when I reviewed how the protocol that bluesky uses worked, I would say that it could offer decentralization, but the servers are like mini groups, where the network is only divided into parts and each person who hosts those servers is the one who has control of those groups, for example. so there the users are still subject to the rules that each server has, if you only change to another, you will not be free, it's just changing moderators.
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
Discussion
No replies yet.