cross-posted from: https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/17686207

It’s a very long post, but a lot of it is a detailed discussion of terminology in the appendix – no need to read that unless you’re into definitional struggles.

  • mat :mastodon:@zelk.space
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 month ago

    @thenexusofprivacy to me, as long as bluesky can’t properly communicate and federate with any social network (activitypub apps included) we can’t define it as fediversed but I’m curious to have your opinion

    • The Nexus of Privacy@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      Personally I think that the connectivity via Bridgy Fed and Friendica are strong enough that it makes sense to consider Bluesky an instance on the ActivityPub Fediverse. Threads currently has less connectivity, and people in general consider it part of the Fediverse. For what it’s worth, in a discussion on Social Hub, Evan Prodromou also said he saw Bluesky as an instance in the ActivityPub Fediverse.

      I also think that the ATmosphere is fediverse (descentralized social network) in its own right. So is Bluesky, as well as being part of the AcivityPub Fediverse and the ATmosphere.

      But others define the Fediverse differently, https://privacy.thenexus.today/is-bluesky-part-of-todays-fediverse/ goes into a lot of detail on the different views.