Salta al contenuto principale


Fediverse! I’ve been building a bridge to Bluesky, and they’re turning on federation soon, which means my bridge will be available soon too. You’ll be able to follow people on Bluesky from here in the fediverse, and vice versa.

Bluesky is a broad network with lots of worthwhile people and conversations! I hope you’ll give it a chance. Only fully public content is bridged, not followers-only or otherwise private posts or profiles. Still, if you want to opt out, I understand. Feel free to DM me at @snarfed@indieweb.social (different account than this one), email me, file a GitHub issue, or put #nobridge in your profile bio.

A number of us have thought about this for a while now, we’re committed to making it work well for everyone, and we’re very open to feedback. Thanks for listening. Feel free to share broadly.

cc @activitypubblueskybridge @fedidevs @fediversenews

Questa voce è stata modificata (1 anno fa)
in reply to Ryan Barrett

will you be able to e.g. reply to a Bluesky post from the Fediverse, in a way that people on Bluesky will see your reply?

reshared this

in reply to Ryan Barrett

@tchambers Holy moly "moderate people, not code" is so good. So many ideas I've wanted to express but you had the skill and knowledge to express them so much better than I'd have been able to!

reshared this

in reply to Ryan Barrett

Pagan Plus will be blocking the blue sky bridge for automaticly opting unaware users into sharing and introducing the fediverse to bluesky's moderation problems.

reshared this

in reply to ‍🌬️

After reviewing the domain operated by the bridge creator, I have silanced the domain to discourage interaction with data scrapers

reshared this

in reply to Ryan Barrett

so it will be possible to follow someone who is on Bluesky?

reshared this

in reply to mimo

Looks like, yes! There are some details on his site: snarfed.org/2023-11-27_re-intr…

reshared this

in reply to Ryan Barrett

sure wish the number of you thinking about this for a while had thought long enough to make it opt in for those interested rather than opt out for those not interested.

reshared this

in reply to Ryan Barrett

no good idea. It is not ok to demand an active optout via #nobridge from everyone. I dont care for bluesky, i care for my privacy! @ErikUden

reshared this

in reply to Cloudbreaker

I guess you want to use privacy settings on your posts then. This is all public by default here

reshared this

in reply to Cloudbreaker

I don't know you, we're not connected in any way I know, and yet, I can see your post, and your profile and more.
How is that for your privacy?

reshared this

in reply to Ryan Barrett

Does this allow 2-way interaction or is it still read-only?

reshared this

in reply to Zatty

I might be missing something, I don’t follow how this is different to the Fediverse today. Any new server can access & federate from any other, unless the user or the server blocks it (unless I’ve misunderstood!) Wouldn’t this be the same for fed.brid.gy? (But you can *also* use the hashtag in your profile)

reshared this

in reply to JP

I think the main difference is that, like Nostr, Bluesky is just one big monolith with known problematic users (that have to be "filtered" out), so it's hard to moderate effectively. It's the same as any other large Mastodon instance, like dot Social or Gab.

reshared this

in reply to Blake Leonard

Ahh yeah, I guess some users/servers might want/need to block the whole of brid.gy to avoid the risk of specific users on a given bridged platform being able to follow them. That’s not so different to today’s fediverse (lots of people/servers block Threads), but it sucks to lose the other functionality of brid.gy.

reshared this

in reply to JP

(Unless you can block specific bridges platforms individually @snarfed.org ? This still seems within the limits of current Fediverse architecture to me, but it’d be a shame if we can’t allow people to select platforms by server, just like with the Fediverse!)

reshared this

in reply to JP

@byjp@zatnosk@activitypubblueskybridge@fedidevs@fediversenews@snarfed@hachyderm.io If you want to block just Bridgy's Bluesky bridge, or just their (upcoming) Nostr bridge, or whatever, you can do that. If you want to block specific PDS's, I don't think there's a way to do that.

reshared this

in reply to JP

The difference is it is a commercial network. We have not signed up to the TOS AND he is copying everything with out permission from the user.

We did sign up just to the fediverse, not to make content for a billionaire.

If people want to post elsewhere they can sign up for the TOS.

It needs to be OPT IN If people want to use it.

@zatnosk @activitypubblueskybridge @fedidevs @fediversenews

reshared this

in reply to SuperMoosie

Considering each instance can have its own terms of service, this is a legal space that is largely untested currently. My thoughts are that the legality will boil down to "follow each instance terms", but it's an amazingly complex thing even there. And I say this even as an instance owner who thinks that bridgy should be explicitly opt-in either per-post, per-user, or per-instance.

Per-instance, to me, kind of makes the MOST sense for having an 'opt-out' tag in the bio -- each instance owner is then making their own users aware of the policy and can give them advance notice if they don't wish to be included. Just having a global "we can have your information even if you're unaware of it" policy is half the problem of the current tech industry snarfing up damn everything as if it's theirs to use, causing all the LLM garbage issues today.

Hell, the fact I'd have to end my wifi SSID in _at least_ two weird tag things, and one of them MUST be the last one, to avoid my wifi SSID, BSSID, and location getting snarfed by mapping cars (google, MS, etc) is just part of this. I have to take up limited characters in my bio for each service I want no part in? I have to make my SSID ugly just so a corp won't use info I didn't consent to them using? While I like the idea of being able to follow friends of mine who are on AT instead of fedi, and refuse to use fedi, it's not worth it being so open; I always figured there would be an opt-in mechanism, not yet more opt-out stuff.

C'mon, @activitypubblueskybridge, haven't you seen how many times people offering only opt-out are shown the distaste for this? =/ 'bridge' or not, it's still technically a specialized service, it's not transparent just because things are duplicated both ways.

reshared this

in reply to SuperMoosie

There are several commercial Fediverse networks that you have not opted into, but that your posts can be sent to (via boosts, replies, etc.). Please shut the fuck up and leave this developer alone. This is embarrassing.

reshared this

in reply to SuperMoosie

I did not consent to the TOS of your instance and yet, it's copying this post so that you can see it. And guess what, you did not consent to the TOS of my server and yet, it has copied your post and basic info so that I can see them.

reshared this

in reply to JP

The difference is that when you post to the Fediverse, you expect your post to be federated within the Fediverse via its native means. One consents to this type of content propagation when they make posts on Fedi.

Bridging is something beyond that, and is not something one consents to when making posts on the Fediverse.

reshared this

in reply to Zatty

Indeed. There should be no bridge, and if there is a bridge, then requiring opt-out by people who have nevee heard of that bridge is the opposite of consent.

reshared this

in reply to the roamer

This argument about consent is fictional. Anyone can create a server on the Fediverse and everyone on the Fediverse is conntected, without their consent.

Bluesky could create a Mastodon server, any commercial entity can create a server and everyone is linked without consent.

The only way to preserve consent on the Fediverse, is to create a server that is not linked to other servers, in which case you don't have to worry about this bridge.

reshared this

in reply to Tim Erickson, @stpaultim

If you really believe in consent, then you should be advocating that no one is connected to any server other than the one they signed up for, unless they opt-in.

reshared this

in reply to Tim Erickson, @stpaultim

The BS bridge links to a commercial platform outside the Fediverse, rather than to other instances within the Fediverse. People sign up to their Fediverse instance in order to be connected within the Fediverse. Some people in the Fediverse also want to be connected to commercial external platforms, but many very definitely don't. They joined the Fediverse precisely because they want to be free from those platforms. That's where the "opt-out" mechanism violates consent.

#consent

reshared this

in reply to Tim Erickson, @stpaultim

With respect it is not at all like a commercial Mastodon server. A bridge contributes to a social media platform that's not (yet) proven its bona fides as regards being anti-monopolistic.

reshared this

in reply to Ben Thompson 🐕

The developer has made clear that this bridge is only possible if Blue Sky turns on Federation and made clear it will be a two way bridge.

I'll leave it at that.
snarfed.org/2023-11-27_re-intr…

reshared this

in reply to the roamer

Undecided on this but we had bridges / gateways to a lot of federated networks on the usenet and users did not consider this a problem with consent in principle. You don’t have to use it and your instance can block it.
However, blueky could easily become one of the too big to block instances on the fediverse, but with a different culture concerning moderation (and archiving), and that may become a problem.

reshared this

in reply to Zatty

Please shut the fuck up.

Mastodon sends your posts to thousands of other servers without your consent. That is how ActivityPub works. This is doing absolutely nothing different.

reshared this

in reply to Sam

I think, many Fediverse users trust on the moderation in the fediverse. Connecting to a network without a trusted moderation could be a problem?!
Bluesky isn't simply "another server"

reshared this

in reply to Markus

you don't trust my servers moderation and yet somehow your dumb take js in my feed. curious.

reshared this

in reply to Markus

I*m still on the fence about this, but if Bluesky suddenly bewcomes partly dependent o. Mastodon content, it may well force moderation … or I guess they'd be defederated. @sam @zatnosk @snarfed.org @activitypubblueskybridge @fedidevs @fediversenews

reshared this

in reply to Sam

I'm in agreement with your arguments. But, I'm fully against the tone and the aggressiveness of your responses.

It's nice that Mastodon has such nice features to block users such as yourself.

Your account is an opt-out account. No one was asked to consent to your hostility, it's just part of the network, however everyone has the option to block it (opt out).

I expect, I'll be taking advantage of that feature.

reshared this

in reply to Ryan Barrett

I'm a big fan of bridges and this is the big one I've been eagerly waiting for. I'll probably add it to my wizard soon after it's available. Once the moderation issues get sorted out, I firmly believe that in the end, this will be a net positive for both networks, since Bluesky users will be able to follow and engage with the vibrant and growing communities and services here, and we'll be able to follow and engage with shitposters from Bluesky.

The moderation issues should be sorted out promptly, and I'm a little disappointed that you're going to open it up with little consideration about mod tooling, especially considering the lists and lists of known problematic users on Bluesky, from mere crypto-shills and scammers to bigots, transphobes, racists, fascists, and genocide supporters. I don't have any way to find or use Bluesky's mod lists from here so there needs to be some other way.

Plus, I'm sure Bluesky users want a way to mass-mute and mass-block bridged users, maybe even from particular instances, especially considering our ongoing tone police and reply guy problems, which have driven numerous people from here to there. I feel like this part is imminently solvable with automatically-populated moderation list(s), though.

reshared this

in reply to Blake Leonard

Where have we signed up for the bluesky TOS?

What gives this guy the right to copy our content we make for the fediverse available on a commercial network?

No one has consented for this.

Bridges need to be opt in.

@fediversenews @fedidevs @activitypubblueskybridge @snarfed.org @snarfed

reshared this

in reply to Ryan Barrett

Opt-in only, or I #DomainBlock

What is that again?

bsky.brid.gy?

So noted...

I want *nothing* to do with #Bluesky

#NoBridge has been added to my profile

cc @activitypubblueskybridge @fedidevs @fediversenews@venera.social

reshared this

in reply to Ryan Barrett

"Moderate people, not code"

You do not have the resources to moderate everything that will flow over this bridge, so you shouldn't do it. Your project will force this work on other instance mods.

