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.
Re-introducing Bridgy Fed
Hi! I’m Ryan. I’ve been building social network bridges and related tools for over 12 years, including Bridgy, which connects personal web sites and blogs to centralized social networks…snarfed.org
Shiri Bailem likes this.
reshared this
Bou
in reply to Ryan Barrett • • •Blake Leonard
in reply to Bou • • •Jesse Baer 🔥
in reply to Ryan Barrett • • •Roni Laukkarinen
in reply to Ryan Barrett • • •:jan::abreath:🌬:dandelion:
in reply to Ryan Barrett • • •:jan::abreath:🌬:dandelion:
in reply to :jan::abreath:🌬:dandelion: • • •mimo
in reply to Ryan Barrett • • •JP
in reply to mimo • • •Re-introducing Bridgy Fed
snarfed.orgAP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
DJ Sundog - from the toot-lab
in reply to Ryan Barrett • • •Shiri Bailem
in reply to DJ Sundog - from the toot-lab • •@DJ Sundog - from the toot-lab @Ryan Barrett @Ryan Barrett The entire fediverse is opt-out.
If you'd like an opt-in fediverse I recommend finding or setting up a whitelist instance.
like this
Scott M. Stolz likes this.
reshared this
Fediverse News, Fediverse Developer Discussion and AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
DJ Sundog - from the toot-lab
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •reshared this
Fediverse News, Fediverse Developer Discussion and AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
Shiri Bailem
in reply to DJ Sundog - from the toot-lab • •L. Rhodes
in reply to Ryan Barrett • • •@activitypubblueskybridge @fedidevs @fediversenews How do domain blocks work across the bridge?
For example, if I'm opted-in to the bridge, but want to block the entire foo.bar PDS, will a Mastodon domain block work?
Assuming it does anything at all, will it block all traffic originating from foo.bar, or only accounts that use the foo.bar domain in their handles?
If it doesn't work, is there any way to subscribe to a shared blocklist across the bridge?
SuperMoosie
in reply to L. Rhodes • • •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
Sam :verified:
in reply to SuperMoosie • • •AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
Tim Erickson, @stpaultim
in reply to Sam :verified: • • •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.
AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
L. Rhodes
in reply to Tim Erickson, @stpaultim • • •FeralRobots
in reply to L. Rhodes • • •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
FeralRobots
in reply to L. Rhodes • • •@snarfed.org @activitypubblueskybridge @fedidevs @fediversenews
Shiri Bailem
in reply to L. Rhodes • •@L. Rhodes @Ryan Barrett on both sides the bridge would appear as a single instance, so you would not be able to selectively block servers on the other side of the bridge. If this becomes a problem you can easily block the whole bridge.
For more granular controls you would want a native plugin to your platform.
reshared this
Fediverse News, Fediverse Developer Discussion, AP-AT-Bridge Group and Nelfaneor reshared this.
Golda
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •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
Fediverse News, Fediverse Developer Discussion and AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
Shiri Bailem
in reply to Golda • •@Golda @L. Rhodes @Ryan Barrett It's really important to understand the language here, Bluesky once they federate is the fediverse even if it's not accessible from Mastodon. If you want to differentiate we're on ActivityPub (the protocol our instances are using to talk to eachother, though my instance supports multiple different protocols while Mastodon does not). This is not a Bluesky to Fediverse bridge, but a Bluesky Fediverse to ActivityPub Fediverse bridge.
On both sides you will be able to block individual users without issue, they'll still appear as individual users. The only limitation on blocking is site-wide blocks.
One of the things people miss is that Bluesky is intending to compete with Activitypub by releasing their own protocol. So eventually there will be other servers sharing on the Bluesky protocol and not just the one.
Once that happens, you will not be able to block individual Bluesky instances from ActivityPub and likewise Bluesky will not be able to block individual ActivityPub instances. They can block individual users or the whole bridge, nothing inbetween.
like this
Scott M. Stolz likes this.
L. Rhodes
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •L. Rhodes
in reply to Golda • • •From what I can tell, the bridge uses the did:plc as the account ID of Bluesky posts bridged to ActivityPub, which should make it relatively easy to block individual accounts, since that's their canonical ID on the Bluesky network.
