Can we stop referring to source maps as leaks? It was packaged in a way that wasn’t even obfuscated. Same as websites - it’s not a “leak” that you can read or inspect the source code.
I don’t get this post at all. Just because the Bluesky people opted to call things “open” doesn’t make it so. ATproto helps the open web as much as NFTs and DAPs did before it.
I don’t know why the atproto/bluesky crowd keeps coming up with things people don’t really want. The problem with engagement based socials (even when they call themselves open) was never the feed and certainly not the “lack of AI”.
And despite all the marketing to differentiate from say Meta, Bluesky has no problem scraping and feeding everyone’s posts to AI.
But that’s not where you want your chats now is it? E2EE? And how does it keep it all private since apparently the Bluesky bros haven't figured that part out?
> But that’s not where you want your chats now is it? E2EE? And how does it keep it all private since apparently the Bluesky bros haven't figured that part out?
It honestly depends. Right now, Colibri is meant to function for communities that are public anyway. If you're a streamer, an open source dev community, Colibri can help you with talking to people who don't want to be locked in by big corporations. As the E2EE and private data, the Bluesky people have posted a new proposal for that only a few days ago, which I'm already thinking about how to implement: https://dholms.leaflet.pub/3mhj6bcqats2o
But, yes, for now, chats are public. Private data will hopefully be a thing soon on the network.
This probably needs a bigger callout. A user who isn't familiar with ATProto doesn't even know to ask this question and the design space from its contemporaries (e.g., discord, slack, etc) suggests that chats are nominally private if folks aren't a member of the channel.
It's a very cool product but you have to let people know their messages aren't private.
Even today, with the fancy Swift 6.3, the experience of using Swift for anything other than apps for Apple platforms is very painful. There is also the question of trust - I don't think anyone would voluntarily introduce Apple "The Gatekeeper" in parts of their stack unless they're forced to do it.
What, of course Apple uses Swift on the server, that's the only reason they're investing in any of this. Many of the foundational Swift on the server libraries were written at Apple and later opened, like SwiftNIO.
Exactly true - they've created all these "working groups" of open source / volunteers to care for Android / Server / Wasm / ... all while being constraint "as an Apple product". Of course the end result is crappy
Apple could’ve opted to use the same (open, portable, privacy respecting) mechanism the euID architecture offers for such cases but of course Apple doesn’t do privacy, portable or open.
reply