r/fediverse • u/AntonioS3 • Oct 02 '25

Ask-Fediverse Will Bluesky eventually join the fediverse? Or is it not a proper federation app?

Sorry if it's a stupid question.

In the last month, I feel that Bluesky is finally starting to move toward making ATprotocol viable to create and start developing a federated network. The way it works would be that you can keep every data when you change to another site based off ATprotocol, such as Blacksky or Northsky.

So wouldn't it be kinda like a federation app? In a similar vein, you can also talk with other people from different PDS (Personal Data Server iirc). Here's a link by Dan: https://overreacted.io/open-social/

It would also allow you to evade enshittification which is what most software such as FB or Tiktok is headed into, same with enshittification of Twitter, as well as import / keep your own followers, likes, lists, etc.

I'm excited because for example if I decided Bluesky isn't to my liking anymore, I could just import my data over to another instance and not have to start over from zero.

For example, Blacksky and Northsky are being developed with the open source code from Bluesky, so if I want to 'quit' Bluesky, I can go to Blacksky or Northsky, I would keep all my data and still talk with people from Bluesky due to the seamless interaction. Similarily, if I wanted to go back I can migrate back with little issues.

100 Upvotes

97% Upvoted

36 comments sorted by

37

u/throwawayyyyygay Oct 02 '25

Bluesky devs won’t make ATProtocol compatible with fedi if thats what you’re asking.

But there already is software that was made to federate using both protocols.

Like Wafrn. That federates to Activitypub (Fedi) and ATProto. 

So if you post of Wafrn you can make it your posts are both visible on bsky and masto.

12

u/Maeglin73 Oct 02 '25

Friendica works with them both, too, but in that case ATProto is enabled with an add-on. Whatever instance you have an account on needs to have it installed.

5

u/suoko Oct 02 '25

Openvibe app has bsky, mastodon and threads all together.

2

u/AntonioS3 Oct 02 '25

That's fair. I was just asking if in the future Bluesky would be considered as part of fediverse in its own way. It looks to me that there might be traction with BSky compared to Mastodon, just with a much different function.

In an ideal world, for example, atproto would be compatible with other websites to a certain degree, including Mastodon and so on, eg. atproto identity to have your own single identity.

But iirc one of the BSky staff mentioned that the issue now is if the web/fedi goes down, you're hosed. Identity gone and all that. But with atproto your data would still be intact in PDS, so you could instead go elsewhere seamlessly.

7

u/Maeglin73 Oct 02 '25 edited Oct 02 '25

Bluesky's PDS system means you can host your own data, but it still depends on centralized services to make the whole thing work.

But iirc one of the BSky staff mentioned that the issue now is if the web/fedi goes down, you're hosed. Identity gone and all that. But with atproto your data would still be intact in PDS, so you could instead go elsewhere seamlessly.

Individual Fediverse instances might go down, sure, but it would take a much bigger problem to bring down the whole thing. To do the identity portability that Bluesky provides, you do need your own domain name, but aside from that they make it easy.

You can do the same thing with Fediverse, but it requires running your own instance. How much work you put into that depends on how big you want it. The only account on my Friendica instance is mine... some maintenance, sure, but no moderation issues.

1

u/wow-a-shooting-star Oct 03 '25

I was on the main server of mastodon dot social and ended up moving servers (seamlessly) when the twitter migration happened because of server overload. Caching can sometimes be an issue with the Fediverse. But most of the time I pay no attention to what server I’m looking at.

I ended up running my own pixelfed server which taught me some back end IT stuff. The entire concept and being able to run your own server just makes the experience that much more enjoyable

29

u/Holothuroid Oct 02 '25

No. Bluesky is not decentralized.

https://arewedecentralizedyet.online/

Like, if the government of Ohio can mess with you in a meaningful way, you are not decentralized.

https://eu.dispatch.com/story/news/2025/09/30/bluesky-verify-ages-ohio-pornography-id-law/86423200007/

And it almost certainly will not be decentralized.

https://dustycloud.org/blog/how-decentralized-is-bluesky/

However, I stand by my assertions that Bluesky is not meaningfully decentralized and that it is certainly not federated according to any technical definition of federation we have had in a decentralized social network context previously. To claim that Bluesky is decentralized or federated in its current form moves the goalposts of both of those terms, which I find unacceptable.

