This is buried toward the bottom of the release notes so I’m bringing it up here:

Added instance-level default sort type

Any admins out there considering changing their instance sort settings or asking people on their instance if they’d like this changed, given that we can individually set sorting anyway? Taking into account the inclination of people to never adjust default settings (I remain deeply curious about this tendency, as an aside), I think it might be worth at least bringing up to one’s instance community.

If they decide they want it to remain the same, all good, and even better, it raises some people’s awareness that they can change it themselves.

Appreciate the adjustments and responsiveness! Gave it another try after this and the different formatting hit the spot! Still need to use more to see more finely tuned results, but dig the idea.

Also as others have already said plenty, would be cool to see this cleaned up for an open source release. If you’d like to see how some others are handling a sorta similar idea but with RSS feeds, you might look to Nunti for ideas on how to approach it.

Little feedback on the UI from taking a peek at this.

When I went into settings and adjusted post display style from card to anything else, it wasn’t clear to me that this wouldn’t apply to the new For You feed, which left me confused and less inclined to use it. I still gave it a try to make sure I wasn’t missing anything and to see how much the feed seemed to change with some light interaction, but I think you’d need to use it more than I did to see an effect.

Problem being: display settings not applying to the For You feed means I’m not going to use it much with the default card view.

Second part is that there was some comment display lag as I looked through posts, so if I looked at a post about cats with cat-related comments, those comments would linger and appear for a moment under a different post about possums. It’s just long enough to be noticeable, so thought it worth mentioning.

At a glance, Misskey and associated forks may appear to be Twitter-clones, but dig a little more and you’ll find they’re a lot more, for better and worse.

The interface is highly customizable, not just with some different colored themes nor a multi-column interface, but that you can stack page elements in columns and set up “antennae” or filters to surface posts including specified keywords and/or hashtags while excluding others via keywords/hashtags as well. There’s also what they call “channels” which I think are sort of like groups or dedicated topics apart from hashtags to post to and discuss whatever the channel topic is.

Oh, and because it seems *key wants to have a little of everything, there’s Pages, which is basically longform blog posting, and some versions include simple games. There’s also options for some other widgets I’ve not mentioned here. It’s genuinely pretty wild compared to the other federated microblogging services with how much flexibility it has and all that it has packed in.

I think the only other federated service I’ve found that’s comparable in flexibility may be Hubzilla, albeit I got the impression it’s less user friendly, but still, very customizable and a lot you could do with it.

That still doesn’t touch upon the negative to tethering users identity to instances.

Sorry, I should have been clearer. What I was trying to point to was that despite the portability of identity, the fact that you may still be highly reliant on the Bluesky relay (or frankly, any large relay), tethers your identity to them as without the relays there’s kind of no point to having a personal server at all.

Moreover, given the reference model provided via the Bluesky App, there’s a good chance you’ll run into similar arrangements on the AuthTransfer protocol where personal servers and appviews are joined together to essentially create instances (or entryway services I think they call them). One of the remaining distinctions from this entryway instance arrangement and ActivityPub then would be which relay or relays your entryway instance connects to.

Lastly I understand what you mean about people bouncing off Mastodon, but at the same time you kinda lose me here. You clearly mention the Fediverse preceding Mastodon yet then conclude with people having a bad experience with Mastodon meaning the rest of the Fediverse isn’t for them…? We’re using another variation of the Fediverse and ActivityPub here, so we’re both aware there’s more to it than that, even in the microblogging space, so I’m kind of confused on this point.

Nevertheless, I otherwise agree, it’s good that people have more alternatives to get away from the trashfire Twitter’s become (arguably even more of).

use[r] identities are not tethered to instances

Tbh while this is technically true, given the current circumstances, identities essentially are tethered albeit in a roundabout way. What I mean by that is, there’s no real point to them* without some relay and appview to work with, and for now, that’s just Bluesky.

That said, I agree that it would be better to go to them than to Twitter (if they’re not even considering stuff like Mastodon), but that’s a low hurdle to clear.

*-A caveat, supposedly it could be possible for personal data servers to connect to each other directly instead of via relays, but I haven’t come across anyone having tried this yet.

Oh! Thanks for the notice! I swear I think the spoiler stuff may have changed at some point, but maybe I’ve been handling it wrong this whole time.

I’ve also not really wanted to use horizontal rules because of it turning things into headings, but haven’t found a better way to put some spacing between the end of lists and the rest of a post’s text. I think I’ve corrected it properly now to be less jank.