Ironically, it *doesn't* use a canonical ID when relaying ActivityPub to Bluesky—it uses the bridgy domain as part of the ID—which could theoretically make it easier to avoid Bluesky blocks from the ActivityPub side.
reshared this
Fediverse News, Fediverse Developer Discussion and AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
Golda
in reply to L. Rhodes • • •reshared this
Fediverse News, Fediverse Developer Discussion and AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
Qazm
in reply to Golda • • •reshared this
Fediverse News, Fediverse Developer Discussion and AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
L. Rhodes
in reply to Qazm • • •My understanding is that blocks are handled upstream of the PDS—usually by the feed generator or App View. I could be wrong about that, though. Maybe PDS also handle blocks? But the flow chart in their latest white paper also shows some feeds bypassing the PDS and going straight to the account-holder's client, so it seems possible to route around PDS blocking enforcement.
All those extra services complicate things, don't they?
reshared this
Fediverse News, Fediverse Developer Discussion and AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
Qazm
in reply to L. Rhodes • • •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. (edit: A PDS should also honour blocks when someone views a profile, which afaict bypasses some streaming aspects.) 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.
Edit: Well, that's single users blocks at least. Bsky's moderation lists can since recently also be subscribed to as blocklists. I assume that works similarly, but translating them across to AP would mean flattening them in an n*m operation.
reshared this
Fediverse News, Fediverse Developer Discussion and AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
Qazm
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
Fediverse News, Fediverse Developer Discussion and AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
L. Rhodes
in reply to Qazm • • •reshared this
Fediverse News, Fediverse Developer Discussion and AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
C.Synthare
in reply to L. Rhodes • • •reshared this
Fediverse News, Fediverse Developer Discussion and AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
Qazm
in reply to L. Rhodes • • •The bridge can't really filter in this direction, since afaik AT firehose subscriptions and repository fetch are anonymous(-ish). Rather, it's Eta's PDS (and optionally feed algorithms on the way, but only as optimisation) 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
Fediverse Developer Discussion, AP-AT-Bridge Group and Fediverse News reshared this.
Qazm
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 too-long firehose 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
Fediverse News, Fediverse Developer Discussion and AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
steelex2
in reply to Ryan Barrett • • •Stephan Schwab
in reply to steelex2 • • •Shiri Bailem likes this.
DavidB
in reply to steelex2 • • •How is that for your privacy?
Shiri Bailem likes this.
Carolyn
in reply to Ryan Barrett • • •Blake Leonard
in reply to Carolyn • • •Zatty :meowybara:
in reply to Ryan Barrett • • •JP
in reply to Zatty :meowybara: • • •AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
Blake Leonard
in reply to JP • • •AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
JP
in reply to Blake Leonard • • •Shiri Bailem likes this.
AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
JP
in reply to JP • • •AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
Blake Leonard
in reply to JP • • •Shiri Bailem likes this.
eishiya
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.
Edit: Please stop boosting this, and check out the replies by much better-informed people!
reshared this
Fediverse News, Fediverse Developer Discussion and AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
JP
in reply to eishiya • • •Is Threads much different though? They integrate using ActivityPub in the same way. I block that “server”, and Meta doesn’t (legally) get my data.
With both Threads & Bridgy you’re notified when you’re followed by someone from there, so there’s visibility, but bridgy needs exact username too. This feels okay to me, but I get it feels odd!
Shiri Bailem likes this.
Shiri Bailem
in reply to eishiya • •@eishiya @JP you should know that Bluesky, once they start federating (which this is directly related to)... is the fediverse as well.
Please do not confuse Mastodon/ActivityPub with the whole fediverse. The fediverse is a wide array of servers and there are many bridges between different protocols out there already.
And on the topic of consent, this is a purely public system. Consent within the fediverse is opt out, when you post publically you are automatically consenting to anyone receiving and transmitting your post however they wish. If you do not wish to provide that consent, you make your post private.
Bridges are a natural part of federation and are key to it's survival as it makes all relevant platforms less likely to collapse.
like this
Scott M. Stolz and Jupiter Rowland like this.
reshared this
Damon, tigerpunk, tigerpunk, Fediverse News, AP-AT-Bridge Group, Fediverse Developer Discussion, Just Bob 🇺🇲♒🐧, Tim Chambers, Andy Nortrup :cascadia: 🌳, Btrinen, Debbie Goldsmith 🏳️⚧️🏳️🌈 and boB Rudis 🇺🇦 reshared this.
eishiya
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •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)
eishiya
in reply to 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)
Shiri Bailem
in reply to eishiya • •@eishiya You blocking the bridge domain will work just the same as blocking any other instance, they won't be able to answer that really because that occurs entirely on your server and not theirs (I don't believe there's any AP protocol for "Hey X user@domain has blocked you").
