Skip to main content


Morning all. Quite a day yesterday, and today so far. I’m obviously taking a beating from everyone who thinks the Bluesky bridge should be opt in. OK.

I want to run one idea by you all. The way the bridge is currently designed, no fediverse profiles or other content are proactively bridged into Bluesky. If someone on Bluesky wants to see or follow someone on the fediverse, they have to manually request it on the bridge. That fediverse user’s posts are then only bridged going forward, and only if someone follows them.

What if, the first time someone on Bluesky requests to follow someone on the fediverse via the bridge, the fediverse user gets prompted, “X from Bluesky wants to follow you. Are you ok with connecting with Bluesky?”, maybe via DM. I assume that would still be considered opt in?

Realistically, most people in the fediverse will never hear about the bridge. Traditional opt in and opt out both generally expect people to proactively find a setting or take some action, often one that only a tiny fraction of people ever learn about. I don’t really care how many people discover or use the bridge, but this kind of just-in-time prompt, only shown when someone wants to follow or interact with them, feels like a useful improvement in that it puts the decision in front of them directly.

Thanks to @kio for the idea. It seems promising; I’m now planning to try it out well before launch. Let me know if you don’t like it.

@kio

Fediverse Report reshared this.

in reply to Ryan Barrett

i don't care about the bluesky side of the bridge; i'm managing my mastodon server, not bluesky infrastructure.

from the fediverse side i would like to see explicit opt-in instead of opt-out heuristic based on parsing biography field, also support for AUTHORIZED_FETCH and proper handling of defederations and limiting the server.

a quick question: what happens when a bluesky user requests a follow of a mastodon account on an instance that limits (silences) your bridge instance?

in reply to Ryan Barrett

I could live with this but it seems unnecessarily obtuse. We don't expect new Mastodon instances to do this and I don't understand why your bridge would need to. If people want to pre-approve followers there's already a setting for that (which it sounds like you'd support in your bridge anyway).
in reply to Evan Minto

To be entirely honest, I think if you have buy-in from major Mastodon instances like dot social, I would prefer you simply stick with opt-out and let the people freaking out about this defederate from you. They want their own small walled garden so they can have it. Good riddance.
in reply to Evan Minto

Snark aside, that assumes someone knows to opt out / block / defederate. That's not a given.

I think a confirmation message to the person being bridged is a good solution.

in reply to Larry Garfield

That's a reasonable choice you could make, but there's no reason to selectively apply that kind of approach to only this bridge when we don't currently have to manually approve every new Mastodon instance that comes online. This is an open protocol. If people want their instances to be closed by default they have that option, but they shouldn't bully every other instance into behaving the same way.
in reply to Evan Minto

It's not the federation that is the issue. "clone this data of mine to another AP server on demand" is a natural expectation built into federation. But "copy this data of mine to a non-AP company network via a bridge where the rules are different" is a different question, and checking with someone first is reasonable.

The same would apply for auto-reposting Twitter to FB. It's beyond the scope of reasonable expectation to assume "usage implies opt in".

in reply to Larry Garfield

I am not sure which "rules" are different Larry.
There are Nazi instances here, and you are happy with them being opt-out?

I don't see why Nazis should get better treatment than a bridge!

in reply to Evan Minto

well said, Evan! It's exactly what I wanted to say.

Some people here don't understand what a protocol means. There are terrible instances here on Mastodon itself why would they be treated any better than a bridge?

in reply to Ryan Barrett

Hi, I have a question, there is a special scenario. Let Berta be a Bluesky member. She wants to follow Marc who is on mastodon.social. Marc says "yes" and thus they can interact. But then Berta reads some posts by Tim who is on troet.cafe. His posts may be public (that means, anyone can read them.) But Berta wants to favor, share, and comment them. Is this possible without Tim's consent, or has Tim to agree to this, or has Berta to follow Tim - requiring his consent?