Opt-out is unethical because people aren't aware they're being opted-in, but also because it makes this bigger and dumps more work on other instances.

reshared this

in reply to unlofl [Promoted Toot]

honestly, we probably need another project like #fedipact to track things like this. I don't want to keep an eye out for every scraper/indexer/bridge project, I just want to pick an instance where my admins defed and opt everyone out. As a bonus, this would place pressure on projects to be opt-in only, so they don't get blocked on sight by whole communities.

reshared this

in reply to Ryan Barrett

please, make your tool opt-out by default. and learn about the concept of consent. opt-in by default is never acceptable.

reshared this

in reply to 1312-osainen hylsysarja

youre correct, but you mean the opposite words. opt-out is what is described in the post and is unacceptable

reshared this

in reply to Ryan Barrett

I am excited for this, thank you for the time and effort you're putting into building this ActivityPub <> ATproto bridge, especially the two-way communication support! I have had very poor experiences with BlueSky myself, but I have multiple friends that prefer it and just aren't interested in Fedi. It will be amazing to be able to rebuild that part of my social circle and keep tabs with them, while still being able to utilize the filtering and timeline curation tools that only Mastodon provides right now.

reshared this

in reply to Noxy 🐾🏳️‍🌈

as always, a solution at the expense of user's time; it should be #bridgeToBsky, not the other way around

reshared this

in reply to Noxy 🐾🏳️‍🌈

The Fediverse is already made up of literally dozens of various services that all speak the same protocol - Mastodon, Firefish, Pixelfed, Pleroma, Frendica, among many others - and users on one service can freely interact with users on another service. Personally I don't see this bridge as being anything different, really. I have essentially zero issue with a public post of mine being visible to any and all - that's the whole point of a public post on the open web, imo. As long as they hold true to their word that non-public posts won't be viewable via the bridge, I have no issues with it.

reshared this

in reply to Baral'heia Stormdancer ΘΔ🐲

"I have essentially zero issue with a public post of mine being visible to any and all"

YOU speak for only YOU. Yet you seem happy to subject others to your comfort zone.

Do you not see why that's a significant problem?

reshared this

in reply to Pusher Of Pixels (old account)

Honestly no, I don't. First of all, I was only talking about my own preferences in that regard. If I post something with full public visibility, I have zero expectation of privacy on that post. But that said, a public post is a public post. Any time you make a public post on Fedi, that post is copied to other instances and other services through federation in order for others to view it. This is entirely by design. If you do not wish a post to be seen by any random user on the Fediverse, you are empowered with multiple ways to make that happen - be it blocking the user, blocking their instance, or adjusting your account or post privacy settings. According to the documentation (fed.brid.gy/docs) for the bridge, it's intended to work the same way, with the same restrictions - posts would not get picked up by the bridge until someone follows you, you would receive notifications any time someone followed you (there are NO anonymous follows), and you can block that user from following you just as if they were a native Fedi user. If the post or account is not public, then the bridge won't even know the post exists to do anything with it.

reshared this

in reply to Baral'heia Stormdancer ΘΔ🐲

So you're supposition is people can choose how widely seen their content is?

That's kinda ironic considering this is entirely without choice for the vast majority who won't even know about it.

OptOut is a terrible idea on every angle.

reshared this

in reply to Pusher Of Pixels (old account)

@AS4gBPS9axYI2RYbEe.snarfed.org@snarfed.org Opt-out is the default of the Fediverse. As a server admin, I don’t actively choose who federates with me. Federation happens as soon as my server “sees” another.

There is a way to change this default towards opt-in, and that’s by whitelisting. Most servers, including universeodon.com, don’t choose to go this route because it severely affects their visibility.

Another problem is that, even if you whitelist, once your content federates onto another server, it is beyond your control. It exists elsewhere. A malicious party who is on another server may interact with it in a distasteful, insensitive, perhaps illegal manner.

The way some servers have gotten around this is by turning off federation entirely. That is an option, but probably not one that most people on the Fediverse want.

reshared this

in reply to Chris Trottier

Yes indeed, Thanks for making that clarification for all of the clueless people posting here who hitherto believed otherwise, as if they ever had it that way.

They'll complain and threaten to go somewhere else, and of course, they're welcome to that option as well, but in the end...

"“Life's but a walking shadow; a poor player, that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

#tallship #FOSS #Fediverse #bridges #innovation #fools

⛵️

.

reshared this

in reply to Pusher Of Pixels (old account)

uh yeah, that's the whole point. This bridge acts just like a regular Fedi user and follows all the same rules. If the bridge can't see your posts, it can't do anything with them - and you have full control over how visible your posts are. You also have the option of adding a hashtag to your profile, defederating from the domain the bridge lives on, or contacting the dev for a manual opt-out.

Plus, as far as I can tell, absolutely none of this is intended to happen in a vacuum. The documentation I linked earlier explains that users who are followed via the bridge still get a notification that they were followed, just like they were followed by a regular Fedi account. You'll see the BlueSky user names of each user that follows you through the bridge, and you'll be able to block individual users from seeing your account through the bridge if you so choose (in addition to the options above).

You'll have the same control over who can see your content that you would with any other Fedi user.

I'd strongly recommend reading the documentation to get a better understanding of how this is intended to work when it goes live.

reshared this

in reply to 🌸 lily 🏳️‍⚧️ θΔ ⋐ & ∞

Do you think that people who don’t know about the bridge would give a fsck about it - taking into account that their public posts are visible on instances of lemmy, friendica, pleroma,… and they don’t know about it?
Isn’t the way this bridge to bluesky is implemented exactly the way that another service on the fedi should be implemented?
Is it because bluesky is a commercial instance?

@pixelpusher220 @baralheia @noxypaws @snarfed.org @activitypubblueskybridge @fedidevs @fediversenews

reshared this

in reply to chris@strafpla.net

no, their posts are just visible on other fedi instances. that's how fedi works. obviously they're fine with that, or they wouldn't have signed up to fedi. no, the bridge to bluesky isn't implemented in the same way, because bluesky doesn't use activitypub, therefore is not part of the fediverse. people's posts would be being mirrored to bluesky without their consent.

reshared this

in reply to 🌸 lily 🏳️‍⚧️ θΔ ⋐ & ∞

So what’ the difference between the fedi
and bridged bluesky?
Just the protocol? What parts/variants?
If I ask those very angry posters in this thread, can they explain to me what activitypub is?
What about services that use OStatus? Are they fedi? And then most posts are accessible using rss and some are integrating this into their blogs.
Is wordpress an ok member of the fediverse?

@pixelpusher220 @baralheia @noxypaws @snarfed.org @activitypubblueskybridge @fedidevs @fediversenews

reshared this

in reply to chris@strafpla.net

And if it is the protocol -
where does it have to be implemented? Can a service use a different protocol for internal communication and communicate to external instances using AP? Can this part run as a separate server? What’s the difference to a bridge?
No, this drama is not about the protocol.
“The Fedi” means something(s) else and we need to understand this to solve the drama.
@pixelpusher220 @baralheia @noxypaws @snarfed.org @activitypubblueskybridge @fedidevs @fediversenews

reshared this

in reply to Baral'heia Stormdancer ΘΔ🐲

Here's a thought... While it's not a concern for me, I'm seeing a lot of worry from others about opt-in consent for this bridge. Could you consider (either by option or by default) having the bridge send newly-followed users a message through their service saying, basically, "this is an automatic message from Bridgy Fed. <User> wants to follow you from <service> via this bridge. Do you want to allow this?" and offer always, yes, no, and full opt-out options in response. The user who initiated the follow request wouldn't see anything until the newly-followed user responded, and no response would equal a "no" answer. Could something like that be doable?

reshared this

in reply to Ryan Barrett

I hope your creepy non-consensual fucking project gets defederated from every instance and your shitty fucking bridge becomes completely fucking useless

reshared this

in reply to hazelnot

@hazelnot :yell: I don't get why people get angry over a freakin' bridge, yet they have no issue with the existence of projects like #BirdsiteLIVE. This is just so entitled. If you don't want to have your content available live on every place, just post it with a different privacy option smh

reshared this

in reply to Cătă

techbros understand consent challenge (impossible)

reshared this

in reply to hazelnot

@hazelnot :yell: you give consent when you publicly post something online. In fact, guess what, I can see your profile and whatever you publicly post without even logging in to your instance. How? I use a web browser.

Did you also give your consent to an obscure 3rd party app to display your content inside it? No. Let's just ban them all then, just like Xitter and Reddshit did, or like Meta/Faceshit did in the 1st place.

Oh, it's so great when we have stuff to help us reach content, from friends, from people we follow, but God forbid someone else reaches our content from other parts of the internet. Those that want that are just techbros.

reshared this

in reply to Ryan Barrett

Opt-out violates consent. Peter posts on the Fediverse, so that his friends on another Fedi instance can read his daily thoughts. He knows that there are many other people on the Fedi who can also see his posts. He is OK with that; indeed, he hopes for a wider Fedi audience. But he hates all commercial platforms, including BS. He wants his posts hidden from BS. Regardless, your bridge links Peter's posts into BS, against his wishes and without his knowledge. Don't!

reshared this

in reply to Ryan Barrett

So,
if me or other trans* individuals, or other marginalized groups (many of whom I'm sure will *never* see your post with the genuinely shit opt-out option) are harassed or otherwise receive uninvited abuse and commentary through your bridge, are you prepared to face legal challenges brought against you?

reshared this

in reply to Ryan Barrett

Cool! Looks interesting, sucks you are getting some piss poor negative feedback but the Fediverse does like to hurt itself pretty bad with stuff like this. I hope everything goes smoothly. Don't take the fedi mob seriously.

reshared this

in reply to Ryan Barrett

I want to OPT OUT please.
#NoBridge for me.

This should have been an OPT-IN only

reshared this

in reply to Ryan Barrett

i don't want anything to do with this and i'm not putting some shit in my profile to help enable your weird "just opt out!" philosophy

reshared this

in reply to Ryan Barrett

Congratulations! You convinced me to block your entire domain!

Well done, you exploitative git.

reshared this

in reply to Ryan Barrett

thanks for the heads-up! Blocked the domain on the server level. Centralized corporate social media always goes to shit, so it's nice to block it out from day 1.

reshared this

in reply to Ryan Barrett

Making this on an opt-out basis was a horrible, horrible decision. Please opt me out, and never, ever, include me in any future bridges.

reshared this

in reply to Ryan Barrett

@gogobonobo You need to make this opt IN not opt OUT. It absolutely fucking sucks that you want to force the majority of decentralized posts here into content for Jack fucking Dorsey.

reshared this

in reply to Ryan Barrett

Such a service should be opt-in only, for the handful of folks who DO want their content used to generate traffic for Bluesky.

As I'm not one of those people, I am notifying you that I am opting out. It'd be nice if that request was honored, but realistically I know it won't be.

So fuck you.

reshared this

in reply to Ryan Barrett

So,
if me or other trans* individuals, or other marginalized groups (many of whom I'm sure will *never* see your post with the genuinely shit opt-out option) are harassed or otherwise receive uninvited abuse and commentary through your bridge, are you prepared to face legal challenges brought against you?

reshared this

in reply to Shlee fucked around and

eh ... as with Threads + fedipact, there's likely a spectrum where the louder voices can mask the "middle of the road" voices, for better or worse. Anti-Bridge-Pact?

What exactly is the difference between this and a new instance? I'm genuinely unclear?

Like, do kbin instances respect search indexing preferences? What about other commercial instances like moth?

