Open Social: Users Own Data, Apps Aggregate

The author proposes “open social,” exemplified by the AT Protocol, to restore user ownership and portability of social data. Users keep their identity and records in personal repositories addressable by at://, while apps simply aggregate, index, and remix that data. This preserves network features like feeds and search without lock‑in, enabling forkable products and lasting data beyond any single platform.

Key Points

• Closed social traps the social graph inside proprietary databases, making meaningful data ownership and platform exit without loss effectively impossible.
• Open social (via AT Protocol) puts user data in personal repositories under user-owned handles (e.g., @alice.com), with records as signed JSON addressable by at:// URIs.
• Apps write to and read from users’ repos and can freely remix each other’s public data because the protocol itself is the API.
• Scalable aggregation is achieved by subscribing to network-wide event streams (relays) and indexing signed commits into local databases, preserving integrity and performance.
• This model enables hosting independence, product forkability, reduced cold starts, and long-term data persistence beyond any single app’s lifecycle.

Sentiment

The overall sentiment is highly supportive of the article's core premise regarding the necessity and benefits of open social and user data ownership, acknowledging it as an 'important idea.' However, the discussion includes robust constructive criticism and active debate concerning the most practical and scalable implementation strategies, particularly weighing the burden on individual users versus the convenience of server-based models, and considering foundational infrastructure needs like domain accessibility. There is a strong collective desire for the vision of open social to succeed, but with an emphasis on real-world usability and technical feasibility.

In Agreement

• The core idea of 'open social' and user data ownership with portability is fundamentally important.
• Users should be able to seamlessly move their accounts and associated data between different servers and social networks.
• The underlying server infrastructure should be generic and not specific to any single network, facilitating broader interoperability.
• Existing standards like ActivityPub demonstrate the feasibility of cross-network interaction and account portability, as seen with platforms like Ghost.

Opposed

• The AT Protocol's (Bluesky's) 'hyper-individualized' model, which gives individuals direct control over their data, may be too complex or 'too hard for most' users to manage effectively.
• A server-based approach, similar to Mastodon or the email model (where users trust a host), could be more practical and accessible for wider adoption, despite its own inherent trade-offs.
• The cost and availability of top-level domains (TLDs) pose a significant practical barrier to achieving truly free and universally accessible user-controlled internet handles, suggesting a need for free, UUID-based domain alternatives.