Idea is that eventually others will be able to build atop their protocol and set up different “appviews” as they call them as well as relays and personal data servers. As I understand it, “appviews” may be viewed similar to what Lemmy and Mastodon are to ActivityPub, different ways to view data passed through ActivityPub.

Right now I think Bluesky may be the only such “appview” for their protocol parsing data from their relay, but the idea is you could spin up your own personal data server and maybe also your own appview, or choose from whichever may eventually exist, and that would be like your own “instance” connecting you to others via the appview parsing relay data.

So in other words, sort of yes to your first question, and it’s sort of because right now there’s only one AuthTransfer relay at the moment and that’s Bluesky, but the idea is that others could be spun up, allowing more independence from Bluesky as a company.

Linkblocks definitely sounds interesting. I’ve never gotten into social bookmarking (keeping bookmarks on another site/platform…?), but I can see the draw for building knowledge-bases this way.

For the moment, a lot of the fun on some of the federated platforms is behind several steps of effort that many of the corporate platforms have streamlined people out of being accustomed to taking, which is part of why they’ve kept their larger audiences. If a single click/tap is too much, that’s enough to keep some people away from here.

It’s not a matter of laziness either, it’s more of, how much effort do I want to put into something that I’m using for casual entertainment? For many people it’s minimal, but many federated platforms currently don’t really work like that. They’ve arguably thrown the baby out with the bathwater in an overcorrection away from commercial algorithmic feeds since existing platforms have conditioned people to not have to put effort into finding silly/fun content.

The types of people to post won’t be as inclined to post if they find their posts aren’t reaching people because people mostly have to actively seek them out to engage with them at all. The types of people to more passively engage won’t be able to as easily as those posts they might engage with may never reach them because they mostly have to actively seek them out. The end result of a lack of feedback and content for both types of people, despite there being a possibility and existence of both for them, results in this recurring sense of dissatisfaction.

Note that this is written largely with Mastodon in mind, and to a lesser degree Lemmy. In Lemmy/Kbin/Mbin/PieFed/Sublinks’s cases I think they’re potentially better off in terms of structure and offering different ways to sort one’s feeds, but it’s a matter of more people joining to round out communities and discussion more.

Kind of hard to say given the structure of it. Going off the approximate data from FediDB’s charts, we may be looking at around 2 to 3 million more user accounts (around 8 million to 7.25 million), as compared with data from Stats for Bluesky of 5.24 million.

Although I’m not sure how each is measuring this, a better point of comparison may be active users and daily posters. FediDB uses the former, and shows about 940,000 to 920,000 active users, compared to Bluesky’s about 220,000~215,000 to 190~195,000 daily posters. The latter is honestly being kind of generous, as going off the data there posting has been declining. Interestingly liking has stayed somewhat higher, hovering between 240,000 to occasional peaks of 260,000 recently.

According to their CEO just before they opened registrations they had 1.6 million monthly users, so maybe if you run the numbers differently it looks better…But the raw stats don’t paint a great picture, at least as I read them.

Going off Join Mastodon’s servers page (under network health), we see a figure of 942,000 monthly active users, which would suggest Bluesky should arguably have slightly more activity going off the monthly active users figure, but… 🤷‍♀️

On one hand, I appreciate this a lot as it’s been baffling to me that this aspect of Zot wasn’t adopted during development of ActivityPub. On the other, I kind of feel like some of this forgets or overlooks the benefits of running fully separate identities.

I recognize that the article points to this easing that process in a way, but it’s pointing more to facets of a single identity, which benefits from some degree of interchangeability depending on those facets. This is clearest in the notion of retaining one’s connections with minimal disruption should one facet’s instance/host go offline for some reason, but also in it being relevant to maintain the same content between facets.

This has sort of also been the issue some see with the idea of federation and the fediverse itself. Some people enjoy the different styles of posting and interaction across different non-federated/linked sites/platforms, yet in some ways federation tends to blur or break those distinctions and try, sometimes clumsily, to blend it all together. For those all in on the idea, that’s a major bonus, but for those not sold on it, it’s a major pitfall.

In some respects I think this may kind of help those wanting to maintain different identity facets around here, but may also create a potential tripping point for those trying to more easily maintain distinct identities depending on implementation.

As I understand it so far:

I’m still not sure what I think of this to be honest, but I appreciate some more detail on how this is designed to operate on the frontend and the backend, e.g.