Is it the relative size of bksy?

reshared this

in reply to maegul

Agreed. I just want to actually interact with people I actually know on other platforms from the comfort of Mastodon. I miss people I actually know in real life.

reshared this

in reply to James Harris

Yea, for me, the whole "I want a relatively anti-social social media" motive of many on masto seems like something that requires better institutional/infrastructural devices rather than merely distributing it amongst defed, personal blocks and outcries over opt-in/opt-out.

At some point, it seems, some people just want a different system than what this is. Like a closed FOSS Discord.

reshared this

in reply to maegul

Which, TBC, is all good by me.

It's just that the amount of noise and "drama" necessary to maintain this constant vigilance against what a decentralised social media protocol naturally allows seems like a potential dead end with diminishing returns.

EG, many on bsky that those here would like to talk to have probably left here because of this "noise" however much they align with the values here.

reshared this

in reply to maegul

I just checked and Mastodon does have a whitelist mode instances can use of they really want control over their data.

"This mode is intended for private use only, such as in academic institutions or internal company networks, as it effectively creates a data silo, which is contrary to Mastodon's mission of decentralization. This setting was known as WHITELIST_MODE prior to 3.1."

docs.joinmastodon.org/admin/co….

@jbwharris @shlee @snarfed.org @activitypubblueskybridge @fedidevs @fediversenews

reshared this

in reply to Ryan Barrett

A lot of people are upset about this but ya'll know, straight up, if your feed is live & people not auth'd can read your server feed you *don't have privacy*. Mastodon and the fediverse in general never said anything about expectations of privacy.

Snarfed here could have been a bad actor and never told you anything and as far as I know it's in the clear.

If you don't like it, block the bridge and move on.

reshared this

in reply to Shanie MyrsTear

“They could have been a bad actor and you would never know” does not seem to be a good point to make to convince people of bridging.

reshared this

in reply to chris@strafpla.net

Lucky for you they gave admins an option of what you want done. Good actor.

A bad actor, for example, is likely already gathering your servers data and training it on a LLM as you have no power over THEIR server; you have *volunteered that data by federating*. Your ToS means nothing. Oops.

Someone truly worried about privacy would not be federating at all.

reshared this

in reply to Shanie MyrsTear

At what point do privacy concerns interfere with basic functionality?

reshared this

in reply to dogzilla

that’s extremely dependent on what kind of privacy violation, but privacy concerns interfere with basic functionality when the admin(s) of your instance get(s) lazy, really.

If you have active Admins and you can bring your concerns to their table, or they pay attention to #mastoadmin and do their due diligence, you will have a “safer” server.

reshared this

in reply to Shanie MyrsTear

Unlike every other social media, you can just spin up your own instance and be your own admin. Unless you’re paying your admin, you have zero right to demand or expect anything from them and it’s on *you* as a user to whom this (or any other issue) is important to follow that stuff.

If you don’t agree with how your admin runs their instance, fire up your own

reshared this

in reply to dogzilla

I never said anything about “demanding” anything from anyone. If you have a shit admin though, or believe they are not healthy for you, yes, feel free to change servers. Only weakness is you “lose” your previous posts but whatever.

But if you are an admin and don’t at least sit and listen to your server, why are you an admin of social media?

reshared this

in reply to Shanie MyrsTear

"it's possible to do bad thing, so there's nothing wrong with bad thing actually"

reshared this

in reply to 🌸 lily 🏳️‍⚧️ θΔ ⋐ & ∞

How to take a point and not at all understand what it means for $500, Alex.

It’s possible to do bad thing, so take control of your server and prevent it in an active way.

reshared this

Unknown parent

mastodon - Collegamento all'originale
SuperMoosie

There is no opt in.

He is sending all your posts across to a commercial site, with out anyones permission.

@snarfed.org @activitypubblueskybridge @fedidevs @fediversenews

reshared this

in reply to Ryan Barrett

This should be opt-in, not opt-out. BlueSky doesn't use ActivityPub and, therefore, the tools users have to protect themselves on Mastodon are incompatible with your bridge.

I'll be talking with the other moderators and admins of furry-focused servers to inform them of this new risk to marginalized users and I'm confident they'll be taking appropriate actions to keep our communities safe.

reshared this

in reply to Ryan Barrett

you should not be setting this up as opt-out

I didn't consent to be part of your experiment, and if I wanted an account on some other network I'd have one

reshared this

in reply to Ryan Barrett

Just want to say thank you for all your work on this! I'm on BlueSky as well but not comfortable with their VC backing. It's going to be nice to be able to interact with folks on there from my Mastodon account!

reshared this

in reply to Ryan Barrett

build bridges not walls is great! being able to add #nobridge to individual profiles seems like a reasonable way for folks to opt out. Thanks for all your work!

reshared this

in reply to Ryan Barrett

This need to be opt *in*, not opt out! What the heck were you thinking? I suppose this makes sense if Bluesky is paying you...

reshared this

in reply to Ryan Barrett

This is bad news. Don’t do it. You seem to have decided that everyone should be subjected to your brilliant idea.

reshared this

in reply to Ryan Barrett

Wow. This is just such an epically bad call. I can't imagine reading the room this badly.

ANY privacy advocate you talk to - and I really suggest you talk to a few - will give you the burning side-eye for thinking you have the right to force folks to opt out.

And you should definitely look into the fact that you may be violating the GDPR. Someone else certainly will.

reshared this

in reply to SuperMoosie

Mastodon works this way by default, it sends your posts to thousands of other servers without your permission. Please leave this developer alone.

reshared this

in reply to Michael T. Richter

I did not consent to your dumb post getting federated to my good server, shut the fuck up

reshared this

in reply to Michael T. Richter

you have to appreciate someone so openly breaking their instance rules about proper conduct.

It makes it easier to report and block them.

reshared this

in reply to Ryan Barrett

Ryan,

How refreshing!

Another bridging mechanism to extend the reach and interoperability with other Fediverse protocols in the #DeSoc space is most welcome, and from the limited analysis I've been able to perform so far this is a novel approach to what some point in the future will find other Fediverse platforms incorporating in their network stacks.

So far, we've got seamless nostr interoperability to add to the other fine protocols such as Diaspora, ZOT, Nomad, OStatus, ActivityPub, and others in the mix. You might also wish to take a look at the repo for Minds to see how they've made seamless integration between the ActivityPub and nostr portions of the #Fediverse as well, and oh, pay no mind to the infantile and disparaging remarks that some small minded folks in this thread have exhibited - they are free to *defederate themselves from the Fediverse at any time.

We've been following withe some enthusiasm your project in the Fediverse-City community and it would be a pleasure to have you participate there. Your insight into the open and public aspects of Fediverse traffic in the #DeSoc world is a testament to the innovation and evolution that is possible in obviating the proprietary, privacy disrespecting, deprecated monolothic silo networks that have sowed so much acrimony and subjugation over the very people whom they seek to quantify as their business products.

You're performing a great service here, feel free to block any miscreants in this thread who don't understand the definition of public.

Also, might I suggest that instead of offering a `#nobridge keyword index, you think about offering a solution as a FEP here?:
codeberg.org/fediverse/fep/

There are a lot of Fediverse platform developers I'm sure that you'll find welcoming, encouraging, and willing to offer assistance in formulating solutions to silence the adolescent juvenile mindsets that have been berating you in this thread for your selfless commitment to the well being of us all.

In the future, the Fediverse that we perceive and interact within will become its own heterogeneous superset of networking protocols to facilitate effortless communications between individual parties regardless of which portions of the Fediverse and their associated protocols implemented. Just like #OStatus has been largely supplanted by ActivityPub, and #ZOT has been superseded by #Nomad, the ActivityPub portion of the Fediverse will also eventually be deprecated and replaced by other stacks that will emerge from the ether of creativity. In the meantime, we'll be bridging between the various protocol stacks, and Bridgy-fed is one of those tools that serves to make that a reality 😀

Thank you again, for your selfless contribution to #DeSoc and the Fediverse. it's a fantastic achievement that will serve to benefit many in both the #ATP and #ActivityPub portions of the Fediverse!

#tallship #bridgy #FOSS #Fediverse #DeSoc #innovation

⛵️

.

reshared this

in reply to Ryan Barrett

Thank you all for the feedback, both good and bad. I knew I’d hear some pushback that this should be opt in instead of opt out, and I obviously did. I’ve also had some useful conversations and ideas on how to bridge (ahem 😄) that gap and make opt in more realistically usable, along with a few interesting compromise points between opt in and opt out. I’m grateful to everyone today who engaged and talked constructively and offered those new techniques. It’s very possible that this will land somewhere along that spectrum other than fully opt out.

I had plenty of work to do already before launch, and now I have a number of other important ideas to explore too. That’s great! I really do appreciate it. I’ll definitely check back in well before this launches.

Questa voce è stata modificata (1 anno fa)
in reply to Ryan Barrett

The GDPR applies to US-based companies that offer services to people in EU Member States. It applies to not-for-profit organisations. It will apply to you. Figure this out before launch.

Besides, consent matters even if you don't get fined for ignoring it.

Unknown parent

mitra - Collegamento all'originale
tallship

Johannes, There isn't one - they're talking out of their ass.

They're just making noise and emotionally distressed to discover that this is how the #Fediverse currently works, and always has worked - and it's not just the #ActivityPub portions of the Fediverse, or even the Fediverse - it's the entire #Internet...

"If you affect a public post, you have no expectation of privacy".

For those who still feel some sense of having been offended, I welcome them to unplug their computers and toss their iPhones and Androids into the trash. That's really their only option, and they'll come to that realization some day, maybe, and it is of no consequence for anyone else in the world if they don't.

#tallship #FOSS #networking #privacy #ignorance

⛵️

.

reshared this

Unknown parent

mastodon - Collegamento all'originale
tallship

Yes, we do try to respect the Creative Commons licenses - it's a great thing.

And statistically, studies have revealed that we also do our very best to respect the wishes of publishers who rebuke and refuse to allow their works in a distribution channel where items are DRM encoded.

People should have more faith in the intentions of folks trying to do good, methinks 😀

There will always be bad actors

reshared this

in reply to Ryan Barrett

Hi @Ryan Barrett
as a Friendica user I already have the possibility to connect to the world of Bluesky, but I'm really happy that you are creating a useful tool for all other users of the fediverse!

Bluesky is a project with many critical issues and with volumes that can be problematic to manage for the instances of the Fediverse, but it is objectively a very interesting environment that is attracting the best of the users who had remained on Twitter but who unfortunately had not managed to settle into the architecture of the Fediverse.

Every project designed to create bridges deserves to be respected and supported.

For this I thank you!

@Ryan Barrett

Unknown parent

friendica (DFRN) - Collegamento all'originale
Franc Mac

@jakob 🇦🇹 ✅

> I use Friendica. And friendica hast a bluesky-adapter built-in.
> As admin i can activate it, and users can configure it for their needs...
>
> So... instead of building such bridges it would be a great idea to build native support for different protocols in the services like mastodon, pleroma, *key...

I am also an administrator of Friendica and for this very reason I know that I cannot ask the developers of the other social networks in the Fediverse to develop special connection bridges with other social networks.

In fact, Friendica is a software that was born "hyperconnected by design": today it supports Bluesky and Tumbir and I remind you that Friendica also supported Facebook and Twitter, at least until these social networks removed support for their APIs!

