Reading this article, and especially the end …

CEO Jay Graber told The Verge that the plan is to hand over control of the AT protocol to a web standards body like the Internet Engineering Task Force.

… it almost sounds as if Bluesky is (going to be) as community-run as Mastodon.

But I’m suspicious. What is the catch?

  • KurtVonnegut@mander.xyzOP
    3·
    5 days ago

    What are the most important “points of control” that, in the case of Bluesky, are in the hands of this one company, and in the case of Mastodon (or the Fediverse at large?), are in the hands of the community?

    It appears that on Bluesky, similar to Mastodon, you can start your own server by now. But on Bluesky you’re not (yet) able to have other users sign up to that server? And you can’t have your own moderation rules on your own server (yet)?

    If I would start my own Bluesky server, and a friend does as well, would our ability to communicate be somehow still at the mercy of choices by the Bluesky company?

    What is the practical difference between the AT protocol being controlled by a (public benefit) corporation, and it being controlled by a web standards body?

    Disclaimer: I’m not a secret Bluesky fanboy. I just want to have the arguments ready to convince friends to not join Bluesky, and join Mastodon instead.