alt Hacker NewsI appreciate how this explains the difference between the two.
But I also found it a little frustrating, because it answered one part of the question but failed to answer the question so what does ATProto do to solve the problems that instances solve?
For example, when this article dismisses defederation as merely a mysterious reason you might not see posts from your friends, it fails to answer "so how does atproto solve the problems that defederation solves?". Because the default reasonable answer to assume, given this framing, is "it doesn't".
Replies
If you’re asking about moderation, it works similarly as you’d expect it to work in a everything-RSS world.
At the hosting level, the hosting you use will likely ban you for clearly illegal stuff. Same as blogspot dot com or Cloudflare could ban you for certain things.
At the application level, application admins/mods would moderate as any app does. This is similar to running any web service today with user generated content. It’s up to app developers to choose. Apps can also provide primitives for userland moderation, like Reddit does, or even ability to plug your own extra moderation services (which Bluesky allows). But again, this is largely how it works on any app with user-generated content.
There’s no “defederation” because there’s no analog of “community instances” that may fight with each other. There’s hosting, there’s apps, and there’s app-level moderation that works according to each app’s developer’s choices.
Does this help clarify it?
It doesn't solve those problems, except in an alternative universe where there are a very large number of appviews capable of consuming the entire firehose and you can freely choose between them and cheaply run your own. ATProto is like RSS in a universe where you can only read RSS through Google Reader (or a clone of Google Reader running on the same scale).
> it fails to answer "so how does atproto solve the problems that defederation solves?".
The better way to ask this is, how does ActivityPub solve the problems that defederation causes? It's essentially the thing Microsoft does with email. Discard messages from all but the largest providers, defederate by default, forcing users to use Microsoft or another major incumbent if they want their messages to be delivered. Then new instances can't have their messages delivered, therefore can't get users. Which is obviously a perverse incentive for the major incumbents to not federate with new instances.
It's an architectural choice that has the long-term effect of cementing an oligopoly.
Meanwhile the claim is that it's necessary to prevent spam, but there are other providers that don't do this, e.g. in general you can deliver to Gmail as long as you have DKIM and reverse DNS etc. configured correctly, and those providers don't have any more of a spam problem than the ones who block innocent small servers by default.
Moreover, there is an obvious way to do this without giving the major instances a perverse incentive. You do the filtering on the client so that the filter list(s) you use are provided by something in the nature of uBlock rather than something in the nature of Microsoft, since the former doesn't operate any instances and therefore isn't trying to pressure everyone to use theirs.