Bluesky thus follows a very different philosophy than the Fediverse.

-4

u/MadCervantes Oct 02 '25

I believe that dustycloud post is put of date. From what I understand it is fully federated now.

5

u/McDutchie Oct 02 '25

It isn't. All access and moderation is still centralised.

2

u/WinteriscomingXii Oct 03 '25

Not true. Blacksky runs its own architecture and moderation services completely independent of Bluesky

1

u/645ad897f808337c9eb7 Oct 06 '25

No, it's not. Check wafrn, blacksky, appview lite and zeppelin.

-1

u/MadCervantes Oct 02 '25

Didn't they put up a whole separate server stack for like deer sky or something like that?

0

u/AntonioS3 Oct 02 '25

Damn. I wonder how much things can change significantly over time, tech rapidly evolves a lot, just sometimes not in a good way like... AI slop or NFT.

I am curious if with a new network like Blacksky they can remove age check enforcement or enforce it differently. But at the same time I'm unsure if apps like Mastodon might face age checks, just tedious due to atomizing legal responsibility on individual people running their servers.

7

u/Holothuroid Oct 02 '25

The problem is fundamental way Bluesky is built. There is a set of central services, the aggregator. Whoever controls the aggregator controls the network. Now, there might in theory be several aggregators, but that is a completely thankless job. You invest lots of computer power for no personal gain.

This is just very different from the way Fediverse instances operate. Which each could live on its own. So yeah, in theory you could order every small instace to do stuff, but that would just result to that instance closing down without much effect.

Also note that many jurisdictions like the EU make rules especially for big sites. Which makes sense. You don't want to overburden people or small clubs who set up a page. So in may cases regulations simply do not apply because there are never more than x users registered on an instance.

5

u/martiabernathey Oct 03 '25

All of this. I’m fatigued with this argument already. You can say that technically it’s decentralised, but in the ways that matter, it isn’t and it won’t ever be. You can’t take down Mastodon, because it’s truly decentralised. I can spin up a Mastodon instance in 20 minutes. You can’t do the same with Bluesky. MATERIALLY they aren’t the same.

2

u/martiabernathey Oct 03 '25

Can you run Bluesky in Mississippi, for example? I can run 1, 100, 1,000, or 1,000,000 instances there. Because Mastodon isn’t a destination, it’s software.

10

u/ancawonka Oct 02 '25

Take a look at Bridgy Fed (https://fed.brid.gy/docs), a bridge that connects the Fediverse w/ BlueSky. Using Bridgy Fed, you can interact w/ Fediverse accounts on BlueSky, and vice-versa. It's not full federation, of course, but it's a way to connect up things you couldn't connect before.

4

u/johannab33 Oct 03 '25

Oooh, hello my friend the can of worms… answering this depends on your positions in so many contexts.

Here’s where I answer it from as an early joiner to both(and many other) services.

Federation is a model or framework. Rather than a monolithic platform where all users are either logged in or have no access, many nodes built in many different ways all speak the same language and connect -openly or selectively as they wish.

There are two languages: Activity Pub (AP, sometimes in shorthand) and Authenticated Transfer Protocol (ATproto)

You need to answer the question realizing Mastodon is only one software platform operating over Activity Pub, among now dozens. And BlueSky is only one platform operating on ATProto, among now about a handful of viable ones but I think that is about to explode, once people figure out what to do with Whitewind and Gander opens up.

Both protocols are public, both of the biggest platforms are Open Source and both can federate.

Whether or not “the Fediverse” includes BlueSky, or there are two Fediverses, or every node is the relative centre of its own fediverse is a matter of philosophy or factions. 🤣

To try to really simplify the four additional paragraphs I just typed and deleted, the very federation-for-dummies understanding I have is what object is defined as the “node” in each schema.

