How can open social protocols fail us?

I put together an analysis comparing several specific failure modes between Farcaster, Bluesky, and Mastodon.

Please let me know if any of the protocol descriptions could be presented more fairly!

How can open social protocols fail us?

I put together an analysis comparing several specific failure modes between Farcaster, Bluesky, and Mastodon.

Please let me know if any of the protocol descriptions could be presented more fairly!

https://shazow.net/posts/open-social-2025/

good article! 

my understanding here is that if the PLC decides to delete your DID keys you lose the ability to update your identity. there is some promise to decentralize it in the future, but it hasn't been executed yet. 

is this incorrect?

A doodler and computerer. I like permissive/permissionless open source, smart contracts, p2p systems, room-scale VR, and NixOS.

shazow.net

Currently: WhatsABI

The output of the directory is "self verifying" state transitions. Think of it like a centralized DA and sequencing. The infra that consumes it checks that signatures match up for the state transitions (eg key A signs over permission to key B). The main failure mode is same as DA/sequencer disappearing, would need social coordination to move to another DA/sequencer.

https://warpcast.com/shazow.eth/0xfeba2af0

PLC is a "self-verifying ledger" (full of signed state transitions like "key A signature giving permission for key B"), I don't think it can remove a key without breaking the integrity of the ledger (if you request the log).

That said, I do think they can censor updates (if I go to update my key, they can refuse to append it to the ledger). And I think they can omit logged updates in whatever "flattened" resolving helpers they offer.

A bit more here:

Technowatermelon. Elder Millenial. Building Farcaster. 

nf.td/varun

do users control all the keys that update the PLC? or does bluesky have keys which can make updates? 

if the latter is true, they can produce a new PLC trivially quickly to omit anyone they don't like.  and it would still be consistent with the rules of the PLC.

PLC is a "self-verifying ledger" (full of signed state transitions like "key A signature giving permission for key B"), I don't think it can remove a key without breaking the integrity of the ledger (if you request the log).

That said, I do think they can censor updates (if I go to update my key, they can refuse to append it to the ledger). And I think they can omit logged updates in whatever "flattened" resolving helpers they offer.

A bit more here: https://warpcast.com/shazow.eth/0xee35a765

I would be curious how you would describe it through the lense of gravitropic topologies.

This is the alt account of Sister Hazel. Writings at https://powerlaw.systems. Curating https://protocol-particles.github.io.

I could try to describe some general rules in the gravitropic lingo.

The deltas between action spaces and rule sets describe the available MEV of your failure cases.

Different scales of a problem domain come with different permutations of possible equilibria because entropy keeps unfolding within the MEV space. 

In detail it would be interesting to look at various thresholds at which balance shifts one way or the other in terms of gravitational subjectivity, because that morphes player intentions. 

We can't do anything about entropy, but we may be able to understand the gravity behind individual positions and boundary conditions, which all affect the way in which entropy permeates throughout any given system. 

We should  do some case studies given those frameworks because I believe we can make those rules and their hidden links computationally useful like an overlay for reality. I made that point originally in a fictional piece.

https://xh3b4sd.medium.com/protocol-particles-2fe4fdc9296d

Hmm don't know where to start! Do you have a take?

I would be curious how you would describe it through the lense of gravitropic topologies.

https://protocol-particles.github.io/Phenomena/Gravitropy/

Ok crazy idea but hear me out: Make Farcaster compatible with atproto, become the first full alternate AppView to BlueSky with sovereign identity on ENS and built in payments and mini apps.

Pushed a fix, ty!

My fav thing about Farcaster is the sovereign ID, onchain key management, and native payments/onchain operations. My fav thing about Bluesky is ATProto and the layered architecture that can be scaled separately (DID -> PDS -> Relays -> AppView).

It's a controversial take but I suspect there is a "better than the sum of its parts" synthesis here! It would be a far smaller change to bring Farcaster to a mostly-Bluesky-compatible ATProto than the reverse. Think of it like Threads coming to Mastodon: https://warpcast.com/shazow.eth/0xd76e8ff3

That said, if I were to "invest" long term, I'm not very bullish on public global social feeds. On a 10+ year timescale, my bet would be on new kinds of private group chats that cross-pollinate and publish public byproducts. My fav things about Farcaster are likely still relevant here!

friendly neighborhood shitcaster // working on @pinetree

1. Why on Earth did I find this thread 4 months later? :-)

2. Re: "new kinds of private groups", what do you think about this?
https://blog.vrypan.net/2024/06/26/farcaster-l2/

Great read, small typo `shazow.bsky.socialf`

What is your recommendation for people who are looking to invest / commit to an open social protocol -- which would you recommend (could be more than one), and where would you deploy resources to improve that protocol?

building @privy | surfing @ venice, ca | eating @ gjusta / gjelina | “lucky me, lucky mud” 🤠

nice write up

Is the PLC sovereign right now? I thought it was placeholder / controlled by the core team.

Seems much more centralized than Farcaster is today (our smart contracts don't have admin keys that can change the data)

Open social protocols can fail if not widely adopted or lacking adequate security measures