment; maybe there's a way to do that that doesn't involve enshittification but it's certainly not obvious.
You can dislike the instance-centeredness of Fedi/Masto (seems to have worked OK for email over the decades) but it's an actual thing that's actually working. And offers account migration without losing followers if you don't like the instance you're on. And has multiple really excellent client software packages. And seems to be covering its costs through a mixture of Patreon, co-operative & nonprofits, some Euro-gov help, all without any VC input. It can't be bought or owned by anybody.
Put another way, this is a really interesting space. But the technology is less interesting than the culture, and the culture is less interesting than the m money.
THANK YOU. It seems like far too few in this space really understand the benefits of actual decentralization.
ATProto feels like "centralized, except also we get other people to do the hard work with few of the benefits."
*: Not an .xyz, has proper SPF and DKIM records
There's only one PLC directory.
There's very few full relays (edit: appviews), none that I'm aware of that don't mirror bluesky censorship/moderation decisions.
- Re: PLC directory, indeed, there is only one of those. I think this is a legit point but it's worth considering the whole point of PLC directory is to be the single minimal stateless open source part that lifts identities out of apps and hostings. PLC governance and maintenance is being spun out into a Swiss organization (https://atproto.com/blog/plc-directory-org). Longer term the idea is for it to have a similar role to ICANN. Here's more on that: https://youtu.be/9z0z-Qu66yM?si=_8Dcw1M3VSKFGZhm&t=493
- Re: full Relays, they're easy/cheap to run, and you can run one yourself if you think the other ones are coordinating with Bluesky and don't trust their decisions. You don't need to depend on something else to do that.
And since that sounds like a massive centralization problem, how do we have a dozen more of them with independent governance that aren't all controlled by either the same legal entity or by whoever has legal leverage to compel that entity?
I get that it’s not ideal but I think it’s worth keeping in mind that there’s not much you can mess up with it other than refusing to update requests. The threat model is very limited and it would immediately be obvious that this is happening, killing the credibility.
Bluesky's moderation actions are generally implemented as moderation labels which take effect at the AppView level. Sometimes they'll take down someone's PDS or censor from their relays, but I don't believe third-party relays are aware of those relay takedowns at all.
I personally think that this actually leads to healthier communities but that may be a matter of taste!
Also here: https://overreacted.io/a-social-filesystem/#links
TLDR: at the hosting layer, it's like <a href> links, but in JSON. Links can refer to other person's repo (even if it's hosted somewhere else). And then apps index everything, so they can present a coherent aggregated view (like a post thread).
ATProto making some idealistic compromises to improve the protocol as a product is a more effective half-court shot at the winning users from the oligarchy of apps than AP will ever be with its current design.
There’s a lot of talent in this community that could be spent building an ecosystem around the protocol far more likely to make a dent in social media centralization, but we’re stuck letting perfect be the enemy of the good.
Whoever operates hosting can decide to ban someone from hosting. This isn't different from how Cloudflare would ban you for hosting something illegal.
Whoever operates an app can decided to ban someone from that app. This isn't different from how a forum moderator can ban you for something they don't like.
Whoever operates services in the middle may decide to ban someone for network spam/abuse, same as cloud services may do if you abuse their limits.
You can always try to host your stuff elsewhere, and you can always access the same network from another app whose decisions you prefer.
So it's basically same as usual on the internet, but each role is separate, and you can mix and match what works for you.
Which host?
So when this happens where do we go? Forget about "instance brain", your problem is Bluesky is vastly more centralized in practice than the theoretical marketing. Because if it was truly practically decentralized you could actually point to numerous instances of the service, but last time I raised this point there were... 3. Except one of them was actually not running the full appview and we weren't 100% sure the other one was either.
I'm sorry man, but this isn't going to cut it. A lot of people are absolutely right to not be sold on ATProto as it stands: there is no obvious reason to believe it will become more meaningfully decentralized over time rather than less. As it grows larger, the feasibility of having more "instances" that can run completely independently of Bluesky PBC becomes even less plausible.
If over 99% of the users are using Bluesky PBC infrastructure and placeholder DIDs, almost all of the keys to the kingdom lie in one place, and at that point you have invented Twitter with a ridiculous number of extra steps.
Can you explain to me why I would ever run my own PDS? Why would I pay to selfhost stuff while allowing someone to control almost everything I can see and do?
