I think this post by mcc is actually a great example of why the atproto dev community is now starting to move in the direction that 'decentralisation' is not a helpful term anymore.

Like, the problem of Bluesky that mcc touches upon is very real, and a significant point of critique of the network

But a network that can separate a fullstack server into separate components that can be operated by different actors is more decentralised in this specific aspect than a network that cant

/1

What's actually happening right now is the Bluesky *website* is broken but the *phone app* still works. I propose the following theory:

Mastodon is "horizontally decentralized"; this means if one part of the network goes down the other parts continue working.

Bluesky is "vertically decentralized"; they separated each tech stack component into a slice that can be hosted by a different company. This means if any part of the network goes down they ALL stop working, because the layers interconnect

Here is the exciting thing about "vertical decentralization", Bluesky's core innovation: since your PDS and your "app view" can be hosted by two different entities, this means the pool of people who can make Bluesky stop working for you can be taken to a theoretical maximum. For example with Mastodon, if Eugen screws up my app doesn't work. But with Bluesky, since I self-host my PDS, if *either* I *or* Bluesky mess up, it doesn't work! *Everybody* must have a good day *at once* or there's no app
0

If you have a fediverse account, you can quote this note from your own instance. Search https://indieweb.social/users/laurenshof/statuses/114506803002485866 on your instance and quote it. (Note that quoting is not supported in Mastodon.)