Great ATProto blog post on the reasoning behind their design architecture

A few days ago I posted the same question on X, Bsky and Mastodon. I've received more interactions and responses on Mastodon than the other two combined.
- Its nice yeah. Feels like more real people :)

I know all you guys comment about fediverse(activityPub) is not bsky(atprotocol) but can we enjoy this stupid quote for a moment?
However, if the internet is functioning properly and you have a computer, an internet connection, and an IP address you can host a document on the web.
That statement is so redundant.
"internet functioning properly" = "an internet connection"
and you cant have an internet connection without an ip adress. On Lan you may have the option to let the device decide BUT it still needs one!
I dont think the entire article is bad or something but let me have my nitpickings.
its too long, and with that i mean half the thing is 3 concepts that could have been explained shorter
too many fancy words (i am not a native & my reading comprehension gets worse at all those extravagant marketing words, so thats my error)
not including the one picture of the protocoll/network topology. I needed to keep that in my brain to not get confused Masto Post with Topology
that one paragraph at the post start but can happen to anyone so its simply hilarious
- Maybe the author meant to express, "Regardless, if the global system of interconnected computer networks is functioning properly and you have a connection to it, you can host a document on the web." since a "global system" and "your connection to it" are separate things, and either can have a problem while the other does not have a problem. That's me being charitable though, and I agree that it's more likely that they were being redundant.
  I also find it interesting that the original sentences reference "the internet" (with a lowercase "i") rather than "the Internet". "The word is sometimes still capitalized to distinguish the global internet from smaller networks", so it's interesting that the author might be referencing an internet that is not global rather than a global network. They probably are referencing "the Internet" though, since "many publications, including the AP Stylebook since 2016, recommend the lowercase form in every case".
- not including the one picture of the protocoll/network topology
  This is a solid one from their wiki
  
  thank you
- I could be connected to the internet but unable to route to something so there may be cases where an internet connection does not strictly mean the internet is working properly

ATProto is not the Fediverse. Is there something in this blog you think should be discussed in the context of the Fediverse?
- Wait how is it not the fediverse?
  
  By “Fediverse” people usually refer to “ActivityPub”-based social networks such as Mastodon and Lemmy.
  People also rightfully argue that Bluesky, despite the best of intentions, is not decentralised. See How decentralized is Bluesky really? (long read).
  
  The Fediverse is a specific thing. And even if it were just referring to any federated social network, it's very questionable whether Bluesky really can have independent instances.
- The idea of the Fediverse is simply a group of social networks communicating through the same protocol, is that not what ATProto is attempting to accomplish?
  I've been a long time supporter that ATProto actually is apart of the Fediverse. The ultimate goal of this subreddit is a fully decentralized social media landscape. Fracturing discussion between ActivityPub and ATProto helps no one, especially in niche communities like this. The long-term goal is the same, and whether that progression happens on protocol A or platform B it's progressive nonetheless and we should discuss it.
  
  The Fediverse is ActivityPub, because ActivityPub is how Fediverse servers talk to each other. BlueSky does not talk to Fediverse servers, so it cannot be said to be part of the Fediverse.
  
  https://dustycloud.org/blog/how-decentralized-is-bluesky/
  I support what they wanna do with a credible exit, but claiming that their goal is to or that they do make it easy for multiple different social networks (your PDS is not a new network, it’s data locally stored for the existing network) to communicate with each other is just false
  
  ATProto is not decentralized.
  
  Neither this community's sidebar nor Wikipedia agree with your definition.
  
  ATProto isnt the same protocol as activityhub which is what we are using to post/communicate between different instances.
  You would argue that its all REST I suppose?

This is interesting, but I don't yet entirely understand it.
My first thought after trying to read the entire document was that the author seems to suggest that "AT Protocol" is a natural result of the movements they describe, but I find it hard to believe that the "peer-to-peer (p2p) movement" could naturally result in things that "are not meaningfully decentralized, and are not federated".
- I think they meant mostly the decentralised distribution of data.
  At the end of "Generic hosting, Centralised product development" it says
  Even though product development is centralized, the underlying data and identity remain open and universally accessible as a result of building on atproto. Put another way, ownership is clear for the evolution of a given application, but since the data is open, it can be reused, remixed, or extended by anyone else in the network.
  So theoretically everyone can access the data but before it reaches the end users it goes through centralised applications like bsky
  
  I'm not sure that your reply is directly related to my comment. The full sentence I quoted is "Under these definitions, Bluesky and ATProto are not meaningfully decentralized, and are not federated either." by Christine Lemmer-Webber, but Daniel Holmgren talked more directly about "decentralised distribution of data".
  Because of what I quoted, I don't think that "Bluesky" or "ATProto" are decentralized or federated, so it's extremely unlikely that I'll interact with them anytime soon. The particular reason that they are not decentralized or federated is not really interesting to me.
  To get specific: it is a significant issue for me if "everyone can access the data but before it reaches the end users it goes through centralised applications". A "centralised application" is able to restrict my ability to contact other people, whereas with a federated and/or decentralized/distributed system, it's more likely that I will be able to contact someone that I want to communicate with. For comparison, consider how people would feel if using the United States Postal Service meant that all physical mail had to pass through the District of Columbia or if sending an email message required interacting with BBN-TENEXA just because that was the first machine to be capable of sending networked electronic mail. In the ideal case, the recipient of a message I send would not have to coordinate with me at all before they receive the message: "The first use of network email announced its own existence."