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.
A better question perhaps is why we’ve allowed ourselves to be so vulnerable by a single provider (GitHub). Supply chain attacks would have a significantly smaller blast radius if people start using their own forges. GitHub as a social network is no longer a good idea
This, exactly. There are so many "cyber experts" working for the U.S. government, and the vast majority are just cogs in a machine constructed by executive leadership who will always prefer inertia over radical changes.
I don't think this is that much to do with executive leadership. Many of those cyber experts only have a job because of Microsoft based tooling and vulnerabilities, and so they will prefer things they know over things they don't know (e.g. implementing permissions across a Linux estate).
“Open social” is so much bs compressed in a couple of buzzwords.
reply