Note that accounts on both networks must follow the main bridge account to work.

  • Fisch@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    3 months ago

    We have that, it’s called ActivityPub. BlueSky wouldn’t want that tho, they couldn’t control the entire network then, after all.

    • woelkchen@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      If the BlueSky protocol offers tangible benefits over ActivityPub, the BlueSky protocol could become the basis for ActivityPub 2.0. I don’t know much about the details, though.

      • Fisch@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        The BlueSky protocol relies on central servers tho, I’m not sure if there’s much that ActivityPub can take inspiration from

    • Glasgow@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      The lack of account portability means activitypub is unsuitable for both bsky and just in general.

      • Fisch@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        They could have also worked to implement that into ActivityPub but they still chose to reinvent the wheel

      • FundMECFS@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Yeah, bluesky has a bunch of features, notably account portability, which was specifically designed into the ATProtocol.

        The purpose of the ATProtocol was never to federate with Activitypub, it was to build a more feature rich and scalable “federated” protocol.

        Read More