There’s a debate raging over in the Bluesky world about whether or not infrastructure providers on ATprotocol should be neutral carriers or if people running things like PDS servers should be able to choose who they host.
It’s an interesting read and worth thinking about. From a Nostr perspective it’s like arguing for a custodial system then being upset at the power dynamics that exist because of that.
I’m curious what folks think. I think the poster kicked a hornets nest, not understanding how communities of users react to being told what they should or shouldn’t do with their own servers.
Thoughts?
https://gist.github.com/burningtree/d4aa172470293bdf2939c993cf48bbd4
Pushing for enforced common carriage (Title II style) on PDS operators misses the point of portability and competing providers. Those obligations only apply where users have no real alternative.
If you can switch PDSes or self-host without losing anything, operators get reciprocal choice too.
Take that away and you don't achieve neutrality; you just swap voluntary communities for coerced ones.
Mutual and multiple selection is the real check on power here.
No replies yet.