For this reason you shouldn't worry about the bridges that are about to be built: the nice thing about bridges is that they connect to other places, but in case of danger they can be blown up.

@Ryan Barrett @Ryan Barrett

reshared this

in reply to Ryan Barrett

You can go ahead and opt out all of mastodon.art until your bridge is FULLY opt-in.

You've been here since 2017? Long enough to have seen enough entitled techbros think they can claim some kind of ownership over people's data here and use it without consent, and get railed for it.

Opt out is not consent. Fuck off.

reshared this

in reply to Mastodon•ART 🎨 Curator

You may want to reconsider your "Fuck off" comment while on mastodon.art:

mastodon.art/about/more#code-o…

reshared this

in reply to Anders Borch

I left mastodon.art because of these types of inappropriate admin behaviour and (imho) questionable admin decisions a long time ago. They want to control how and with whom their users communicate instead of leaving that to the users as it should be.

reshared this

in reply to Franc Mac

@Franc Mac I think eventually a large part of the fediverse will be multi-protocol. Not all of it, but a significant piece. We will have platforms like Friendica and Hubzilla that offer multi-protocol communications natively, and bridges for everyone else.
in reply to Sam

There is nothing to prevent a commercial organization from setting up a Mastodon server, in fact I believe that there are already examples of that.

So, there is no protection on Mastodon now for sharing your content with commercial services.

reshared this

in reply to Ryan Barrett

Thanks for your work on this valuable feature for the Fediverse AND for your transparency and willingness to listen to the feedback of the community.

Please, don't let the loudest and most hostile voices discourage you.

Clearly, we all need to do better at communicating how the Fediverse works and setting realistic expectations about privacy on this network.

reshared this

in reply to Ryan Barrett

lovely, thanks for creating this, looking forward to talking to old and new friends on #Bluesky from the comfort of my #Mastodon account !! so please by any means opt me in (should it come to it)

reshared this

in reply to Ryan Barrett

If you'd like to use our content, how about paying us for it?

Or at least consider the copyright position of each post/account rather than assuming what we produce is free for you to re-use.

reshared this

in reply to Andre

@snarfed.org@snarfed.org
Andre, you know, this public post you just wrote, has been temporarily cached by my pleroma server. I wonder if you consider that i'm using your content by simply answering you.
in reply to Luca Sironi

That would be using the content as intended. In the same way that allowing a browser to cache a web page doesn't entitle the browser use to then republish that content under their own domain.

Similarly, owning and using a DVR doesn't grant one the right to sell copies of a TV show.

I can borrow a book from a library, but that doesn't entitle me to photocopy it, rebind it and sell it to another library.

reshared this

in reply to Andre

so i'm preemptively good person/ server because i use activitypub but you don't trust bluesky the company, because they are using that other AT protocol.

But once they opened their protocol, it's not just their company using it, other no profit actors can use it as well.

There are mastodon servers owned by company already.

reshared this

in reply to Luca Sironi

I'm not anti-corporate at all. I have no problem with a large entity implementing native activitypub and interacting natively with the community.

I do not see bridges/gateways that republish content as that at all.

Further, I understand there's a difference between offering someone a beer and having them walk into my house and help themselves to the fridge.

reshared this

in reply to Luca Sironi

It's not a matter of trust; it's a matter of choice. I (and many others) made the *choice* to not touch bluesky and now that choice is being taken away from everyone, by default, unless the individual user happens to know this is coming and hoe to stop it.

When the alternative is to flip this "simple" opt-out to an *equally simple* opt-in, the decision to make it opt-out is a decision to take choice away from your demographic in order to artificially enhance the user uptake of your product.

@PCOWandre @activitypubblueskybridge @fedidevs @fediversenews

reshared this

in reply to chronohart

Let's be honest most people have no idea this bridge is going to exist. So, they can't opt-in. If nobody opts-in, you won't be able to search for them by their ActivityPub handles. The bridge isn't useful. People on both sides who would like to reconnect with their friends won't be able to. However, if you know you hate BS, you can add the bridge to your personal block list and it isn't an issue for you.

reshared this

in reply to Jamie Booth

What if I block #BS (just love the acronym 😉) and the BS #bridge but one or more of my followers who ARE "bridged" boost or link my content? Will it appear on #BS?

@chronohart @luca @PCOWandre @activitypubblueskybridge @fedidevs @fediversenews

reshared this

in reply to HistoPol (#HP) 🏴 🇺🇸 🏴

This is a really good question and I don't know the answer. This is the kinda of thing I think we should be asking about the bridge.

@snarfed do you know the answer to this?

reshared this

in reply to Jamie Booth

It’s seems likely this will happen as a boost creates a new post.

reshared this

in reply to Oliphantom Menace

@snarfed.org
I'm wondering if that means there may be a functional difference between blocking the bridge vs adding the #nobridge tag?

reshared this

in reply to HistoPol (#HP) 🏴 🇺🇸 🏴

Based on Ryan's response and some of the other descriptions, it sounds like the bridge software knows how to handle AP block requests. So, they should be the same.

reshared this

in reply to Hartmut Neubauer

(1/2)
I guess I can answer this question now: once s.o. quotes or boosts your content (= new post) you lose control of your content and cannot prevent it from being shared.

I'd say, unless you limited the post to your followers, however if one of your followers were on the #Friendica or #Hubzilla platform, they'd still be able to quote your post and then you'd still lose control,...

@jamie @chronohart @luca @PCOWandre @activitypubblueskybridge @fedidevs @fediversenews @snarfed

reshared this

in reply to HistoPol (#HP) 🏴 🇺🇸 🏴

(2/2)

...correct @shiri? (I hope I have understood everything correctly that all of you had such great patience to explain to me today.
//

reshared this

in reply to HistoPol (#HP) 🏴 🇺🇸 🏴

@HistoPol

I'd say, unless you limited the post to your followers, however if one of your followers were on the #Friendica or #Hubzilla platform, they'd still be able to quote your post and then you'd still lose control,...


Not exactly accurate. Anyone can copy and paste your words into the post box and quote you. Some platforms make it easier than others though.

Also, Mastodon is rumored to be including quote posts soon, so even on Mastodon, people will be able to quote you.

Questa voce è stata modificata (1 anno fa)

reshared this

in reply to Scott M. Stolz

Copy and paste is possible, anywhere, always, yes.

Difference: copy & paste will not leave a trail to your original post, a link will.

#Mastodon was supposed to have quote posts last summer. Then @Gargron sent a lengthy explanation that resources had to be recomitted to fix backend features. Since, I haven't heard anyhting new regarding this, but I have not searched for it either.

reshared this

in reply to HistoPol (#HP) 🏴 🇺🇸 🏴

@HistoPol

Copy and paste is possible, anywhere, always, yes.

Difference: copy & paste will not leave a trail to your original post, a link will.


Actually, it can. I can manually type your handle and what you said and it will reference you. Just mentioning someone's handle such as @HistoPol@mastodon.social references them (i.e. @HistoPol)

Questa voce è stata modificata (1 anno fa)

reshared this

in reply to HistoPol (#HP) 🏴 🇺🇸 🏴

@shiri
Of course, you are right regarding the issue of boosting content. So I would like to intervene a little bit earlier.
If, e.g., Babsi on Bluesky follows Mary on Mastodon, Mary already has given her consent to interact with BS via the Bridge. But now Freddie, another fediverse user who has NOT given this consent, answers to Mary's post. Question: Can Babsi read Freddie's comments?
->

reshared this

in reply to Hartmut Neubauer

Proposal 1:
Yes, but the "like", "share" and "answer" buttons are hidden or disabled for Babsi; furthermore Freddie's fediverse address ("@freddiemiller@friendica.xyz") is hidden so that it is not easy for Babsi to mention him. Perhaps it is even possible to prevent textwise selection and copying. But even if copy & paste would be possible, as @HistoPol mentioned, no trail would be left. ->

reshared this

in reply to Hartmut Neubauer

2nd possibility: to hide Freddie's posts to Babsi. Okay, in this case not the whole discussion would be visible. But this might be done if Freddie has actively contradicted to the Bridge.
3rd: to display and allow all. But this might be difficult and a contradiction to that what Freddie has agreed to.

reshared this

in reply to Hartmut Neubauer

Maybe that there is still something to do for the development. For example, if Mary answers to a couple of users (and usually you see all their fediverse names in the head of the message), Babsi sees a copy of this message with only the @ names of the Bluesky users and those Fediverse users who have agreed to the Bridge, but without those who have not.

reshared this

in reply to Hartmut Neubauer

Sounds öike an excellent solution

We need to beef up moderation!--We're going to be inundated by people with a completely different (net) sozialization and #netiquette:

mastodon.social/@HistoPol/1106…
@jamie @chronohart @luca @PCOWandre @activitypubblueskybridge @fedidevs @fediversenews @shiri @snarfed.org

reshared this

in reply to Jamie Booth

If you are an ActivityPub user that wishes to connect with bsky, you will likely find information about this bridge, assuming it isn't an immediate failure, as soon as you search the web for a method to connect ActivityPub to bsky.

@luca @PCOWandre @activitypubblueskybridge @fedidevs @fediversenews

reshared this

in reply to chronohart

What about if the person reaching out is from BS? If my friend on the AP side hasn't found this bridge and opted in, they won't show up when I try to add them. A lot has to go right for these people to reconnect if they have to opt in. In my case, all I have are remembered Twitter handles that I'll try to search across the bridge fir that handle. If I get results, I'll try to follow.

reshared this

in reply to Jamie Booth

What about people that came to ActivityPub specifically because people that were harassing them are not here? This bridge makes it just that much easier for abusers to find their victims again because all they have to do is try a remembered Twitter handle to see if they get a hit through the bridge.

Do you disagree that this sort of abuse can happen?

@luca @PCOWandre @activitypubblueskybridge @fedidevs @fediversenews

reshared this

in reply to chronohart

No, but they could also create an AP account and harass the person. This bridge doesn't make that any more or less likely. You still have the same tools to block a user even if they are over the bridge.

I think there are a lot of positives to connect people who landed on different platforms. The possibility of harassment is really a more global Internet problem not AP/BS/Threads specific.

reshared this

in reply to Jamie Booth

You're confusing "possible" with "likely". Yes, it is absolutely *possible* for an abuser to join AP in order to find their victim, but it's less *likely* because that is an additional barrier.

On the other hand, if the abuser joins BS because they prefer that network and the only way to find their victim is to join AP, that will be enough of a barrier for many abusers to give up, making it less *likely* for the abuse to happen.

I agree that there are a lot of positives to connecting folks across networks *when they actively want to do so*, but it shouldn't be foised on people that already actively chose to join AP *instead* of BS.

@luca @PCOWandre @activitypubblueskybridge @fedidevs @fediversenews

reshared this

in reply to chronohart

I don't believe the choice of network matters that much. I think the harasser is more likely to go that extra step. If not, then a simple AP block solves that problem and that's a minor cost to enable better communication between people.

