• roofuskit@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Because, despite being wildly impractical, it’s technically built on tech that COULD be decentralized. Only recent a new host launched called Black sky. So it is no longer just one host. But it’s been one host for so long it almost doesn’t matter because so few people will switch.

    • tomenzgg@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 day ago

      Technically, yes, if you squint; but, practically, no. It was designed with a prioritization of passing the information/data around to avoid any lack of missing anything (so you get a closer experience to the connectedness of Twitter than Mastodon) which means every instance hosts, basically, the entire world. Naturally, there’s only going to be a few entities that can store and afford to store the entirety of the data of the network. There’s no such thing as a small instance, in their protocol.

    • James R Kirk@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      2 days ago

      Because, despite being wildly impractical, it’s technically built on tech that COULD be decentralized.

      Yes exactly, it reminds me of the logic of cryptocurrency boosters. I just found out that the bluesky CEO (not to mention jack dorsey) are both crypto advocates so it makes a lot more sense now.

    • HappyFrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 days ago

      Doesn’t BS have things in it’s software that are hard coded to the main server, so it’s not possible to make a completely independent host at the moment?