I do really like their approach to providing opt-out mechanisms specifically because not all platforms have user level domain blocking available. Especially as they're implicitly suggesting a standard with the nobridge hashtag in the bio as it would be a great universal way to request an opt-out of bridges by default if it became broadly accepted... though the backlash here might hurt that.
As far as the corporate aspect of it... yeah, all the corporate platforms are awful and I genuinely hate them. The only reason I'm in favor of bridges like this is because I dream of the fediverse becoming the norm, that corporations can be better dis-empowered by connecting than isolating (ie. they see that it's better over here, so choose to leave Bluesky for AP, and the bridge then makes that transition relatively painless for them, as opposed to the segmentation that happens with no bridge)
I've never once spoken out against people choosing for themselves whether to block an instance, only against the backlash efforts where people moralize over it (ie. considering blocking threads a moral imperative, or demanding that someone's passive bridge between open and public networks be opt-in instead of opt-out).
eishiya
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •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.
Shiri Bailem
in reply to eishiya • •@eishiya something like a google docs form is not unreasonable, though I think the "contact me on socials" is easier so long as you don't have social anxiety lol
For reference though, the hashtag idea is mostly for the lack of protocol level options. This doesn't mean OP chose to not implement such options, but rather that such options just don't exist in the protocol. They had to write extra code to make the system parse your bio for that tag before allowing the content through the bridge, which I do consider to be very considerate.
Olivier Simard-Casanova - EN
in reply to eishiya • • •Bluesky is not a "corporate product"
Almost all of it is open source, in the exact same way that almost all of Mastodon is open source
Sure, there is a company behind it, and it operates all of its services at the moment. But there are also companies behind many Fediverse related projects and services, including Mastodon.
Stevie Cat, Daisy Dog & Betty
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •reshared this
Fediverse News, Fediverse Developer Discussion and AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
Shiri Bailem
in reply to Stevie Cat, Daisy Dog & Betty • •Jupiter Rowland
in reply to Stevie Cat, Daisy Dog & Betty • • •@Stevie Cat, Daisy Dog & Betty So I guess you're one of those who have joined Mastodon in the second Twitter migration wave in November 2022, and who still "know" that the Fediverse is only Mastodon. Their nice and cosy and fluffy Mastodon.
Well, then I've got a very very uncomfortable and upsetting truth to reveal to you: The Fediverse is not only Mastodon. It is more than just Mastodon.
There's a whole lot more stuff in the Fediverse, and all of it is connected to Mastodon just like Mastodon instances are connected to one another.
For example, there are dozens of other Twitter-like microblogging projects. Mastodon forks such as Glitch or Hometown. Pleroma. Pleroma forks such as Akkoma. Misskey. Dozens of Misskey forks such as Firefish, Iceshrimp, Sharkey, Catodon, Hajkey, Meisskey etc.
There are "Reddit clones" like Lemmy or /kbin.
There is the "Instagram clone" Pixelfed.
There is the YouTube stand-in PeerTube.
There is the Twitch stand-in Owncast.
There are the "Medium clones" WriteFreely and Plume.
There is the "Goodreads clone" BookWyrm.
There are the Facebook alternatives Friendica and (streams) as well as Hubzilla which goes well beyond being a Facebook alternative.
And a lot more.
All this is in the Fediverse, and all this is connected to Mastodon, whether you want or not. It's normal. It's intended. It's the very idea behind the Fediverse. And it has always been the idea behind the Fediverse.
Look at my mentions, how weird they look. Look at my hashtags, how weird they look. Look at this post and how it exceeds 500 characters. Look at my bold type. Look at my italics. All stuff that Mastodon can't do.
But how can I possibly do it if Mastodon can't do it?
Because I'm not on Mastodon. I'm on Hubzilla. Hubzilla is not a Mastodon instance. Hubzilla is not even a Mastodon fork. Hubzilla is developed completely independently from Mastodon. And Hubzilla is almost a year older than Mastodon. And yet, I can read what you've posted, and I can reply to you.
That's because Hubzilla is part of the Fediverse, just like Mastodon is. And it has always been.