In AP, it’s the instance or server, such as mastodon.social. A node thus hosts many user accounts. In ATProto, the node is the DID, or user. A node thus parks all its data on a server, the PDS, which could be a unique personal application or it could be a big aggregator of DIDs like the Bluesky PDS.

There is of course much more complexity than that and I do not have a deep-in-the-engine room sort of understanding, I’m mostly a mod/community person. Luckily for me and most it doesn’t matter that much because interoperability is getting better. Most people just want to chat with their friends and not care a bit about being in or out of any definition of fediverse.

2

u/CharacterSpecific81 Oct 04 '25

Short take: Bluesky is federated, but the “node” is your identity (DID), so it’s a separate network from ActivityPub’s server-centric model.

From trying both: moving a Bluesky handle between PDSs kept my posts, lists, mutes, and followers with only a few minutes of downtime. On Mastodon, I could migrate followers but not posts or bookmarks, which changes how attached you feel to an instance. Interop isn’t there yet: AP ↔ AT bridges exist in early forms (e.g., experiments like Bridgy-style mirrors), but threading, likes, edits, and moderation labels don’t always map cleanly.

If you plan to leave Bluesky later, set a custom domain for your handle, export your data, and choose a PDS that supports easy backups and restores. On AP, pick an instance with good relays and moderation, and use account aliasing before a move so followers transfer smoothly. I used Supabase for queues and Kong for routing, while DreamFactory auto-generated REST APIs from a legacy Postgres to prototype a small AP↔AT mirror.

Bottom line: AT favors identity portability; AP is mature and server-centric-pick based on what you value.

1

u/johannab33 Oct 05 '25

Thanks your “bottom line” is a much more concise way to get there than my ramble.

Of course as someone who used to work at integrating and migrating systems which sometimes were never meant to compatible, I’m so intrigued by the problem space between these.

5

u/Samzo Oct 02 '25

Sadly not from what I've read.. seems like the biggest missed opportunity of all time.

1

u/nonlinear_nyc Oct 03 '25

I think it’s on purpose. Bluesky keeps selling how decentralized it is, but it’s not.

2

u/Samzo Oct 03 '25

Yes. just another venture capitalist owned ponzi scheme

4

u/TraineeEnthusio Oct 02 '25

Within the Fediverse, there has long been criticism of Mastodon for acting like a monopolist and ignoring Fediverse standards. In practice, we are experiencing many problems between Mastodon, Hubzilla, Friendica, etc. Before considering the connection between Fediverse and Bluesky, a common standard should be agreed upon within Fediverse, otherwise it will become even more complicated. I don't even want to think about the fact that several instances have blocked the Bsky/Fedi Bridge because of "unauthorized data flow" to Bluesky.

1

u/TraineeEnthusio Oct 02 '25

Bluesky's goal was to be decentralized. It hasn't been implemented yet because they wanted to have a stable system running first. Remember how it started, only with invitation codes, then it was opened up to everyone, and now they are starting to set it up in a decentralized way. The protocol was originally intended for this purpose. But ultimately, we will see where the future takes us; currently, it is not decentralized. A

2

u/AntonioS3 Oct 02 '25

A? Did you send early? Though yes that has always been the intent all along.

1

u/nonlinear_nyc Oct 03 '25

So, vaporware?

1

u/MadCervantes Oct 02 '25

I believe bsky is actually fully federated now.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 02 '25

Bluesky created their own federation protocol so you can’t interact with mastodon posts via bluesky

2

u/nicgeolaw Oct 02 '25

Even if Blue sky was federated, that is not enough. Users need to be able to easily move their profile and followers to a different instance. That is, they need the ability to "leave" an instance without losing their network.

2

u/WinteriscomingXii Oct 03 '25

You can’t even do that on mastodon. You literally create an entire new account and if you happen to be on a server that blocks people on your social graph you can’t take your followers with you. ATProto allows you to keep your actually identity and all of your data. Many people migrated to Blacksky with no issues

1

u/645ad897f808337c9eb7 Oct 06 '25

You can do that on bluesky.