If this conversation around Bridgy Fed proves anything it's that we need more, less hostile communication between people.

reshared this

in reply to Jamie Booth

@activitypubblueskybridge@venera.social @fedidevs @fediversenews if nobody opts into a shitty service, people won't use it!

reshared this

in reply to Jamie Booth

I would disagree. First, only a few people would use the bridge. But then the new connection would spread out like a seed - slowly, but spread. Then the number of bridge users will grow exponentially. That means, an opt-in (or at least no pure opt-out) would be a good option.
@chronohart @luca @PCOWandre @activitypubblueskybridge @fedidevs @fediversenews

reshared this

in reply to Hartmut Neubauer

That takes a lot of time, and as someone in IT, most people take the defaults and are SHOCKED to learn some features exist. 😁

Having this behave like the rest of the fediverse accelerates the awareness and usefulness of the bridge.

You can more rapidly achieve the goal of allowing people to connect and converse. That is after all why the fediverse exists. The rest of this is semantics.

reshared this

in reply to Jamie Booth

Okay, this is the other side. On the other hand, one can admit that we discuss about a bridge to bluesky, but if, anywhere in the world, a server would join the fediverse spreading hatred, bad thoughts and dangerous algorithms, nobody would discuss.
Anyway. Before the new bridge service starts, I would strongly recommend to deal with European data protection laws for they are stronger in the EU than elsewhere.

reshared this

in reply to Hartmut Neubauer

I'm not a GDPR expert, but because the bridge isn't stateful (ie just forwards posts) I don't think you are going to apply any of the data directives. Worst case, you might have to do something for instances hosted in Europe. But whatever you do applies much more strongly to actual instance servers. Those are hosting data created by and about users.

reshared this

in reply to Ryan Barrett

honestly fuck you. Do you really expect everybody to have enough space in their bios to opt-out of your fucking bs? How many opt-out bs am I supposed to put there?

reshared this

in reply to Joshix


I'm happy to opt you out manually, as I mentioned, you don't have to change your bio.


honestly fuck you. Do you really expect everybody to have enough space in their bios to opt-out of your fucking bs? How many opt-out bs am I supposed to put there?

in reply to Ryan Barrett

@snarfed.org@fed.brid.gy I think you do not – or perhaps deliberately do not – understand the concept of “informed consent”. I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you have good intentions here. The road to hell is paved with those, and this is going to be another slab.

You are also assuming that people who do not want this will somehow be aware that this is happening, find your blog post (that nobody will ever read) and then realise they should put a hashtag in their bio to remove themselves. That’s not really an “opt-out” because how will anyone know this is happening? Even if a hundred people boost your primary post, that is only a small selection of all fediverse users, let alone instances that even know.

That means there is no way that any given user will even know they can opt-out of something that they do not even know is scraping them. How can you moderate user behaivour when you do not even know this is happening in the first place?

Especially since this means our posts will be on BlueSky, without any recourse for us to remove them from BlueSky because we do not have a consent agreement with BlueSky.

This is also highly illegal under the GDPR, which applies in the EEA and UK, which means you are breaking the law of 30+ nations at the same time. So not only are you just oblivious to the concept of “hey, I don’t like my posts being on BlueSky”, you are also oblivious to your legal requirements as a data handler.

in reply to Ryan Barrett

"Moderate people, not code" fails to learn from the simple fact that technology is not, and has never been, neutral.

You have to do both.

Nice catchphrase, but completely meaningless.

reshared this

in reply to Ryan Barrett

Please excuse my tone, but: why the fuck isn't this opt-in instead of opt-out?

reshared this

in reply to Ryan Barrett

@Gargron can we opt out of this bridge on mastodon.online please? Thanks.

reshared this

in reply to Allen

I sent a message to snarfed telling him what I thought of his outrageous "opt-out" option ...what a way to pad the numbers count for bluesky!
Who would want to deal with an organization that has the audacity to pull this stunt!

reshared this

in reply to Snowshadow 🇨🇦

Agree! Though for me, part of the appeal of being in an open world (Fediverse) is not having someone sign me up for something I didn’t ask for. It’s a simple as that.

reshared this

in reply to Allen

That is my point. That is why I am outraged. I am still swearing every time I think about it. Unbelievable the nerve!!
The Arrogance!!

reshared this

in reply to Allen

Mastodon federates by default to all new instances. Bluesky Bridge is only a new instance.

Your problem is with Mastodon, not with this bridge.

reshared this

in reply to Proxima Centauri

Which is why I asked @Gargron to opt out.

And, being ok with seeing several problems in one scenario, I also don’t like being opted into something I didn’t ask for.

reshared this

in reply to Allen

You can also block all bridged bluesky instances. This bridge is a big chance for the fediverse to gain more relevancy. You can go to an instance not federating with them, but you shouldn’t expect @Gargron’s mainstream instances to do so.

reshared this

in reply to user8e8f87e

I completely agree… And that would be the next step. I would simply spin up my own instance. But as a resident of this instant, I see no harm in asking.

reshared this

in reply to user8e8f87e

I have yet to find someone explain to me the difference between the proposed #bluesky bridge and someone following me from a Hubzilla instance.
While my instinctive reaction was “leave us alone” I didn’t find a definition for “us” and I don’t think that the angry people have.
My conclusion is that the bridge is *exactly* what the rest of the #fedi is. All the drama is stupid.
Shun it for size or lack of moderation, not for existing.

reshared this

in reply to chris@strafpla.net

@fediversenews Isn’t this an example of the Fediverse working exactly as designed? Anybody who really objects to it can just block it. I don’t understand why they’re trying to get the rest of us to do it too – it’s their decision, but it’s not necessarily mine or anyone else’s

reshared this

in reply to dogzilla

Yes. Implement the AP protocol and you are part of it; then anybody can decide to block you. That’s how it works. I really hope @snarfed will just implement it.

(Nice profile picture btw! 🖤❤️)

reshared this

in reply to Proxima Centauri

Maybe...
What irritates me is that I left social media for quite a period of time b/c I was fed up with the nonsense going on in corp. owned social media platforms. So I found out about fediverse and now threads is here and bluesky.
That's fine...I just don't want to see any of it or interact with those instances and I have blocked them...I don't want that toxic element in my TL.

reshared this

Unknown parent

mastodon - Collegamento all'originale
FeralRobots

How do defederation & account level domain blocks prevent some commercial entity from setting up a server & syndicating via the activitypub protocol?

@stpaultim @sam @SuperMoosie @snarfed.org @activitypubblueskybridge @fedidevs @fediversenews

reshared this

in reply to Ryan Barrett

I'll just respond to say, thanks for letting me know. I hope things go well, and I like the option to connect withore people.
@activitypubblueskybridge @fedidevs @fediversenews

reshared this

in reply to Ryan Barrett

I trust that you will change OptOut to OptIn before your bridge goes online.

Just to make sure, I hereby prohibit the bridging of any information from this instance to BlueSky.

Furthermore, what are your plans for posts with more than 300 characters? I hope that you are not planning to forward incomplete posts to Bluesky, possibly destroying their meaning.

#nobridge

reshared this

in reply to Ryan Barrett

I have no interest of connecting into Bluesky, and I'm offended by your assumption that me, and most people, would be interested (opt-out instead of opt-in).

I call for #fediblock of bsky.brid.gy, and I'm blocking you. Thank you for listening.

reshared this

Unknown parent

mastodon - Collegamento all'originale
Ugly Bag of Mostly Water

My admin took care of it.

I do not consider a bridge to bluesky or anything owned by a scumbag like dorsey to be "passive." I consider it to be the first step to #enshittification.

reshared this

Unknown parent

mastodon - Collegamento all'originale
Johanna, CanCon variant

Shiri that’s the most apt analogy I’ve found so far! May I appropriate that? I find myself sometimes trying to explain fediverse concepts to outsiders.

I usually resort to the villages-of-many-small-unique-buildngs vs. one-single-monolithic-high-rise allegory.

reshared this

in reply to Ryan Barrett

A question about your comment "Admins .... the domain to limit or block is bsky.brid.gy". Does this also work for individual users blocking the domain? If so, you might want to update your post to reflect that -- I've heard from several people that they don't think regular blocking will work with #BridgyFed

reshared this

Unknown parent

mastodon - Collegamento all'originale
Golda

could you block individual fediverse users from bluesky?

i'm not sure on fediverse if we currently can block individual users effectively anyway from this direction?

reshared this

in reply to Ryan Barrett

mother fucker what an awful and hateful idea to make opt out, you're a terrible person

reshared this

Unknown parent

mastodon - Collegamento all'originale
Ugly Bag of Mostly Water

you wasted your time defining passive and active, I could not care any less.

The definition I understand for enshittification is: "the pattern of decreasing quality of online platforms that act as two-sided markets."

Using a little knowledge and just a little bit of basic reasoning, I expect bluesky to only decrease the quality (as in, enshittify) of the mastodon experience.

More words more words more words

reshared this

Unknown parent

mastodon - Collegamento all'originale
eishiya

My problem isn't so much with federating with Bluesky, but with the opt-out mechanisms this bridge offers. They are all non-standard (not part of either protocol), with the exception of instance-level blocks. If user-level blocks (e.g. me personally blocking the bridge domain) works, then I'm less bothered, but AFAIK OP hasn't responded to that query.

(2/2)

Questa voce è stata modificata (1 anno fa)
Unknown parent

mastodon - Collegamento all'originale
eishiya

This is a good point, and I should know better than to conflate AP services with the whole Fediverse.

After I made that post, I did think about how this is different from federating with, say, Diaspora, which I personally don't have a problem with. I think the difference is that Bluesky is a corporate product that offers no reason to assume good faith. Same deal with Threads, which uses AP.

(1/2)

Unknown parent

mastodon - Collegamento all'originale
Golda
hm except "block" having the meaning of "they also can't see me" i think is much harder to enforce over the bridge

reshared this

Unknown parent

mastodon - Collegamento all'originale
eishiya

I think hashtags are a poor mechanism. Bio space is often limited, and bios are intended to be read mainly by humans - people want them to look nice and not be full of hashtags like nobridge, noai, nobot, etc.

I think if there's no protocol-level opt-out possible, the next best thing would be to provide a low-spoon way to opt-out, such as via a form. "Contact me on socials or open an issue", however well-intentioned, comes off as requesting more effort than is reasonable for many folks.

in reply to Golda

I think it can work as long as the Bsky PDS is compliant with blocks, since blocks themselves can be bridged. The main difference is that third parties can see blocks too over there, iinm.

reshared this

Unknown parent

mastodon - Collegamento all'originale
Qazm

Yeah.

Each PDS publishes its local users' block lists (and changes to that should be part of its outbound AT firehose), so the bridge can send blocks to Bsky. On the fedi side, it should notice them at least through authorised fetch, but there's probably some activity pushed for changes there too.

The main "issue" is that it's a push vs. pull and collation boundary, so the bridge must bookkeep this info locally and can't just translate volatile network requests on demand.

reshared this

Unknown parent

mastodon - Collegamento all'originale
Ugly Bag of Mostly Water

Oi, how about unwelcome assholes that feel the need to unwantedly splain things?

Hold this mute, since you don't take hints

reshared this

in reply to Qazm

An interesting aspect of blocks on Bsky is that they're non-destructive, so they don't actually cut follow-relationships (but essentially fully suspend them) and are pretty reversible. I think that's an implementation detail though and neither AT nor AP really prescribe this one way or another.