CC: @Shiri Bailem @JP @eishiya
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #Mastodon #Pleroma #Akkoma #Misskey #Firefish #Iceshrimp #Sharkey #Catodon #Hajkey #Meisskey #Lemmy #kbin #/kbin #Pixelfed #PeerTube #Owncast #WriteFreely #Plume #BookWyrm #Friendica #Hubzilla #Streams #(streams) #NotOnlyMastodon #MastodonIsNotTheFediverse #FediverseIsNotMastodon
Tim Chambers
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •reshared this
Fediverse News, Fediverse Developer Discussion and AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
SuperMoosie
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
AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
Kay Ohtie
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.
Shiri Bailem
in reply to Kay Ohtie • •@Kay Ohtie @SuperMoosie @JP @Zatty :meowybara: legal space is simple, TOS only applies to the service you're using. You're not using Bluesky, you're not using my instance.
For a TOS to apply you have to accept it in some fashion, most of these sites do this by either a passive "if you continue to use this site you implicitly accept the TOS" (and that can only reasonably apply while you're actively browsing the site, not for relayed fediverse messages) or a "to create an account you have to accept the TOS".
It's the same legal grounds as whether or not Yahoo's terms of service apply when I email someone who has a Yahoo account.
It's also a woefully flawed argument to assume that the loudest voices represent the majority. The majority don't care and the backlash just goes more to show the toxicity of Mastodon culture (and I mean Mastodon here, not ActivityPub)
like this
Jupiter Rowland likes this.
reshared this
Fediverse News, Fediverse Developer Discussion and AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
Sam :verified:
in reply to SuperMoosie • • •Shiri Bailem likes this.
AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
DavidB
in reply to SuperMoosie • • •Shiri Bailem likes this.
the roamer
in reply to Zatty :meowybara: • • •Tim Erickson, @stpaultim
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.
Shiri Bailem likes this.
Tim Erickson, @stpaultim
in reply to Tim Erickson, @stpaultim • • •Shiri Bailem likes this.
the roamer
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
Ben Thompson
in reply to Tim Erickson, @stpaultim • • •Tim Erickson, @stpaultim
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.
https://snarfed.org/2023-11-27_re-introducing-bridgy-fed
Re-introducing Bridgy Fed
snarfed.orgchris@strafpla.net
in reply to the roamer • • •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.
Shiri Bailem
in reply to chris@strafpla.net • •@chris@strafpla.net @the roamer @Ryan Barrett @Zatty :meowybara: I don't think "Too Big To Block" is really an argument... If people don't want to talk to Bluesky users, they can block Bluesky. If Bluesky is so uncontrollably toxic as to create a critical problem, then why would you not block those posts?
The only time "Too Big To Block" really applies is the same time the people who aren't bothered by this... the people who prioritize getting as many people on the fediverse as possible to have as much reach as possible.
reshared this
Fediverse News, Fediverse Developer Discussion and AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
chris@strafpla.net
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •Mastodon/Fedi #moderation scales well because individual instances that don’t fit the culture on another instance can be blocked, instead of individual users. This “moderation by proxy” fails when an instance becomes #TooBigToBlock because it would cut off coms with a too large number of users. It’s a problem of (re-)centralizing.
@the_roamer @snarfed.org @zatnosk
Sam :verified:
in reply to Zatty :meowybara: • • •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.
AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
Markus
in reply to Sam :verified: • • •Bluesky isn't simply "another server"
AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
Victoria Fierce :vbike:
in reply to Markus • • •Världens bästa Kille™
in reply to Markus • • •Shiri Bailem likes this.
Shiri Bailem
in reply to Världens bästa Kille™ • •reshared this
Fediverse News, Fediverse Developer Discussion and AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
Världens bästa Kille™
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •Tim Erickson, @stpaultim
in reply to Sam :verified: • • •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.
Shiri Bailem likes this.
AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
Blake Leonard
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.
Bridge Finder
blakes.dev - Blake LeonardSuperMoosie
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
Shiri Bailem
in reply to SuperMoosie • •@SuperMoosie @Ryan Barrett @Ryan Barrett @Blake Leonard to be clear, where have you signed up for my server's TOS? And I don't mean that just to be silly, it's very explicitly how the legal take works here.
You can not apply your TOS to outside users and they can't apply their TOS to you. If you take issue with it you can block the instance.
