News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Open Social by frumiousirc on Saturday September 27, 2025 @07:34AM (#45394893)
> This is why Bluesky could never have "private likes" in the same way Twitter or ActivityPub does

I didn't know "private likes" even existed, but if atproto includes public key encryption, I could publish a record containing a "like" that I have encrypted with the "liked" user's public key. Only that user would know what the record contained. Though, the fact that the encrypted message exists and had a cleartext "@name" is itself informative to adversaries. Concealing that level of info would require other measures.

Re:Open Social by nightpool on Saturday September 27, 2025 @11:10AM (#45396373)
Correct. All information in the system is part of a public, append-only ledger. That's the thing I'm pointing out is a fundamental weakness of the system.
Re:Open Social by binbasti on Sunday September 28, 2025 @03:28AM (#45402420)
... if Bluesky users owned their private key.
Re:Open Social by goku12 on Sunday September 28, 2025 @04:25AM (#45402691)
I think the lack of owner's custody of the private key in bluesky is more the result of a convenience design than of a technical limitation. If the user is expected to manage the private key, you might end up with something similar in complexity to Nostr. But it might still be possible if you're running your own PDS.
Re:Open Social by steveklabnik on Monday September 29, 2025 @11:53AM (#45415314)
You don’t need to run your own PDS, the key that matters is the rotation key for plc.directory.