Non-destructive blocks are a bit nicer with shared blocklists, since that means less "spiky" computing and that block lists can't do as much damage if they become unreliable.

reshared this

in reply to Ryan Barrett

I know I'm feeding the dogpile, but you need to understand that a service like this must be opt-in. Most users on either platform will never know about this bridge, and are therefore unable to opt out. Bridge services must always be opt-in to ensure that users actually get a choice.

reshared this

Unknown parent

glitchsoc - Collegamento all'originale
jeremiah

Sure, but this isn't bridging to another Fediverse server.

I have tools within Mastodon to deal with other ActivityPub servers without talking to admins. This isn't that. This is bridging to corporate networks which is what many of us are explicitly trying to avoid.

reshared this

Unknown parent

mastodon - Collegamento all'originale
Kinky Kobolds

I know that public posting means it's readable to anyone on the Internet who finds it. But as long as it's on Mastodon, I still have controls to edit and remove things as necessary. My account being mirrored to another service without my consent removes the ability to control my content.

And besides, the right to reproduce a work belongs to a copyright holder. All it takes is one person who can afford to lawyer up and this becomes a prohibitively expensive lesson in copyright law.

reshared this

in reply to Kinky Kobolds

@activitypubblueskybridge this is an excellent point. The bridge would effectively remove a significant layer of control that is inherent in the Fediverse and ActivityPub.

reshared this

Unknown parent

mastodon - Collegamento all'originale
DJ Sundog
I promise I know how the fediverse works. have a great life.

reshared this

Unknown parent

mastodon - Collegamento all'originale
Allen

Am I understanding correctly that you think it’s arrogant to simply ask an instance moderator a question, while not threatening to burn the village down?

It’s cool that people are interested. Where there’s one side, there’s another. The point we’re trying to make is this should be OptIn BECAUSE it’s created by a private entity, that’s all. It’s not an outrageous take.

reshared this

in reply to Allen

@Allen

The point we’re trying to make is this should be OptIn BECAUSE it’s created by a private entity, that’s all. It’s not an outrageous take.


Out of the over 46,000 independently operated servers on the fediverse, how many are run by private entities? I don't know but I am guessing that it is more than 1.

At least with Bluesky and Threads, it is easy to block. But I am guessing that it would be nearly impossible to figure out which of the 46,000 ActivityPub-enabled servers are commercial and which are not.

And Threads will be connecting to ActivityPub natively. And so will WordPress. Both will bring in millions of users.

I respect people's choice to block whomever they want, but the ActivityPub part of the fediverse already has commercial servers in it. Bluesky would just be one more, which you are free to block.

reshared this

Unknown parent

mastodon - Collegamento all'originale
Daisy Doo & TuxieGirl Betty
What the hell is all this about? I don't understand any of this. #NoBridge

reshared this

Unknown parent

mastodon - Collegamento all'originale
Tim Chambers
Very well said. ✊

reshared this

in reply to Ryan Barrett

I think a lot of people think that Mastodon is the fediverse, and then freak out when they find out that it is actually connected to all of these other things too. I am guessing no one told them what federation is and how it works.

reshared this

in reply to Scott M. Stolz

This was my feeling when the Threads freakout happened last summer and it has been confirmed since yesterday.

A lot of Mastodon users don't understand the first thing about the Fediverse and federation.

And it's concerning when some of those people are Mastodon admins.

#Mastodon#Fediverse#Federation#Consent#Privacy#BlueSky#Threads

reshared this

Unknown parent

mastodon - Collegamento all'originale
Baral'heia Stormdancer ΘΔ🐲
You misunderstand me - I'm well aware of how follows work on Fedi. What I'm suggesting is that there be an additional active consent prompt via DM specifically for the Bridgy Fed bridge when someone follows you through the bridge - the idea being since BlueSky is an external service and not part of the Fediverse, this not only informs users that Bridgy Fed is a thing and gives them control over whether or not they will allow their posts to be bridged over to BlueSky independent of their normal Fedi follow settings.

reshared this

Unknown parent

mastodon - Collegamento all'originale
Evan Minto
This is increasingly how I'm inclined to treat these crybullies. Ryan's doing really important work to move the Fediverse forward and these are people who just get off on abusing strangers online. They'll never be satisfied.

reshared this

Unknown parent

mastodon - Collegamento all'originale
Johannes Hentschel
OK it's good that you're going around explaining to people what a bridge is but I don't see a lot effort on your side to understand the deeper implications that people associate with bsky, the ones that sets it apart from "worse bridges". As a privacy advocate you must have come across people who take issue with their friends storing photos of them on gPhotos? That's the spirit. Yes, a bridge translates: we eschew what follows after.
@snarfed.org

reshared this

in reply to Kinky Kobolds

I hear you on the distrust of BlueSky. I think it's also important to remember that a lot of these same issues apply to other Mastadon or ActivityPub servers as well.

Mastodon instances honor edits to posts as they want to present the most up-to-date information, but I could see easily imagine an instance presenting a history of edits; that's something we wouldn't really know unless we started looking around the internet.

reshared this

Unknown parent

mastodon - Collegamento all'originale
chronohart

There are several reasons people are complaining. One good reason I've seen is that this will expose users to a social media ecosystem that they *explicitly* chose to stay away from for their own personal safety. This would be kind of similar to someone creating a new system to forcibly connect your server to one that your admin already blocked due to its members constantly harassing folks on your server.

Just because you can't imagine this being a problem in your own life, that doesn't mean the problems other people have should be ignored.

You can tell the developer doesn't give a shit what people actually want because he stated, in almost these exact words, if people got the warning about this bridge that an opt in would provide, no one would want to use it. Or "my product will be so unlikable, the only way people will use it is if they don't know it's there".

reshared this

Unknown parent

sharkey - Collegamento all'originale
Hazelnoot
Otherwise you've already opted in to the fediverse


That's exactly my point, though. I've opted into the fediverse, not BlueSky or Twitter or Nostr or anything else that's been bridged before.

Unknown parent

mastodon - Collegamento all'originale
Qazm

The bridge can't really filter in this direction, since afaik AT firehose subscriptions are anonymous. Rather, it's Eta's PDS that enforces the bridged block. Delta's instance should also stop sending posts to the bridge, as AP does not use a firehose, but only if there are no other (not-blocked) bridged Bsky followers.

A meaningful desync happens only when the block is rescinded: The bridge may have to automatically re-follow Delta as Eta to restore consistency, since I don't think you can 'remove a follower' on AT.

What happens with a follow in the other direction depends on whether there are separate block and unfollow activities generated by Mastodon. If yes, then no desync happens and Delta('s software) can choose whether they still follow Eta after the block is gone. If blocking does imply unfollowing in AP, then the bridge would have to translate AP blocks into AT block-and-unfollow.
Delta would then not follow Eta after the block is gone, unless Delta('s instance) re-follows Eta explicitly.

Maybe there's some inconsistency detection and cleanup scheme built into one or both of the protocols, too, in which case the bridge should make use of that where possible. I'm not aware of such a mechanism, though.

reshared this

in reply to Qazm

If the bridge forgets about the block somehow, then the follow may be restored on the AT side if Eta's PDS pulls Delta's AT repository from the bridge to refresh/catch up after a disconnect and doesn't see the block, yes.

The bridge can probe whether Delta blocks Eta over AP at least if Delta's instance requires Authorized Fetch, so when possible, it should probably do that at a low frequency to keep its records straight.

reshared this

Unknown parent

mastodon - Collegamento all'originale
JP

(Disculpe, estoy aprendiendo español!) ¿Quieres "bridge" a Bluesky con tecnologías de asistencia para invidentes?

(Excuse me, I’m learning Spanish!) you want to “bridge” with Bluesky with assistive technologies for the blind?

reshared this

Unknown parent

mastodon - Collegamento all'originale
Mastodon•ART 🎨 Curator
@snarfed.org@snarfed.org We did block the servers ;)

reshared this

Unknown parent

hometown - Collegamento all'originale
Csepp 🌢
See my other replies, not going to repeat myself.

reshared this

in reply to Ryan Barrett

Trying to figure out how to access this, but @grislyeye.com doesn't seem to be working, and the docs aren't clear.

reshared this

Unknown parent

mastodon - Collegamento all'originale
Ubergeek
bridges that slurp content from the fediverse to bsky isn't getting people out of corporate networks... It's pulling people into one: bsky.
Unknown parent

mastodon - Collegamento all'originale
Ubergeek
so what does the bridge do? Just pretend it's passing content between the two?
Unknown parent

mastodon - Collegamento all'originale
chronohart

If it's so fantastically easy to just drop a hashtag in your bio to block the bridge, why can't that method be used to *join* the bridge instead? We should be operating from a consent-first model. Folks already chose to avoid bluesky *by joining a network that isn't bluesky* and now this bridge is going to force them to actively reinforce that decision.

That's assuming they even know this bridge exists in the first place! As much discussion as there is about this thing right now, there are and always will be folks that don't know anything about the bridge in time to prevent it from touching them. This is going to be yet another complication that folks have to consider when they join the fediverse, which is already criticised for being very complicated for new users.

reshared this

in reply to Ryan Barrett

You have this totally the wrong way round and are not respecting user privacy. If you're making big changes like this the default should be opted out, not opted in with a choice to opt out.
Don't be a dick like Facebook et.al do the right thing from the start.

Also we Europeans have stronger data protection laws and I suspect you're breaking them.

#respectuserprivacy
#GDPR

reshared this

Unknown parent

hometown - Collegamento all'originale
Bennett

Hey Shari, most bridged services I've used are transparent about the bridge existing. I'm apart of a community that bridges IRC, Matrix, and Discord. This is instantly transpatent regardless of protocol or platform. This is usually how I've seen them work in social communities.

A lot of folks like this space because it's insular and allows them to attempt to control their reach, additionally the culture in many spaces here is heavily consent based.

reshared this

in reply to Bennett

Do you genuinely believe that the main reason folks do not like this is because they don't understand what a bridge is? Same question applies to Apub/Masto. I suspect it's because folks here want to be asked if XYZ is fine or not, not because of a technical misunderstanding. Generally moderators help ensure the culture of consent is followed.

I feel you misunderstand where the folks you're replying to are coming from.

Unknown parent

mastodon - Collegamento all'originale
Andre

No, I'm upset because this is a private beer party and you gatecrashed and you're handing the beer to your shady friends in the back alley.

I get your mindset. If you get touch it, it's yours. The mindset that sees nothing wrong with ripping people's writings and republishing them. Nothing wrong with helping yourself to any photograph you see on the internet and using it for whatever purpose you see fit. Scrubbing the author's names off and feeding them into your content farm.

You are not invited to my party.

reshared this

Unknown parent

sharkey - Collegamento all'originale
Hazelnoot

respectfully, I still disagree. Those networks are entirely separate from the one that we're currently on (ActivityPub). The communities are different, the servers are different, the software is different, even the protocol is different. It's disingenuous to consider them all the same when there's literally no relation.

There's no "block firefish" or "block hubzilla" or "block mastodon".


