Notices by bryan newbold (bnewbold@social.coop), page 2

@pluralistic that is still the situation: there is not a serious peer service provider operating those services in the network for the microblogging modality.

there is nothing preventing it: we support adversarial interop in the live network today, but no "adversary" has emerged.

hobbyists have run full-scale components as proofs of concept. there are fully independent apps (like smokesignals and whtwnd), and independent projects which index/store the full network (like clearsky)

@cwebber @stefan
for what it is worth, have always found your writing and critique on all this very insightful and productive!

@pluralistic yes!

moreover, those 100k followers would probably not even realize you changed service providers. you can use your own domain (which you own) as a handle. the authority for your content is you, not the service provider, so all your old content (in threads, interactions) continue to just work.

@pluralistic it is confusing to read this because we have done basically everything you propose in the AT Protocol, and it has been live in the network for a long time now. ensuring that service migration is easy and seamless is truely seamless is literally one of the reasons we did *not* use ActivityPub.

You can read how easy the process is here:
https://whtwnd.com/bnewbold.net/entries/Migrating%20PDS%20Account%20with%20%60goat%60

On, I would mention, and independently run blogging service built on atproto! which bsky can't exclude/control

@chadkoh @pluralistic oh, no way! very excited Doctorow will be there.

I'm a co-author with Martin and will probably be the person traveling down and presenting in person.

@evan @hallenbeck
We have brought some of our work to the W3C community, including the recent TPAC meeting:
https://social.coop/@bnewbold/113199431948755006
I've had a Bluesky-affiliated W3C account for some time, and just joined the SocialCG just now (I thought I had done this previously, but apparently had only signed up for the mailing list)

@hallenbeck @evan

other folks have raised similar concerns in the past. you can see an open and and collaborative conversation from October 2023, resulting in license changes in November 2023:
https://github.com/bluesky-social/atproto-website/issues/218

@evan @mmasnick I would be more than happy to talk with folks from SWF or W3C if they share this specific concern about Bluesky exploiting patents on social web technology, and what we can do to allay those concerns.

The norm in this space is to participate in a standards body, and it remains our intention to do so.

@evan @mmasnick when you raised patent concerns to me in person on March 2024, I took them very seriously! which is why I reached out and had a direct call with you about your concerns that same month.

"Right now, you're putting everyone in the space at risk" is a strong statement and accusation of wrong doing on our behalf.

@evan @mmasnick Evan, as you and I have discussed directly in the past, all of the atproto specifications and core implementations are under free and open licenses. Specifically, MIT and Apache 2.0 dual-licensing, with Apache 2.0 providing patent protection. Furthermore, Patents have public record, and anybody can confirm we have not filed for any.

Neither you nor I are lawyers, but I don't think there are any grounds to spread fear/uncertainty/doubt about atproto and patents.

@arcanicanis @by_caballero @silverpill @erlend (glad to re-connect!)

i'm not sure I understand the advantage of leaning in to DID URLs instead of creating a new URI scheme (eg, fedi://).

it would be great if we could get WHATWG to allow DIDs in the authority section of URLs, at least non-HTTP URLs. I haven't started that conversation yet, but could be helpful for a bunch of DID-using projects.

curious to hear about how did:fedi resolution would work! aka how to discover authoritative server

@evan @everton137 bummed that you have such a negative public take on atproto and Bluesky and see it as antagonistic and "dangerous".

I have a huge respect for ActivityPub and the folks involved, including you. I think we are all working towards the same goals, there is no final word on protocols/architecture/governance/regulation in this space, and that there is a lot of room for collaboration.

@evan oh gosh! So sorry to hear this, painful on many levels. So glad you are still with us and with loved ones.

@silverpill @erlend @cmdrmoto PLC today works with centralized servers for convenience, but it doesn't have to stay that way. the core of the method is self-certifying identities, and that info could be distributed any number of ways.

I gave a talk recently about PLC and ways to de-centralize it more while staying backwards compatible (video, transcript, slides):
https://fission.codes/blog/fission-tech-talks-bluesky-and-plc/

@silverpill @erlend @cmdrmoto folks are totally welcome to do mirrors and alternative deployments or forks or whatever they want. there is an audit log to facilitate this

@silverpill @erlend @cmdrmoto "permissioned consortium" could in theory be a blockchain of some kind, but are more interested in a transparency log like Certificate Transparency, particularly the recent more efficient "tile" implementation work by Let's Encrypt

@silverpill @marcua how would key rotation work with did:apkey (based on did:key)? not allowing for key rotation feels a bit brittle for a longer-term identity.

@cwebber @ehashman @lathamgreen I think we are not handling activitypub/bluesky communication well.

part of this is that many of us on the team see ourselves as coming from a different lineage, that of scuttlebutt and dat://. merkel-dag-verse, not W3C-verse. which is a much smaller community, granted, but a pretty thoughtful and values-driven. it feels like we are stemming from that work closer towards activitypub; and that we will all inevitably be sythensized together by a future successor

@filippo the user experience of ad blockers is what I aspire to for shared/collective blocklists. vast majority of folks stick with defaults, but you can go as granular as you want. good transparency and UX for overrides. would also want flow for "reporting" to specific blocklist maintainers.
providers could do keyword filters, instance-level, etc, in addition to user-specific blocks