|
|
|
|
|
by snarfed
867 days ago
|
|
The other key thing you lose is your identity. In the fediverse, your identity is your Webfinger handle, ie @user@server.com. Your server is literally part of it. Sure, you can migrate to @user@newserver.com, and keep the username part, but your identity still changes. Truly portable identity via DIDs, ie you can keep your underlying identity even if you migrate servers, is one of the key reasons the Bluesky team made their own protocol. https://atproto.com/guides/faq#why-not-use-activitypub |
|
And there was no need to make a new protocol for a portable identity - a change to ActivityPub to support did's as actor urns would be sufficient, and would also open the door to unilateral account migration fairly easily.
This is my big problem with Bluesky - all of their gripes about ActivityPub would be easily solved in ways that'd make interop a temporary problem of getting people to buy into protocol tweaks, instead of inventing something from scratch.
Their claim that it's not easily possible to retrofit e.g. did's and signed repositories onto ActivityPub makes me question whether they understand ActivityPub at all, because there's nothing about it that would be problematic. E.g. objects are already signed - their mechanism for migration would require some changes to the signing mechanism to allow users to make a unilateral assertion that the key on their new instance belongs to them, but not much more. DID's is down to how ActivityPub clients and servers resolve URLs, nothing more.
You wouldn't even need everyone to buy into these changes - the worst case would be lack of federation w/instances that fail to support it - in other words no worse than starting your own network.
Even then it'd be possible to maintain fairly broad interop by announcing the did's in ways that'd allow also specifying resolvable urls to a proxy.