<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Looking AT the Blue Skies of Bluesky · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2408.12449/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2408.12449/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Looking AT the Blue Skies of Bluesky — mentioned by 8cvor6j844qw_d6</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47303229</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2408.12449:47303229</guid><pubDate>Mon, 09 Mar 2026 00:23:25 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Agreed, in theory all participants are equal and being banned by one participant shouldn&amp;#x27;t lock you out of a decentralized network. In practice, the vast majority of handles (98.9% as of 2024) are under bsky.social [1]. Yes, alternative PDS providers exist, but if the default onboarding funnels everyone into one provider, and the average user doesn&amp;#x27;t even know what a PDS is, then decentralization is an implementation detail, not a user-facing reality. [1]: https://arxiv.org/html/2408.12449&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2408.12449/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.NI</category></item></channel></rss>