And as far as "Bridges should be opt in" that ship passed decades ago, bridges aren't remotely new, this is just probably the first you've noticed.
like this
Jupiter Rowland likes this.
reshared this
Fediverse News, Fediverse Developer Discussion, AP-AT-Bridge Group and Blake Leonard reshared this.
Darryl Wright
in reply to Ryan Barrett • • •FinchHaven
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
Shiri Bailem
in reply to FinchHaven • •@FinchHaven @Ryan Barrett ... "opt-in or I opt-out"?
How's that a threat? It's literally how these things work...
reshared this
Fediverse News, Fediverse Developer Discussion and AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
unlofl [Promoted Toot]
in reply to Ryan Barrett • • •@activitypubblueskybridge @fedidevs @fediversenews "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.
unlofl [Promoted Toot]
in reply to unlofl [Promoted Toot] • • •Shiri Bailem
in reply to unlofl [Promoted Toot] • •@unlofl [Promoted Toot] @Ryan Barrett That's literally a whitelist server, you join a server that only federates with pre-approved servers.
That's the only functional way if you want to pro-actively avoid being accessible from all bridges. Though to be honest you can also just pay attention to the usernames of whomever follows you to see if it's a bridge account, not like it's hard to spot randomuser:bluesky@instance
Scott M. Stolz likes this.
reshared this
Fediverse News, Fediverse Developer Discussion and AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
Kaknäsin Thorne
in reply to Ryan Barrett • • •Toatrika, Witch of Numbers 🏆
in reply to Kaknäsin Thorne • • •Shiri Bailem
in reply to Toatrika, Witch of Numbers 🏆 • •reshared this
Fediverse News, Fediverse Developer Discussion and AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
Joshix 🦣
in reply to Ryan Barrett • • •reshared this
Fediverse News, Fediverse Developer Discussion and AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
Ryan Barrett
in reply to Joshix 🦣 • • •I'm happy to opt you out manually, as I mentioned, you don't have to change your bio.
Joshix 🦣
2024-02-12 21:06:54
New Yastendo 3DS XL :baba_baba_yaseen: :agenderFlag: :transgenderFlag:
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.
Shiri Bailem
in reply to New Yastendo 3DS XL :baba_baba_yaseen: :agenderFlag: :transgenderFlag: • •@New Yastendo 3DS XL :baba_baba_yaseen: :agenderFlag: :transgenderFlag: @Ryan Barrett consent comes from posting publicly on the fediverse and is easily revocable by blocking their bridge.
Additionally, the way bridges operate normal moderation tools continue to exist just fine. Users and instances can block the bridge easily from their end if they have any issues, the opt-out mechanism here really is just an extra courtesy that's largely unecessary.
As far as posts being "on Bluesky" it's really important to note that your post will be "on Bluesky" to the exact same extent that it is on my server. Bluesky promised ages ago to federate, just under their own protocol which they're releasing and subsequently federating to. This is not echoing posts onto the Bluesky server (that's explicitly not a bridge, that's a mirror account), as a bridge all it's doing is translating requests between ActivityPub and AT (their protocol).
Additionally GDPR only applies within compliant countries (OP is in the US), this could theoretically apply if someone were to run their own copy of this in a GDPR compliant country, but it would also apply similarly to many other ActivityPub functions and activities (is every server using a relay in violation of the GDPR because it's a nearly identical process on a technical level?)
Shiri Bailem
in reply to Joshix 🦣 • •@Joshix 🦣 @Ryan Barrett ... notice that they didn't make that the only option, just a passive option that doesn't involve sending a special request. Just ping them a message with "I'd like to opt out of your bridge", done.
Or if you don't want to interact with them, lookup how to block a domain in mastodon and you'll be covered even better.
Baral'heia Stormdancer🔜 AnEx
in reply to Ryan Barrett • • •Noxy 🐾
in reply to Baral'heia Stormdancer🔜 AnEx • • •River :therian:
in reply to Noxy 🐾 • • •Baral'heia Stormdancer🔜 AnEx
in reply to Noxy 🐾 • • •Pusher Of Pixels
in reply to Baral'heia Stormdancer🔜 AnEx • • •"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?
Baral'heia Stormdancer🔜 AnEx
in reply to Pusher Of Pixels • • •Bridgy Fed
fed.brid.gyPusher Of Pixels
in reply to Baral'heia Stormdancer🔜 AnEx • • •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.
