It’s really hard for me to truly understand the technical differences between ActivityPub and the AT Protocol, but every time I read a comparison like the one below, I end up siding with ActivityPub.

On ATProtocol, while initiatives like Blacksky and Eurosky have built alternative hosting infrastructure, genuinely decentralizing control over the network, they still depend substantially on Bluesky PBC’s core moderation infrastructure. This demonstrates how commercial actors can retain de facto norm-setting power across an ecosystem, even where the protocol itself is open. — Open Future.

I like that the AT Protocol lets us move everything — including our identity — to another service. However, what my limited tech capabilities take away from explanations like the one above is that the protocol is not truly decentralized in practice.

As for the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) mentioned in the same article, it only reinforces my preference for ActivityPub. Not only is it a W3C standard that anyone can use to create a compatible service, but there are already multiple solutions using it.

Why create a new network with taxpayer money when there is already a decentralized and diverse Fediverse that anyone can tap into? If European citizens' money is to be used, it would be better spent helping companies and institutions start their own ActivityPub instances.

Which begs the question: Why has Eurosky decided to use the AT Protocol? Their website tagline is “Hosted in Europe, governed in Europe,” and their vision starts with “Eurosky exists because Europe needs technological sovereignty and democratic resilience in its digital infrastructure.” As I mentioned in a previous post, I prefer an internationalist world, but based on what they are promoting on their site, why choose a US protocol that many say is not actually decentralized? Honestly, that’s beyond my comprehension.