You won’t have decentralisation on Atproto because the protocol itself incentivises centralisation.

the only true centralized part is the did:plc registry and thats designed to be fully auditable. all canonical data is stored on your pds so if you self host that you get full control.

decentralization is not about the number of app instances but how easy it is to switch from one to another. on that metric bluesky is already better than fediverse.

▲

kevinak an hour ago | parent [-]

That’s a very narrow definition of decentralisation. In any case - both atproto and fediverse are massively centralised compared to something like Nostr, and it’s not even close.

The fact that the PDS in practice owns your identity in the vast vast majority of cases is such a dumb trade off that it’s honestly laughable. Should Bluesky decide to splinter off of the network there would be like 50000 people left.

Stop telling people that it’s decentralised in any meaningful way and be honest about it instead. That’s the issue. The dishonesty and tricking users.

	▲	steveklabnik 28 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> The fact that the PDS in practice owns your identity This is incorrect. 1. a PDS stores data, it does not own the identity. 2. Your identity is controlled by a DID, of which most users use DID:PLC. 3. This means the PLC directory controls who owns the identity. 4. Users can upload their own keys into the directory to ensure they have control. 5. At this point, the threat vector is "PLC directory lies", which is why there are transparency logs and independent mirrors.
	▲	AlienRobot an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		There are two kinds of people. 1. People who have no idea what decentralized is. 2. People who would try to figure exactly how decentralized something is. If you are the latter, you would instantly question the data model of Bluesky and of Mastodon as well. If you are the former then that just sounds like a buzzword.