Chris Trottier
in reply to Pusher Of Pixels • • •@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.
Universeodon Social Media
Mastodon hosted on universeodon.comtallship
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
⛵️
.
Tim Chambers
in reply to Chris Trottier • • •reshared this
Fediverse Developer Discussion and AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
Baral'heia Stormdancer🔜 AnEx
in reply to Pusher Of Pixels • • •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.
chris@strafpla.net
in reply to Pusher Of Pixels • • •@baralheia @noxypaws @snarfed.org @activitypubblueskybridge @fedidevs @fediversenews
lily 🏳️⚧️ :flag_pansexual: θΔ ⋐ &?
in reply to chris@strafpla.net • • •chris@strafpla.net
in reply to lily 🏳️⚧️ :flag_pansexual: 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
lily 🏳️⚧️ :flag_pansexual: θΔ ⋐ &?
in reply to chris@strafpla.net • • •chris@strafpla.net
in reply to lily 🏳️⚧️ :flag_pansexual: 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
Shiri Bailem likes this.
chris@strafpla.net
in reply to chris@strafpla.net • • •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
Shiri Bailem likes this.
Baral'heia Stormdancer🔜 AnEx
in reply to Baral'heia Stormdancer🔜 AnEx • • •Shiri Bailem
in reply to Baral'heia Stormdancer🔜 AnEx • •@Baral'heia Stormdancer🔜 AnEx @Ryan Barrett that's pretty much already native with how a bridge works.
When a Bluesky user goes to follow you, you'll get a follow request from that user:instance@bridge (or similiar format username).
A lot of the confusion and freak out comes from people (a) not knowing how bridges work and (b) taking vague offense because they don't like Bluesky and think that the whole fediverse should conform to their personal standards
reshared this
Fediverse News, Fediverse Developer Discussion and AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
Baral'heia Stormdancer🔜 AnEx
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •reshared this
Fediverse News, Fediverse Developer Discussion and AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
Shiri Bailem
in reply to Baral'heia Stormdancer🔜 AnEx • •@Baral'heia Stormdancer🔜 AnEx @Ryan Barrett wouldn't really be possible because they couldn't know to send it until some action had already been taken on your account over the bridge. Let alone the fact that it would be incredibly spammy and still be an opt-out system.
It's important to note that Bridges have existed for decades, a lot longer than ActivityPub has been a thing (and a lot of people don't realize there are other fediverse protocols, let alone older ones...), probably longer than I've been a thing.
Baral'heia Stormdancer🔜 AnEx
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •hazelnot :yell:
in reply to Ryan Barrett • • •Cătă doesn't like this.
Shiri Bailem
in reply to hazelnot :yell: • •@hazelnot :yell: @Ryan Barrett reporting you to your server admins for violating rule 7 on your server...
Bridges are a dime a dozen (literally there are so many out there already and this is open source so good luck de-federating them all without just joining a whitelist server), the fediverse doesn't work the way you think it does, bridges probably don't work the way you think they do, and dogpiling on someone for sharing their project for feedback, especially for offering a polite feature to exclude yourself from the bridge which no other bridge I've seen offers just makes it clear you're an asshole.
like this
Cătă and Jupiter Rowland like this.
reshared this
Fediverse News, Fediverse Developer Discussion and AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
Evan Minto
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •like this
Shiri Bailem and Cătă like this.
reshared this
Fediverse News, Fediverse Developer Discussion and AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
Shiri Bailem
in reply to Evan Minto • •Cătă
in reply to hazelnot :yell: • • •Luca Sironi likes this.
reshared this
Fediverse News, Fediverse Developer Discussion and AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
hazelnot :yell:
in reply to Cătă • • •Cătă doesn't like this.
reshared this
Fediverse News, Fediverse Developer Discussion and AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
Cătă
in reply to hazelnot :yell: • • •@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.
Luca Sironi likes this.
reshared this
Fediverse Developer Discussion, AP-AT-Bridge Group and Fediverse News reshared this.
the roamer
in reply to Ryan Barrett • • •Jess
in reply to Ryan Barrett • • •@activitypubblueskybridge @fedidevs @fediversenews
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?
Arataka
in reply to Ryan Barrett • • •Lorrie W
in reply to Ryan Barrett • • •@activitypubblueskybridge @fedidevs @fediversenews
I want to OPT OUT please.
