No. Data is stored on your PDS and no one else can shut it down, there is no central server. The only difference from public atproto is when you ask someone else PDS for records in a space you need a token signed by the space authority to show that you have permission to read them.
As someone reading this from the periphery (and not really even as I have been in the ecosystem, building etc), my first thought was this was some kind of live audio conversation thing ala Twitter Spaces. But nope. I know I know, you want to do your own thing, define your own naming, but alot of people still view things as far as Bluesky's relation to Twitter, in the consumer lens. You'll get there as far as independent separation but it's not there yet (similarly, Bluesky & atproto's connection/independence).
And this isn't even a consumer thing in this respect, but a dev/protocol thing.... couldn't have gone with something like Zones... Permissioned Zones?
My guess is that the collision is on purpose; to differentiate ATProto from Bluesky the platform, X the platform and "Twitter" the spectral concept we still use interchangeably with X. The intention here may be to differentiate ATProto from these things in a way that is indifferent to X and Twitter's existence and past influence.
> "space" is just a common English term for this kinda thing
Isn't that exactly the problem?
It's like using "node" for something in your program's design, or "tree" or "type" whatever. Usually it's better to find a more specific name that communicates the intent even better, or at least less common name, as it'll inevitably will clash with something else, and by then you wish you'd name it differently than every other single thing out there. Unless it truly is only that thing which can be called "tree", don't suddenly call it "perennial" just because.
Not saying the word doesn't make sense, questioning it's use from a branding/identity standpoint. It's already taken/associated with an aspect of another network that like it or not is still in proximity to whatever AT proto/Bluesky are developing. Just call it something else! ("hardest thing in computer science is naming things" etc etc)
Let's go, tangled.sh is about to have private repos
So is this now just, like, a server?
No. Data is stored on your PDS and no one else can shut it down, there is no central server. The only difference from public atproto is when you ask someone else PDS for records in a space you need a token signed by the space authority to show that you have permission to read them.
Spaces?
As someone reading this from the periphery (and not really even as I have been in the ecosystem, building etc), my first thought was this was some kind of live audio conversation thing ala Twitter Spaces. But nope. I know I know, you want to do your own thing, define your own naming, but alot of people still view things as far as Bluesky's relation to Twitter, in the consumer lens. You'll get there as far as independent separation but it's not there yet (similarly, Bluesky & atproto's connection/independence).
And this isn't even a consumer thing in this respect, but a dev/protocol thing.... couldn't have gone with something like Zones... Permissioned Zones?
My guess is that the collision is on purpose; to differentiate ATProto from Bluesky the platform, X the platform and "Twitter" the spectral concept we still use interchangeably with X. The intention here may be to differentiate ATProto from these things in a way that is indifferent to X and Twitter's existence and past influence.
"space" is just a common English term for this kinda thing, as you can see in any dictionary ever:
Collins: "A particular kind of space is the area that is available for a particular activity or for putting a particular kind of thing in."
Cambridge: "an empty area that is available to be used"
why do you think Twitter called them spaces in the first place?
> "space" is just a common English term for this kinda thing
Isn't that exactly the problem?
It's like using "node" for something in your program's design, or "tree" or "type" whatever. Usually it's better to find a more specific name that communicates the intent even better, or at least less common name, as it'll inevitably will clash with something else, and by then you wish you'd name it differently than every other single thing out there. Unless it truly is only that thing which can be called "tree", don't suddenly call it "perennial" just because.
Not saying the word doesn't make sense, questioning it's use from a branding/identity standpoint. It's already taken/associated with an aspect of another network that like it or not is still in proximity to whatever AT proto/Bluesky are developing. Just call it something else! ("hardest thing in computer science is naming things" etc etc)
> non-public data