Unfortunately, this will never get answered. It's very easy to write a long blog post explaining how ATProto is technically decentralized. It's much harder to unpack how it actually isn't really.
Blacksky is literally the only such example of alternative infrastructure that I know of, and obviously, it will not be applicable to the vast majority of people. Given the rising cost of hosting combined with the fact that the compute needs of running appviews and relays should theoretically only go up, I have a strong feeling that there will not be a lot more of them, either. It's already bigger than ActivityPub I believe and we're in the very low single digits at best.
Meanwhile, if we really did get a lot of these instances, then it really begs the question what the actual benefit of Bluesky's ATProto architecture is: if someone is banned on Bluesky and not Blacksky... won't users see a totally different view of the world? Isn't that the same problem ActivityPub sees? How does this really differ from defederation in practice?
> What is a better solution you’d like to see? I think it’s reasonable that there’s a market between these and if there’s enough demand, another app server can become popular.
If I knew how to fix this, I would probably be trying to help rather than criticizing ATProto. I don't think it can be fixed, so I don't have any suggestions.
> I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect that the apps shouldn’t be in control of their own moderation.
It kind of sounds like you're admitting that there is no real difference from a user standpoint with browsing to twitter.com vs bsky.app that have anything to do with decentralization.
I know I'm not going to win a popularity contest here, you don't even have to bother responding, honestly. But just being honest, I know you're a pretty intelligent person and the work you have done has benefited my life as a developer. I have a feeling deep down you also realize there is an inherent contradiction with Bluesky and ATProto's marketing pitch. I wish you would be honest about it.
The Fediverse has value specifically because of its downsides. A version of decentralized social media without those downsides inherently picks up almost all of the disadvantages of centralized social media. To me it seems apparent that all you can do is move the sliders around a bit, and Bluesky appears to net a very tiny percent of benefit from decentralization while bearing immense cost for it.
Bluesky users can interact with Blacksky users and vice versa unless Bluesky has applied moderation to the Blacksky user, because they are decentralized via ATproto. ~Twitter~ X users cannot interact with users on any other application, because X is not decentralized.
Open source. BlueSky + Mastodon + NOSTR. Advanced feed algorithm. 100% of the code base is open source (in 2 weeks). https://m.jfksocial.com/
It makes the feed rank algorithm metrics clearly visible on the right bar. People can confirm they aren't being censored or deboosted by seeing their own scores made transparent.
That’s not censorship. It’s showing you the door if you’re a jerk.
And it sounds awful.
"That's not you cheating. It's you looking for emotional fulfillment. And frankly? That's courage."
The ability to forever tie your stuff to a person, strongly, is exactly what the surveillance state would want.
Mastodon's model gives you plausible deniability. It's safer.
There's, of course, another sort of grossness to corporate moderation from above, but at least with ATProto you can take your identity and content to another AppView, if it wasn't shown there already. AFAIK, any fediverse migration tooling requires a cooperative host server you haven't already been banned from.
In BlueSky, there is only one single "AppView" instance in the entire network. There is one instantiated "Firehose". Each user can instance his own "PDS".
In ActivityPub/Mastadon, the instances are "sender's server" vs "receiver's server."
The difference isn't that there aren't "instances" in AT proto. It's just that the instances are segmented differently.
In atproto, you can swap hosting (without changing apps), and you can create and use different apps (without changing hosting). That's the thing you can't do in Mastodon because it hard-couples hosting + apps into monolithic "instances".
In Mastodon, "receiver" and "sender" talk to each other, as you say. In atproto, hosting servers never talk to one another. The data from them flows into apps.
You're right that there's often a firehose in the middle, but that's also misleading. There doesn't have to be one firehose — there's a bunch of community-ran ones. It's relatively cheap to run one yourself these days (about $30/mo). It's easy to pool them between apps. And many apps don't use Firehose at all, and instead query community indexes like Constellation (https://constellation.microcosm.blue/). So "one firehose" is misleading.
Running an AppView for your own app is not expensive at all. It can be as cheap as you want. It's only expensive if you want to store gigabytes of Bluesky posts and serve them to millions of users — i.e. if you want to build the full Bluesky AppView. But why would you want to build a Bluesky AppView? That's part of what I'm alluding to in my article — atproto isn't "for Bluesky". You can build any social app.
The problem is that that sounds like "you shouldn't want to compete with Bluesky". Which makes it dangerously centralized.