#NoBridge for me.
This should have been an OPT-IN only
:gay: zetta :transknife:
in reply to Ryan Barrett • • •Adam ♿
in reply to Ryan Barrett • • •Dorothea Salo
in reply to Ryan Barrett • • •Congratulations! You convinced me to block your entire domain!
Well done, you exploitative git.
Thomas
in reply to Dorothea Salo • • •Shiri Bailem
in reply to Thomas • •reshared this
Fediverse News, Fediverse Developer Discussion and AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
smeg
in reply to Ryan Barrett • • •alex :nonbinary_flag:
in reply to Ryan Barrett • • •@activitypubblueskybridge
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.
Cyrus (still a bit spooky tbh)
in reply to Ryan Barrett • • •Shiri Bailem
in reply to Cyrus (still a bit spooky tbh) • •@Cyrus (still a bit spooky tbh) @Jake @Ryan Barrett I get the feeling you think a bridge is a scraper...
Bluesky is about to start federating just under it's own protocol (their equivalent of ActivityPub which others will be able to host servers on the same as we can host servers on AP). A bridge translates between two protocols. Your content isn't getting scraped and uploaded to Bluesky.
A bridge just means that Bluesky users will show up to us like new users on this bridge. user1@bluesky will turn into something like user1.bluesky@brid.gy.
like this
Jupiter Rowland likes this.
reshared this
Fediverse News, Fediverse Developer Discussion and AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
Black Aziz Anansi :vm:
in reply to Ryan Barrett • • •Damon
in reply to Black Aziz Anansi :vm: • • •Shiri Bailem likes this.
reshared this
Fediverse Developer Discussion and AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
Shiri Bailem
in reply to Damon • •like this
Scott M. Stolz likes this.
reshared this
Fediverse News, Fediverse Developer Discussion and AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
Delta Sierra
in reply to Ryan Barrett • • •@activitypubblueskybridge @fedidevs @fediversenews
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.
Jess
in reply to Ryan Barrett • • •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?
Shiri Bailem
in reply to Jess • •@Jess @Ryan Barrett as a fellow trans* individual: you're either probably not familiar with how bridges work or you are not using safe practices and taking things for granted.
There are already many bridges on ActivityPub to much worse parts of the fediverse and they're not making waves (if you think Bluesky is bad, you should see Nostr). If they start harassing a user you treat it exactly the same as you would someone showing up to harass you from a new Neo-Nazi Mastodon instance, you can either block the user or block the whole bridge (only downside of a bridge is that you can't really block by individual server on the other side, it's either block individual users or the whole bridge).
This also has absolutely no threat of legal challenges to go along with it, it falls under numerous legal protections. Let alone the argument will absolutely fall apart in court that someone would complain about easily blockable abuse on a public post.
In case you're not aware, because it seems a lot of people think a bridge is some sort of web-scraper... it's a translator between protocols. It's not scraping your profile and copying posts, it's translating ActivityPub requests to Bluesky requests and back.
like this
Cătă and Jupiter Rowland like this.
reshared this
Fediverse News, Fediverse Developer Discussion, AP-AT-Bridge Group, Chris Alemany🇺🇦🇨🇦🇪🇸, :mima_rule: Mima-sama and Kneworldodor reshared this.
Johannes Hentschel
in reply to Ryan Barrett • • •@activitypubblueskybridge @fedidevs @fediversenews
Shiri Bailem
in reply to Johannes Hentschel • •Jupiter Rowland likes this.
reshared this
Fediverse News, Fediverse Developer Discussion and AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
Johannes Hentschel
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •@snarfed.org
reshared this
Fediverse News, Fediverse Developer Discussion and AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
Shiri Bailem
in reply to Johannes Hentschel • •@Johannes Hentschel @Ryan Barrett oh I know full well, I'm deeply conscious of the bounds of my privacy, both what is under my control and what isn't.
I'm tired of the ideological purism present on the fediverse, especially from the Mastodon users who think they own the place and that their clique's reflect not only the norms, but the reality of how the world works.
If you care about the privacy to that extent, then you should be making your posts private to begin with, full stop. I recognize the difference between concerns and paranoia, it's why I've told many people throughout the thread that if they really mean what they say they should find a whitelist server.
People assume my cavalier attitude means I don't care about privacy or security... it doesn't come from not caring, it comes from being explicitly conscious of the decisions I've made regarding each. The fear comes from people who want others to accommodate their fear while they do nothing.