Side note, but that actually does exist. I once encountered a Mastodon instance that has been patched to automatically suspend any instance running Pleroma. I also know someone who uses a script to detect and block Soapbox instances. Not saying I support that, of course, but it's definitely a thing that some people do here.

reshared this

in reply to Ryan Barrett

I just came here to say that I support your work and I'm totally for building a bridge. The web should be free and so should the information in it.

reshared this

Unknown parent

mastodon - Collegamento all'originale
Jamie Booth
Assuming the big door in this context is to join an ActivityPub server, I know several people who came here when Twitter blew up and weren't warmly welcomed. Lots of people telling them they were doing it wrong, etc. So, they left and went to places like Threads or BlueSky. This is giving them a chance to be on their instance of choice (BlueSky) and still follow their friends who did stay on ActivityPub.

reshared this

Unknown parent

mastodon - Collegamento all'originale
chronohart

Oh *FUCK* you. You do not get to tell people the harm they experienced and the safety they now have is *imaginary*. Wow. There's no help for you. We're done.

@snarfed.org

Unknown parent

mastodon - Collegamento all'originale
Ubergeek

so... It slurps content from one network, into another, without consent from at least one party, correct?

Because I never consented to being tracked by bsky and used in their LLM and advertising data...

Questa voce è stata modificata (1 anno fa)
Unknown parent

mastodon - Collegamento all'originale
Baral'heia Stormdancer ΘΔ🐲
it's perfectly possible. Imagine this scenario: a BlueSky user finds and follows a Mastodon user through the bridge. The bridge receives the incoming follow activity from BlueSky and sends a direct message like the one I mentioned before to the Mastodon user. Mastodon user replies with the correct keyword to accept the follow, at which point the bridge sends a follow activity to the Mastodon user (and if necessary sends an accept activity back to the BlueSky user - I'm not certain how that message flow works). The rest of the message bridge process would be unchanged from this point, once the follow relationship is established.
in reply to Ryan Barrett

You may want to check compliance with GDPR before doing this.
@aeris you may be interested in this.

reshared this

in reply to Ryan Barrett

I'm undecided about Bluesky, but I was undecided about Threads. My thing with Threads was, "I'm a single person instance (now a 2 person instance briefly a 3 person instance) so the damage done while I'm not around is minimal". Bluesky seems to be *trying* to be not a problem, but I'm not sure they will prove to be not a problem. Thanks for your work.

reshared this

Unknown parent

mastodon - Collegamento all'originale
Jamie Booth
I think it's ok to question the management and assess the risks (as long as you don't do it in a vacuum...AI is/will be an issue on ActivityPub as well). But, I also would remind you that there are real people who just want to get along and interact with their friends who happen to be on ActivityPub. This bridge allows that.

reshared this

Unknown parent

mastodon - Collegamento all'originale
Jamie Booth

My guess is it won't have any way to know. But I don't know if BS has a bot tag like Mastodon.

I would also say not all bots are bad. You can have bots that report traffic or weather. Governments have bots for distributing information.

I feel like a lot of the responses to this have been reactions to the worst possible scenario. That rarely happens. Reality is somewhere in the middle.

reshared this

in reply to Ryan Barrett

I’m looking forward to following #Bluesky accounts here. It seems like the other side has lots of knobs for twiddling opaque algorithms and all follows, but precious few for moderating what I see from the individual “knobs” I follow there.

reshared this

in reply to Ryan Barrett

This sounds great. Can't wait to follow #Bluesky accounts. Please go on with your original opt-out plan and don't listen to the sad haters on #Mastodon.

reshared this

Unknown parent

mastodon - Collegamento all'originale
Allen

I had messaged @snarfed.org to ask about opting out and Ryan couldn’t have been any more respectful. He’s also looking at a way to make it opt in (github.com/snarfed/bridgy-fed/…)

I apologized for being part of the heat and look forward to supporting Ryan’s work when possible.

reshared this

in reply to Allen

man, that issue is one hell of a dumpster fire!

reshared this

in reply to Macumba Macaca

It is indeed, but that’s what happens when passionate people collide in a new-ish environment. We’re all trying to find a way to get what we want, and hopefully fair compromises can be had for any of these challenges.

Wishing you a beautiful day!

reshared this

in reply to chronohart

One thing that occurs to me is the bluesky TOS:

"By sharing User Content through Bluesky Social, you grant us permission to: <lots of stuff>"

An opt out bridge simply can't obey that.. they don't have rights to grant permission to mastodon posts they don't own. Opt in they can have a TOS with similar wording that says you agree to allow that stuff to happen.
1/2

reshared this

in reply to Tony Hoyle

2/2
(Some of that is solvable by people licensing their posts under CC for example, but there's no common mechanism for it yet.. and it's not certain whether BS would accept that as complying).
Unknown parent

mastodon - Collegamento all'originale
F4GRX Sébastien
no. Our freedom of choice is not being respected here. This is bad and will explode. You cant force us against our will.

reshared this

Unknown parent

#Bluesky #Block

Very concerning, indeed.
How would I go about this?

Would I need to block any and all friendica and hubzillla instances?

"you should be concerned of the thousands of instances like mine (Friendica and Hubzilla) ...boost your post, then it'll be copied over to Bluesky with no actual connection to you in the network, so your blocks will not apply and you will have no control over the post afterwards."

@jamie @oliphant @snarfed.org @luca @PCOWandre @chronohart @snarfed

reshared this

Unknown parent

"...Friendica and Hubzilla) that will natively support Bluesky. If we boost your post, then it'll be copied over to Bluesky with no actual connection to you in the network,..."

Besser another question, as so far, I had been in favor of #Friendica;

Does this mean if I were 2 use these 2 platforms, I could never prevent my posts / content from being seen on #Elmo's PayPal platform?!?
Or is there really no difference?
@jamie @oliphant @snarfed.org @luca @PCOWandre @chronohart @snarfed

reshared this

in reply to HistoPol (#HP) 🏴 🇺🇸 🏴

@HistoPol It is my understanding that boosts won't be passed on if you block the bridge or add #nobridge to your profile because the boost still has you as the original author. This would be true no matter which software a person is using.

But if someone quotes you (on any platform, not just the ones mentioned) or takes a screenshot of your post, that would not be blocked. And people can do that now without the bridge. Windows comes with software that allows people to take screenshots. So do phones. And most other fediverse platforms other than Mastodon allow quoting.

The fediverse has over 100 different projects and multiple protocols already connected to it. If you are concerned that people will quote you or boost you on other networks, you might want to consider a whitelist servers where you only allow approved Mastodon instances.

With or without the Bluesky bridge, you are about to be outnumbered by Threads, WordPress, and other projects coming online. ActivityPub is an open network, after all. Always has been.

But the nice thing is that you can control who you connect with by blocking or whitelisting. In your case, being on a whitelist server would probably address your concerns.

Questa voce è stata modificata (1 anno fa)

reshared this

Unknown parent

mastodon - Collegamento all'originale
Jamie Booth
From reading some of the other posts and his answer to my earlier post, it seems he is accepting AP blocks in the software. So, both the tag and a block (domain or user) should work the same way.

reshared this

in reply to HistoPol (#HP) 🏴 🇺🇸 🏴

Very concerning indeed. I would suggest logging off and going outside if this is a concern for you.

reshared this

in reply to Scott M. Stolz

Thanks a lot, Scott.

I am aware of several of these things. A friend of mine, stefanbohacek.online/@stefan, created jointhefediverse.net to remedy this lack of undesirable for newbies and no-nerds.

I know what #whitelisting is general, but how would I go about this on #Mastodon?

The whitelist, if I don't want to do everything manually (no-go,) would need to be "intelligent" and able to discern the platform s.o. is using for his handle...

I can live with the screenshot issue.

reshared this

in reply to HistoPol (#HP) 🏴 🇺🇸 🏴

@HistoPol

I know what #whitelisting is general, but how would I go about this on #Mastodon?

The whitelist, if I don't want to do everything manually (no-go,) would need to be "intelligent" and able to discern the platform s.o. is using for his handle...


I don't use Mastodon, so I don't know for sure. Some people have mentioned that there is a whitelist mode that is called "limited federation mode" or something like that. The admin would have to turn that on since it is for the whole instance.

If you don't want to use whitelist mode, people have been talking about blocklists that can be imported into Mastodon. I am not familiar with how they work. Maybe someone who uses Mastodon could answer this one?

reshared this

in reply to Scott M. Stolz

In short, it's just like blocking one-by-one but as batch-action. Admins can also block domains using wildcards, I think.

However, either would not work to block specific software. You would indeed have to use an instance in limited federation mode, where each connection is checked one-by-one, to avoid federating with Friendica and Hubzilla instances that could copy your posts over.

reshared this

in reply to Qazm

@Qazm There are other options, like using a platform that has privacy, access lists, permissions, and better moderation tools. Mastodon only has block lists, which limits user's control over their own posts.

For example, on Mastodon you can block someone so you can't see their posts, but you can't stop them from replying to posts they have already seen. On Hubzilla, you can actually turn off commenting on your posts so no one can reply or so that specific people can't reply, and can even delete other people's replies to your thread. You control the conversation in your thread. You can't do that on platforms like Mastodon.

Also, on Hubzilla, it is all about user choice. So if Hubzilla implements the Bluesky protocol, both the admin AND the user would have to opt-in. Users would have to actively turn on the Bluesky addon to federate with Bluesky. Otherwise none of their posts will ever be sent to Bluesky. I am pretty sure Friendica will work the same way.

So Hubzilla and Friendica would actually do a better job at blocking Bluesky than the bridge does. And the bridge actually has a lot of options for blocking Bluesky.

So instead of blocking Hubzilla and Friendica, you probably want to start using it instead, since it gives you better protection against Threads and Bluesky than Mastodon does.

@Qazm

reshared this

Unknown parent

(1/n)

I think I owe you a quick #INTRO, as I have not been in contact with you before, so you might better understand my concerns.

I am a political commentator, as well as an activist. This is why I cannot remain silent:

This is a global super-election year. #Democracy is up for grabs in about 50 countries.1)--This is how the billionaires and the #autocrats like #Putin and #Xi see it, or how #YoelRoth...

reshared this

Unknown parent

Thanks for the explanation, Shiri.
I pay attention to such thinks, but even with hindsight, I do not see such a group reference.
On #Mastodon, groups are also possible, but I forgot how to use them, as I used them so little.

@jamie @oliphant @snarfed.org @luca @PCOWandre @chronohart @snarfed

reshared this

in reply to HistoPol (#HP) 🏴 🇺🇸 🏴

@HistoPol

I am a political commentator, as well as an activist. This is why I cannot remain silent:


For someone like you, you would probably want to post publicly, to as many platforms and protocols as you can, so you reach a wider audience. But you would need to choose a platform with better permissions and moderation tools.

For example, you would want to control who can comment on your posts and be able to delete comments that are toxic. Mastodon does not have this capability, but most platforms that have threaded conversations give you that ability.

reshared this

in reply to HistoPol (#HP) 🏴 🇺🇸 🏴

(2/n)

...former head of #Twitter's Trust and Security department, might have phrased it. 2)

We have all seen what has happened to #Twitter. What many still don't know, is why he is supposedly burning a lot of money with the purchase: 3).

#Musk and his #TESCREAL 4) adherents from Silicon Valley are vying for world domination. #Elmo already is the world's most...

