Put me in the camp of “animation is valuable even when it’s redundant information.” Guiding the eye and helping to digest information is valuable, and even the slop examples are useful in my opinion
I kind of feel like you’re taking one of the specs from nostr - the first one written - and calling that the whole protocol. Then you’re comparing all of the atproto specs to that one spec.
The substantive difference is that we didn’t do a mix & match spec process because we knew the ambiguity of spec support causes problems, just as it did with XMPP. Protocol specs only get implemented a few times. The meaningful developer choices are in schemas and business logic.
But that's essentially the whole protocol. You can implement a client or a server reading only NIP-01 and it will be able to interoperate with the rest of Nostr.
Reading and implementing NIP-01 can be done in an afternoon (or a weekend if you're taking your time), and it gets you relays that can accommodate multiple clients and applications. From the client perspective, only implementing NIP-01 gets you a simple Twitter clone with an identity that belongs to you.
the spirit of my comment was more psychological than technical. nip-1 successfully nerd-sniped my brain into thinking it was easy to get started with a simple, barely functional client. (even though, you're right, at scale, everything gets complicated and is not easy.)
perhaps this a roundabout way of hoping there is already a developer-focused quick start or tutorial for making a barely functional AT client. it either already exists, but i didn't look hard enough for it, or it might only be one chatgpt or claude prompt away.
Applications on atproto run moderation as a kind of filtering layer on top of the user data. A ban in that scenario is fully filtering their account out of the application.
I think there’s a lot of misconceptions about atproto; unlike ActivityPub where your home server runs both the application as well as stores your data, atproto is build in the concept that “applications” like BlueSky store your data inside your PDS (Personal Data Store), which may or may not be hosted somewhere else.
While anybody can host their own PDS, the public bsky.app instance can and will “block” users by preventing their login and not pulling data from the PDS of the banned user or showing it in feeds.
Since, to date, the BlueSky “AppView” (the service backend itself that handles aggregating data, generating feeds, etc.) continues to be closed, being banned from the public instance is effectively being banned from the network. The data model (lexicon) is well documented and somebody else is free to write their own, but, for now, BlueSky is just as centralized as other platforms even if you can store your data elsewhere.
What are you talking about? Yes, it is closed - their PDS implementation and clients are open, but the actual service that runs on bsky.app is, at present, not open source.
Without the backend that handles all of the XRPC endpoints [1] being available, BlueSky still effectively maintains centralized control over their part of the 'atmosphere'. Somebody could, of course, make an open source implementation of the app.bsky lexicon and users would only need to update their DID to point at their preferred instance, but AFAIK none exists right now.
Would projects like this one, which pulls only a subset of Bluesky data straight from the firehose, and can be processed as the end user pleases, help mitigate this limitation?
Bluesky is still the arbiter of what their firehouse emits
Theoretically they could maintain that filtering only occurs on the client level but they've made the choice to exclude banned users from the firehouse so their moderation choices effect everyone
Bluesky is building an open internet protocol (https://atproto.com) and a flagship social app (https://bsky.app). We're a company of 30 with a strong focus on fostering a high-agency, talented team. The golang roles are focused on building the internal platform with a whole lot distributed systems engineering; the ML is working on our many recommender systems and feeds; the RN & fullstack engineers are working on the social app and internal moderation tooling, respectively.
We might suck as much as Twitter but not because we’re a walled garden. These rules are applied in our apps, not on other at:// apps, which can decide for themselves what to do about these laws.
I’ve noticed this anxiety on steam reviews too, people seem to stress out if there isn’t a continuous growth of a game’s player base, like there’s a totality that we all need to be striving for, even in a federated space, even in a game’s player base, otherwise any shrinking indicates a spiral. Not that they aren’t real (the spirals) but there’s an aspect of putting the cart before the horse here.
The specific policy is "We allow consensual adult sexual content, including fictional depictions, when appropriately labeled and subject to appropriate age restrictions. We do not allow sexual content involving non-consensual activity including synthetic, simulated, illustrated, or animated versions."
I can understand why artists who enjoy the non-con kink dislike this policy, but I think people can also appreciate where this policy comes from. I can also understand why other NSFW artists are anxious that they need to indicate consent, but there is, unfortunately, some amount of judgment that the moderation team has to make on whether something is violative noncon.
I wonder if, besides imaginary depictions of non-consensual acts (and what of consensual non-consent, CNC? Do you have to add a frame to your comic where the characters discuss their limits and safe words?) -- maybe it's meant more to address deepfakes / porn involving depictions of people who didn't agree to be depicted that way. I think the law around usage of your image (and your voice) is in a very interesting place but could use clarification so all citizens can benefit; right now its hollywood actors and basketball players who get to explicitly control how images of them are used. Facebook did get in trouble once for putting photos of your friends into ads, "Your aunt bettie likes walmart!", they still can list that text since you did hit the like button, but there was some law that prevented them from using your face to imply endorsement.
reply