Account portability is the major reason why we chose to build a separate protocol. We consider portability to be crucial because it protects users from sudden bans, server shutdowns, and policy disagreements. Our solution for portability requires both signed data repositories and DIDs, neither of which are easy to retrofit into ActivityPub. The migration tools for ActivityPub are comparatively limited; they require the original server to provide a redirect and cannot migrate the user’s previous data.
Other smaller differences include: a different viewpoint about how schemas should be handled, a preference for domain usernames over AP’s double-@ email usernames, and the goal of having large scale search and discovery (rather than the hashtag style of discovery that ActivityPub favors).
In the Fediverse your account and identity is linked to a domain (e.g. you are @someone@domain.com), and you can’t move that account somewhere else. You can’t even change the domain of a server, because all the accounts on that server would be known by a different domain and be treated as separate new identifies. In Bluesky your identity is basically a random number, it’s shown in the URL of a profile page for example. You can link that to a domain temporarily and get a nice user handle, but you can always move to another domain later. That means you can migrate between servers and keep all your friends and followers, something that’s currently not possible in the Fediverse.
The thing about schemas is a technical detail, not really any consequences for users. Then there is a different format for user handles, so the Bluesky people don’t like the double @ signs for those.
The last thing is about how you don’t just pick one server/instance in Bluesky, instead you can pick different servers for different things. One server hosts your account, but a few others can fill and sort your news feed, block spam for you or let you search through content. It’s supposed to create an open ecosystem for these services, and allow you to keep your account on a server that offers none of these by itself, e.g. a small home server. Of course there is nothing like that in the Fediverse, you pick a service and a server, and that’s it.
I have to say Bluesky looks extremely interesting from a technical perspective, there’s just the fact that it’s completely dominated by the official server right now. People can create their own servers though, so we’ll have to see how it evolves.
That means you can migrate between servers and keep all your friends and followers, something that’s currently not possible in the Fediverse.
It absolutely is possible to move accounts between instances on the fediverse. I’ve done it multiple times.
It does have some quirks tho. Posts aren’t migrated to your new account. (Some fedi software lets you migrate posts, but from what I hear it’s kinda jank).
It’s not seamless, but the option is there, and you won’t lose any friends or followers (unless they’re defederated or something)
Bluesky accounts seem like they’ll be more portable than fediverse accounts but I don’t know much about it
You’re not really moving your account - you’re just migrating your followers over to the new one. If people try to reach you at the old handle they won’t get through, like a dead email address.
That said, I don’t really think this is such a big problem. The reason the AT protocol was invented is because they wanted to do their own thing rather than adhering to standards.
I think I would be very interested in this version of doing things. Would it be feasible to build a link aggregator on that protocol? I don’t like the microblogging UX.
Yes, that’s basically what those schemas are about. You can create different schemas for different kinds of posts and content structures, so something like Lemmy should be possible. The Fediverse has something similar as well, but the way you introduce new schemas is different between the two as far as I understand it. In the former you’ll have to adapt some features of the underlying ActivityPub protocol to your new usecase, or work with others towards extending the protocol. The later allows you to just declare and describe your new structure in a machine-readable way, and others can then choose to support it. So Bluesky is more flexible and open in that regard, but could also end up more fragmented.
From their website:
https://atproto.com/guides/faq#why-not-use-activitypub
Sounds fair to me, although I am also not using either Mastodon or Bluesky.
Yes these are certainly words
ELI5:
In the Fediverse your account and identity is linked to a domain (e.g. you are @someone@domain.com), and you can’t move that account somewhere else. You can’t even change the domain of a server, because all the accounts on that server would be known by a different domain and be treated as separate new identifies. In Bluesky your identity is basically a random number, it’s shown in the URL of a profile page for example. You can link that to a domain temporarily and get a nice user handle, but you can always move to another domain later. That means you can migrate between servers and keep all your friends and followers, something that’s currently not possible in the Fediverse.
The thing about schemas is a technical detail, not really any consequences for users. Then there is a different format for user handles, so the Bluesky people don’t like the double @ signs for those.
The last thing is about how you don’t just pick one server/instance in Bluesky, instead you can pick different servers for different things. One server hosts your account, but a few others can fill and sort your news feed, block spam for you or let you search through content. It’s supposed to create an open ecosystem for these services, and allow you to keep your account on a server that offers none of these by itself, e.g. a small home server. Of course there is nothing like that in the Fediverse, you pick a service and a server, and that’s it.
I have to say Bluesky looks extremely interesting from a technical perspective, there’s just the fact that it’s completely dominated by the official server right now. People can create their own servers though, so we’ll have to see how it evolves.
It absolutely is possible to move accounts between instances on the fediverse. I’ve done it multiple times.
It does have some quirks tho. Posts aren’t migrated to your new account. (Some fedi software lets you migrate posts, but from what I hear it’s kinda jank).
It’s not seamless, but the option is there, and you won’t lose any friends or followers (unless they’re defederated or something)
Bluesky accounts seem like they’ll be more portable than fediverse accounts but I don’t know much about it
You’re not really moving your account - you’re just migrating your followers over to the new one. If people try to reach you at the old handle they won’t get through, like a dead email address.
That said, I don’t really think this is such a big problem. The reason the AT protocol was invented is because they wanted to do their own thing rather than adhering to standards.
I think I would be very interested in this version of doing things. Would it be feasible to build a link aggregator on that protocol? I don’t like the microblogging UX.
Yes, that’s basically what those schemas are about. You can create different schemas for different kinds of posts and content structures, so something like Lemmy should be possible. The Fediverse has something similar as well, but the way you introduce new schemas is different between the two as far as I understand it. In the former you’ll have to adapt some features of the underlying ActivityPub protocol to your new usecase, or work with others towards extending the protocol. The later allows you to just declare and describe your new structure in a machine-readable way, and others can then choose to support it. So Bluesky is more flexible and open in that regard, but could also end up more fragmented.