Unknown parent

(4/n)

... successful has so far been the #FederalistSociety in conjunction with the #CenterForNationalPolicy (#CNP), among whose major feats are putting #Trump in the #WhiteHouse and hijacking the #US #SupremeCourt. 6)

#Autocrats like #Putin and #Xi trying to gain influence through military and economic means are the other group of people trying to destroy #Western #democracies by disseminating...

in reply to HistoPol (#HP) 🏴 🇺🇸 🏴

(3/n)

...influential fascist, just considering his market power regarding #SpaceX 5) and the "voice" he has as #X owner. By turning off his #StarLink service in #Crimea, he has successfully prevented potentially victorious strikes by #Ukraine against #Russia's invasion force.

But they are not the only #billionaire group vying for even more power. The most...

Unknown parent

(6/n)

...#PredictivePolicing. 8)

*2024 certainly isn't the year to remain silent:*

#Poland lost and regained its democracy twice already.

The *US* might lose it to a ruthless autocrat in 2025.

And #Ukraine is fighting tooth and nail for its #democracy.

//

FOOTNOTES:

1) weforum.org/agenda/2023/12/202…

2) mastodon.social/@HistoPol/1110…

3) mastodon.social/@HistoPol/1100…

4) mastodon.social/@HistoPol/1105…

...

in reply to HistoPol (#HP) 🏴 🇺🇸 🏴

(5/n)

... #disinformation and carrying out #CyberWarfare.

And, last but not least, another, even more dangerous #PayPal of #Elmo, #PeterThiel, is enabling governments around the globe to get rid of opponents. The dangerous spyware he owns, #Palantir, is being used e.g. to hunt down investigative journalists in #SouthAmerica 8) and elsewhere 7) and for #discriminatory...

in reply to HistoPol (#HP) 🏴 🇺🇸 🏴

@HistoPol

I pay attention to such thinks, but even with hindsight, I do not see such a group reference.


That's because Mastodon doesn't tell you that

  • it's a group (because Mastodon doesn't understand the concept of groups)
  • it's on Friendica (because Mastodon does its best to shield the existence of non-Mastodon Fediverse projects from its users)


On #Mastodon, groups are also possible, but I forgot how to use them, as I used them so little.


Not yet. They're working on it. And everything else that has working groups/forums now is afraid that Mastodon will re-invent the wheel in a way that's the most incompatible possible to what already exists on more than half a dozen Fediverse projects.

What you mean is probably Guppe, but that isn't built into Mastodon and a far cry from what's possible on Friendica.

CC: @Jamie Booth @Oli @Ryan Barrett @Luca Sironi @Andre @chronohart

#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #Mastodon #Friendica #Groups

reshared this

Unknown parent

"If you operate in a "I control where my message goes" manner, then you're operating in a manner that can be very easily silenced. It drastically limits your reach.

It's one of those fundamental things where you can't have it both ways, control over your reach is inherently limiting to your reach."

Excellent point, Shiri. Taken.

@jamie @oliphant @snarfed.org @luca @PCOWandre @chronohart @snarfed

reshared this

Unknown parent

(1/2)

"If you operate in a "I control where my message goes" manner, then you're operating in a manner that can be very easily silenced. It drastically limits your reach.

It's one of those fundamental things where you can't have it both ways, control over your reach is inherently limiting to your reach."

Excellent point, Shiri. Taken.

However, please...

@jamie @oliphant @snarfed.org @luca @PCOWandre @chronohart @snarfed

reshared this

Unknown parent

"...have to shut down the whole network to stop you.

Bridges make it even harder for them because then you can also jump between platforms and if they can't shut down your server they'd have to shut down every single bridge..."

I begin to like #bridges. #FascismProof and #AutocracyProof, so-to-speak 😀

@jamie @oliphant @snarfed.org @luca @PCOWandre @chronohart @snarfed

reshared this

Unknown parent

(1/2)

"If Bluesky starts pumping hardcore propaganda and silencing leftist voices... then the bridge offers a light, showing the abuse and giving them a way out that doesn't involve starting over from scratch."

How so? I have not read that you can migrate you #BlueSky account to another #Fediverse platform, say, #friendica

However, for me the single biggest #exit barrier is, that I...

@jamie @oliphant @snarfed.org @luca @PCOWandre @chronohart @snarfed

reshared this

in reply to HistoPol (#HP) 🏴 🇺🇸 🏴

(2/2)

...would lose my over 40k posts again, and *a lot* of them are important to me, as I regularly reference back to older posts. Furthermore, convos/discussions, such as these, are of value and are also worth keeping for future reference. They'd be lost, too, by moving. AFAIC, there is only one #Fediverse platform that permits migrating posts, but only internally, too.
//

reshared this

in reply to Scott M. Stolz

" But you would need to choose a platform with better permissions and moderation tools.

For example, you would want to control who can comment on your posts and be able to delete comments that are toxic. "

Very true.
However, I have a very strick block policy and in 98% of cases, the threat of using it, helps.
I always wonder a little bit what happens, after I block s.o.
My understanding is, that his/her posts remain, but we cannot see each others posts anymore (counter-block, mostly)

reshared this

in reply to HistoPol (#HP) 🏴 🇺🇸 🏴

@HistoPol On platforms like Hubzilla and Streams (and most other platforms that support threaded conversations), you have more control.

Basically, a threaded conversation is a container, and the person who started the conversation controls what goes into that container. If you, as the person who started the conversation, don't like what someone said, you can delete their post. Since it is part of your container, a delete notification goes out to everyone participating on your thread and the post gets deleted for them too. The person who originally posted it would still have their copy, and their followers might still see it, but it would no longer be distributed via your thread to people following the thread. You can also prevent someone from commenting on your post at all, which in that case, their comment gets rejected and is not distributed to anyone.

It works similar with forum topics, except the forum owns the initial conversation. The administrator or moderator can delete posts and restrict commenting.

The threaded conversation model gives you more control over the conversation than non-threaded platforms based on pre-X Twitter.

Questa voce è stata modificata (1 anno fa)

reshared this

in reply to HistoPol (#HP) 🏴 🇺🇸 🏴

@HistoPol

I begin to like #bridges. #FascismProof and #AutocracyProof, so-to-speak 😀


That is one of the main reasons the fediverse exists and and is structured the way it is.

There still are some concerns about trolls commenting on your posts, but that can be dealt with using the proper tools.

“The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.” -- John Gilmore


This applies to the fediverse as well.

reshared this

in reply to Scott M. Stolz

@scott I don't think so. Other Hubzilla or Friendica instances that receive a Hubzilla post over AP can still boost it over there, right?

The reply control from your instance won't stop Mastodon users from replying either (though it will stop you seeing those replies, and to some extent will reduce the visibility of replies).

I think it all comes down to what's outlined in foggyminds.com/display/c6ef095… (saw that post a little after my reply above) and open federated social media in general being built around own-access-choices rather than data control, outside of posting modes with very limited reach which *should* be implemented with more privacy than they are.


@HistoPol @Jamie Booth @Oli @Ryan Barrett @Luca Sironi @Andre @chronohart @Ryan Barrett The gist is that if you want to prevent your posts from being shared outside of screenshots and quote-posts (where the contents of the post are just copied) the only option is to join a whitelist-only server.

These are servers that federate only with explicitly approved servers, ie. if someone tries to connect from any instance not on that list they're blocked by default.

That's kinda the root of the argument here where a great many people have a false assumption that the fediverse is about control of your data when it is quite the opposite. It's like trying to protect your art from being used by others... by marking it Creative Commons.

The entire design of all federated systems is around open sharing, you can only get control over how your posts spread in a closed system with little or no federation.

As far as whether or not you use those platforms, my example was regardless of whether you're a user.

My server federates across multiple different protocols, if I boost your post then your post is probably being made available to multiple different networks automatically.

The protections and control involved in federated networks is not in how your data is shared, but in how your access is controlled.

In the fediverse you don't have to worry about a bad admin blocking your access to everyone you know, you can freely move accounts between instances. If you piss of Elon for instance, you're cut off from Twitter and everyone on it... full stop... but if you piss off your instance admin, you just move instances and can still connect with everyone.

It's also control over your experience in that you're not relying purely on what their algorithms think you should see. If the instance your on has an algorithm set up that you don't like, then you can move instances to one that has the algorithm you like.

You also have protections against enshittification (the process by which those other networks will draw you in with great features, and then once you're locked in slowly shut down or degrade those features). If features that are important to you start getting shut down on your server... you can move to one that keeps them. If a platform developer does it, another developer can fork the project to keep those features alive.

You also have choice in terms of clients and experiences. You're using Mastodon and I'm on Friendica (I know your instance type because Friendica shows me a little icon beside posts). I vastly prefer the Friendica experience, and I have the choice to use that. And I can use that without forcing you to use the same interface.


Questa voce è stata modificata (1 anno fa)

reshared this

in reply to Qazm

@Qazm That was sort of my point. If you want to have more control over who can see and respond to your posts, you probably should stop using Mastodon and switch to a platform that supports privacy, access control, permissions, and moderation.
@Qazm

reshared this

Unknown parent

Highly interesting.

I think this sentence is missing the alternative method to #AccountMigration:

"The way out is because you can leave without severing connections."

@jamie @oliphant @snarfed.org @luca @PCOWandre @chronohart @snarfed

reshared this

Unknown parent

I did this using a Tool migrating from the (now) #DeadBirdSite.

Still, not being able to migrate the convos is NOT an "alternative", but an *escape hatch*."

One example, that many will know:

Imagine, that you invented 1000's of hours uploading and curating pics and shorts on your #Instagram account.
For whatever reason, you cannot maintain your account. Starting a new one, you lose all your work (it's not just...

@jamie @oliphant @snarfed.org @luca @PCOWandre @chronohart @snarfed

reshared this

in reply to HistoPol (#HP) 🏴 🇺🇸 🏴

(2/2)

...just the pics, but the interaction with contacts.)

PS:
I know:
...there are tools for exporting (beside the point)
...many people here even autodelete there posts (utterly different use-case)
...it's better than on most corporate sites (yes, but still just "rudimentary" flexibility, at least on #Mastodon.)
...that #Firefish(?) (still?) supports own-post migration (but that was no choice when I joined)

//

reshared this

Unknown parent

mastodon - Collegamento all'originale
Luca Sironi

I didn't knew this thing that you can't migrate your follower from mastodon to friendica 😐

From mastodon to pleroma (and i think also misskey) it works.

cc @informapirata

reshared this

in reply to Luca Sironi

I understand your difficulties, but always remember that Friendica is compatible with ActivityPub BUT it works with a different protocol and its profiles are particular objects that contain a kind of unique key

@shiri

Unknown parent

mastodon - Collegamento all'originale
Luca Sironi

@activitypubblueskybridge @fedidevs @fediversenews

Well, migrating followers (just followers) should really be a standard feature of ActivityPub then.
One that must be implemented by all the supposed AP compatible projects

Nobody is gonna buy the theoretical reach of all the same people, like real freedom to change fediverse provider.

cc @evan

Questa voce è stata modificata (1 anno fa)

reshared this

Unknown parent

mastodon - Collegamento all'originale
informapirata ⁂

I'm actually pretty sure Friendica put up Activitypub a few months later than mastodon, but otherwise I agree with what you say.

@luca

reshared this

in reply to Luca Sironi

In reality, when it comes to migrations, Friendica does much more than any other ActivityPub-compatible platform, such as importing all the messages and contents of the old profile...
Friendica cannot be responsible for Mastodon's flaws 🤷🏽‍♂️

@evan @shiri @activitypubblueskybridge @fedidevs @fediversenews

reshared this