I would like to give an update on "federation" on Bluesky.

mcc

Update: Rudy who operates blacksky.community responded to this thread on bluesky. Above I said I wasn't clear on how independent Blacksky was of the Bluesky infra. His answer is "completely". They run their own relay (which scrapes PDSes itself), the relay feeds into their own appview, the appview feeds into their own client. https://bsky.app/profile/rude1.blacksky.team/post/3lyv5rwpc722c

And since they bridge end-to-end, in my Hypothetical Example above, they *could* choose to make different moderation decisions from Bluesky PBC.

mcc

So. The thread above. An update.

We finally got a live test of the "Gertrude scenario", when a popular Blacksky user got permbanned by Bluesky. I, using my own PDS and blacksky's website, can't see him or his posts ( https://blacksky.community/profile/did:plc:2aebn3xk5t63net43eeepire/post/3m2iokicegs2b ). What gives?

A lot of people claim this is because Blacksky really is using Bluesky's appview, and gave me a way to verify this looking at headers. This seems to contradict Rudy's previous claims. I've asked Rudy for clarification: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:2aebn3xk5t63net43eeepire/post/3m2jve23cf22m

mcc

Follow up, 2025-12-27: Rudy here confirms the Blacksky appview is still being worked on (eg: blacksky uses bluesky's appview still)

https://bsky.app/profile/rude1.blacksky.team/post/3maykethsbk24

The sticking point, as he describes it, is "backfill". This alludes to the issue that makes me compare ATProto to blockchain: to get the features users expect, every node on the network must mirror the network's entire history. This is impractical, which is why bluesky is as of this moment a federated network with effectively only one node.

mcc

:frogsiren: BLUESKY HAS OFFICIALLY NETSPLIT :frogsiren:

There has always been more than one Fediverse. Different instances make different moderation decisions so some instances can't see posts by some users.

There has only ever been one Bluesky because every ATProto frontend uses the same Appview.

It is January 2026 and that's no longer true; Blacksky's Appview is available for beta use and there is at least 1 user banned on Bluesky but not Blacksky. And vice versa.

https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:w4xbfzo7kqfes5zb7r6qv3rw/post/3mcozwdhjos2b

May Likes Toronto

@mcc Would this mean that there'd be a new bridgy specifically to Blacksky?

Anuj Ahooja

@mayintoronto No - Bridgy Fed supports any ATProto PDS, including the ones run by Blacksky

@mcc

nimu εїз🖖🏻

@mcc for us tech noobies in the audience, could you explain what does this mean?

mcc

The "portable identity" elements of Bluesky/ATProto make the netsplit just a tad odd. My account is hosted on a PDS server I run, so I'm beholden to no frontend. If I log in through the main Blacksky frontend (Bluesky appview) one user I'm following shows only an error message. Via the Staging Blacksky frontend (atproto.africa), I can see I'm following him and see his posts. I'm SO curious about the edge cases. I assume if I boost him it's hidden from the Bluesky appview. What if I reply to him?

Fabrice Desré

@mcc When you are suspended by bluesky corp, is the ban at the app view or PDS level?

Fucking bitch Martin Vermeer

@quillmatiq @mayintoronto @mcc But what if I want to cancel the bridge, but only to the Nazi one? Can I do that, and advise my correspondents to migrate to BlackSky? How hard would that be?

Anuj Ahooja

@martinvermeer Not today, but stay tuned for next week

@mayintoronto @mcc

mcc

Oh and I can't get staging.blacksky on my phone app. So imagine if you were using Mastodon, but you saw a slightly different list of posters, *and potentially a different set of your own posts*, depending on whether you were using your PC or your phone. This is great if there's a banned user you want to follow— you get an *option* to follow them. Mastodon.social can deny me the *option* to follow someone, on Fediverse. But except in this edge case that *might* not be a fantastic user experience!

mcc

@coracinho Does this help? https://mastodon.social/@mcc/115918101156654032

mcc

@fabrice This is a VERY interesting question, as the answer appears to be "all of them". And when Link got banned, *that answer appeared to be surprising even to Bluesky employees*. The original messaging from Bluesky suggested you'd get banned only by the "labeler"— a third thing altogether. But there's obvious problems with that answer, it's never what Bluesky implemented. After Link got banned Bluesky said they were reviewing this, but I don't think *changed* anything.

mcc

Oh, and let's consider, for a moment, the downsides of an individual user being able to "opt out" of moderation decisions. The problem with misbehavior on social media is force multipliers. One person harassing you is no problem; one person and their 3000 friends is a big problem. Imagine Bluesky and Blacksky ban user X but Trumpsky lets X keep posting. Now their 3000 friends— still in Bluesky's good graces— can see their posts calling to harass you, AND can zero-friction zip over to yell at you

Ratsnake Games 🔞

@mcc is

is Trumpsky a real thing

mcc

@ratsnakegames No

Ratsnake Games 🔞

@mcc phew, you had me worried for a second there was another one of Those Bloody Things

mcc

This is why—although, now Blacksky is letting me "see through" Bluesky's worst moderation decisions, I'm glad, because Bluesky's moderation is weird and arbitrary—I think it's a downside of the network, and Mastodon made the right decision not offering this feature. Fediverse defederation forces a degree of soft group consensus on moderation: it's possible to say "if you're talking to X, I don't want to talk to *you*". On Bluesky we are all ghosts walking through walls and this can't be enforced

crab

@mcc I guess you could simultaneously see this as a success and a failure for ATproto: decentralization is possible... but you immediately get a lot of the same problems ActivityPub has that ATProto ostensibly solved.