Recent searches
Search options
I implore everyone to reconsider their position on #BridgyFed . Despite the project owner's effort to actually reach out to others (including IFTAS) for feedback, as well as their willingness to provide a full-feature #bridge (that already respects follow rules, implements deletion, etc.), the blowback has been disproportionate. I recognize that there has been a failure in communicating what the bridge does, which I seek to shed some light on right now.
I noted that the #bridge which is two-way, is actually well thought out. Deletions are bridged (1). Follows are sent through standard means, so locked accounts are respected (2). There are plans to federate reports (3) and there is a moderation policy (4). I do not believe they're as ignorant as some people claim.
1. https://snarfed.org/2024-02-12_bernie-the-wordsmith-snarfed-org-how-would-bridgin-mastodon-en-masto-es
2. https://fed.brid.gy/docs#behavior-mismatches
3. https://github.com/snarfed/granary/issues/596
4. https://fed.brid.gy/docs#moderation-policy
Through my observations, it appears that the #bridge is presented as an equal to other #ActivityPub instances. Clearly many do not think so, based on their convictions of #BlueSky users, which bears asking: what makes BlueSky different from, say, a generalist Mastodon instance? In other words, why is #federation opt-out, yet #BridgyFed must be opt-in?
Some insist on various legal bases like GDPR, but let's not kid ourselves here: the #fediverse is built on shaky legal foundations. Instances operate on unwritten gentlemen's agreements rather than terms of service. Most of us take #ActivityPub #federation for granted, but we lose control of our data once it gets out. In fact, I believe that if we're to enforce legal rights, then the fediverse will come down very quickly.
I think the #ActivityPub #fediverse needs to seriously grapple with the problem of using platforms to label and divide people. Yes, platforms do bad things, but does that mean they "deserve it?" Does not using your preferred platform make them inferior to you? On a personal scale, you have free will; but on an instance scale, there is a difference. I urge #MastoAdmin's to reconsider #BridgyFed once they launch formally.
Now, I call upon @snarfed.org to respect the popular will and implement opt-in for #BridgyFed while properly (ie. in clear terms, not PR) communicate to the public how exactly the #bridge works. I implore all participants to remain civil and stop ridiculing them as the "techbro" you claim them to be, especially since I've seen people trying to dig through the owner's personal life and bash them based on their work experience at Google!
@austin
> I call upon @snarfed.org to... implement opt-in for BridgyFed
AFAICT can tell it *is* opt-in, by the design of the way AP works. If you don't want to use it, don't approve follow requests from BlueSky accounts, and don't follow or @mention them. Job done.
Yes, if someone with followers on BlueSky boosts a public post of yours, it will go across the bridge. Guess what, it's also visible to anyone with a web browser. So?
@austin@mstdn.party@strypey Personally I approve his design either way, but I do not want to exclude other people's experience with Bluesky, should they have one. I also don't think it's a hill worth dying on given the outlash.
@austin
> I also don't think it's a hill worth dying on given the outlash
Fair enough. How would you propose he makes it any more opt-in than it already is?
@strypey I think the "prompt opt-in" he's considering now is good, though it is still unclear how he can be rid of himself of that negative reputation.
@austin
> it is still unclear how he can be rid of himself of that negative reputation
I don't think that's possible. A large subset of the people attacking him have about the same level of interest in facts or balance as QAnon fanatics.
Meanwhile, as they're complaining about a tool that adds something useful to the verse, we're dealing with problems that actually degrade the experience, like the Discord spam wave.