Bluesky had some controversy when it first came out. Now that it's been around for a while, I'm curious what the consensus is. How does it compare to Mastodon? Is Bluesky now self-hostable and compatible with the Fediverse?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Charger8232@lemmy.ml 31 points 1 day ago (5 children)

closed source

Bluesky is open source.

I don’t know why it’s being discussed here

It is being discussed to see if things have changed.

[–] Kirk@startrek.website 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (4 children)

My bad, I'm not an expert here but it's weird that it's open source and yet nobody else can have a bluesky? Like could I download that code and make a bluesky for everyone? If so why has nobody else done it? why is there only one for profit bluesky?

To answer your question though, no nothing has changed.

[–] HailSeitan@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Free Our Feeds is trying to make this happen

[–] Kirk@startrek.website 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

But if it's open source what is stopping them from simply creating another bluesky like yesterday?

[–] HailSeitan@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

From what I can tell, Bluesky is much more demanding in terms of the technical challenge of doing this on your own, and part of the issue is that some of the key tools to make this easier don’t really exist yet, making it much harder than setting up a Mastodon instance for example, so part of what they want to do is bridge that gap as well as stand up more independent servers.

[–] Kirk@startrek.website 2 points 4 hours ago

So to make a bluesky with (for example) two users is available for anyone to create at any time, but is so extremely technically intensive that absolutely nobody besides the one company is capable of doing it? You don't find that the slightest bit odd? I think the open source and decentralized claimes are straight up lies.

load more comments (1 replies)