In the AT Protocol network, various services, such as the PDS, Relay, and AppView, have ultimate discretion over what content they carry, though it’s not the most straightforward avenue for content moderation. Services that are closer to users, such as the client and labelers, are designed to be more actively involved in community and content moderation.
[…]
Infrastructure providers such as Relays play a different role in the network, and are designed to be a common service provider that serves many kinds of applications. Relays perform simple data aggregation, and as the network grows, may eventually come to serve a wide range of social apps, each with their own unique communities and social norms. Consequently, Relays focus on combating network abuse and mitigating infrastructure-level harms, rather than making granular content moderation decisions.

(Emphasis mine.)

For sure, and I’m kinda hopeful too, for more personal sites of all sorts in general tbh.

It’s that technical part though that I think remains the big barrier for many, at least for those that want to more fully hold the reins over their online space.

Blogs are cool.

The whole setting up a website and justifying the cost for a public log/journal…Not so much. It’s still clunky and costly enough that it pushes people to platforms handling all the tech backend for them, whether nonprofit or for profit. I think if enough of the technical side were made less cumbersome (and this is from someone that’s okay with tech jank), then the financial costs wouldn’t be as much of a factor for many since for modest sites they’re already rather low.

Although if I’m overestimating site setup stuff, I’d love to read how. All the research I’ve done has been somewhat discouraging when it comes to handling hosting a site yourself (i.e. security concerns, traffic handling, etc.).

Unfortunately I remember during people moving from Reddit to Lemmy, several people on Mastodon trying to warn others away from doing so due to its lacking moderation tools, and some mainly focusing on the developers, both of which have proven to hold true in various ways.

However, at the time, there really weren’t all that many federated alternatives developed enough to go to. If memory serves Kbin was kinda scrambled out to meet the moment, and it’s been struggling along since then with its own issues. Aside from those, there were a couple centralized options with Tildes and Postmill being open source, but some were understandably wary of moving to yet another site with a centralized structure (and one of those closed source alternatives people did try out didn’t last long).

Now it’s kind of interesting as we see another open source centralized option developing (Discuit), Sublinks as you mention in your post, and also Piefed. It’s unfortunate that first there seems to have needed to be this rough proof of concept stage before more options appeared, but with any luck they may pave the way to better, more robust sites, and maybe give Lemmy some incentive to improve itself.

I’ve made plenty of attempts to “get into” Mastodon and can confidently say that’s a miserable experience across the board if you aren’t willing to do the work to curate your feed.

I honestly feel like this is applicable to any social media, federated or not, and could arguably even be extended to socializing in general, in terms of choosing one’s friends wisely. Technological or otherwise, navigating society is neither easy nor smooth sailing.

Although this is by no means to dismiss your experience, only to chip in with my own across different social media and otherwise. Finding one’s place among others, curating/filtering one’s connections, has always felt like a struggle to me no matter where I’ve found myself.

Bluesky feels like there is still too much data silo mentality behind the project, and the federation part seems more like a symbolic gesture than something that is meant to actually allow users their data freedoms?

I keep going back & forth on this tbh. I don’t think it’s merely symbolic, but I think it makes the same kind of mistake many tech-oriented people make in imagining that many people will know how or even want to run their own servers.

This is why towards the end I mention that I foresee the AuthTransfer protocol producing more or less similar platforms to the fediverse despite the differences in architecture. Supposing Bluesky continues apace with the release of their work, we may see something like an atproto.xyz that’s basically an independent microblogging service like Bluesky but with whatever custom adjustments they’ve made. The whole PDS idea will fade into the background as this independent service emulates the Bsky Social model of acting as a PDS entryway service and platform.

Any decentralized benefits many were intended to find via AuthTransfer’s PDSs will sort of end up falling to the wayside, which may be okay if you’re okay with that. At that point it’s just another distributed model though, and should be assessed on those grounds for whatever benefits or downsides it possesses compared to others.

Fwiw as I understand it data portability is possible without a custom domain, aside from your handle/name. A custom domain only seems necessary if you want to prove and maintain your identity across AuthTransfer services/platforms that permit/enable custom domains in handles. It’s basically a more direct form of the website verification one may find on federated platforms like Mastodon.

Without it you’d be jumping between subdomains and top-level domains in your username/handle similar to how you do so on ActivityPub platforms, i.e. @uniquename.bsky.social -> @uniquename.otherATprotoplatform.tld.