:PUA: Shlee fucked around and
in reply to Ryan Barrett • • •maegul
in reply to :PUA: 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?
Shiri Bailem likes this.
James Harris
in reply to maegul • • •Shiri Bailem likes this.
maegul
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.
Shiri Bailem likes this.
maegul
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.
Shiri Bailem likes this.
Shiri Bailem
in reply to maegul • •@maegul @:PUA: Shlee fucked around and @Ryan Barrett @James Harris I've seen this for a while, many people on here are highly xenophobic. They found a place for themselves and they now want to close the gates on anyone else joining, seeing "foreigners" (other platforms) as threats rather than a foundational part of how this service works.
On top of that, they often demand ideological purity... it's actually one of the reasons Twitter survives and people use other shitty platforms... because they hopped on here and found only hostility to any way in which their social norms differed from what people considered acceptable.
like this
Scott M. Stolz likes this.
reshared this
Fediverse News, Fediverse Developer Discussion, AP-AT-Bridge Group and Jamie Booth reshared this.
Jupiter Rowland
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •See also the way some Mastodon users freak out when they first discover the Fediverse isn't only Mastodon.
I mean, look at Friendica and Hubzilla and (streams). All three aren't based on ActivityPub, and yet, they're connected to Mastodon. They have plugins which, technically, are "bridges" for single instances.
Yes, they count as part of what they connect to ActivityPub instead of being third-party, but they work just the same as BridgyFed: They connect something that's completely alien by Mastodon's standards with a different underlying protocol a vastly different culture to Mastodon. And they offer no opt-in for Mastodon users.
It is at this point that the Mastodon users should start questioning whether Friendica, Hubzilla and (streams) are actually part of the Fediverse. And if they should be. After all, these there aren't harmless either. They're the sources of atrocities by Mastodon's standards ranging from "quote-tweets" with no chance for Mastodon users to stop them to the freaky stuff Hubzilla and (streams) do with their nomadic identity and Friendica being fully federated with Bluesky already now without even needing BridgyFed.
Oh, and to everyone else: @Shiri Bailem is on Friendica, and I'm on Hubzilla. Nice to see someone else chime in from the far end of the Fediverse.
CC: @maegul @:PUA: Shlee fucked around and @Ryan Barrett @James Harris
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #Fediverse #Friendica #Hubzilla #Streams #(streams) #Bluesky #Bridge #BlueskyBridge #BridgyFed
Shiri Bailem likes this.
maegul
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •I fear for mastodon on this front because its "safety culture" seems to have some aspects based on the idea of a vigilant social immune system response, which can make plenty of sense, but I fear breeds some problematically misinformed understandings and mindsets.
Say what you will about centralised social media, I'm not sure it's healthy for *everyone* to have a gun, run a militia and be constantly paranoid about border crossings.
Shiri Bailem likes this.
Jon Quass
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."
https://docs.joinmastodon.org/admin/config/#:~:text=This%20mode%20is%20intended%20for,as%20WHITELIST_MODE%20prior%20to%203.1.
@jbwharris @shlee @snarfed.org @activitypubblueskybridge @fedidevs @fediversenews
Configuring your environment
docs.joinmastodon.orgShiri Bailem likes this.
Shanie
in reply to Ryan Barrett • • •@activitypubblueskybridge @fedidevs @fediversenews 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.
chris@strafpla.net
in reply to Shanie • • •Shanie
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.
Shiri Bailem likes this.
dogzilla
in reply to Shanie • • •Shiri Bailem likes this.
Shanie
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.
dogzilla
in reply to Shanie • • •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
Fediverse Developer Discussion and AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
Shanie
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
Fediverse Developer Discussion and AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
Shiri Bailem
in reply to dogzilla • •reshared this
Fediverse News, Fediverse Developer Discussion and AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
lily 🏳️⚧️ :flag_pansexual: θΔ ⋐ &?
in reply to Shanie • • •Shanie
in reply to lily 🏳️⚧️ :flag_pansexual: 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.
Shiri Bailem likes this.
lily 🏳️⚧️ :flag_pansexual: θΔ ⋐ &?
in reply to Shanie • • •Kinky Kobolds
in reply to Ryan Barrett • • •@activitypubblueskybridge @fedidevs @fediversenews 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.
Shiri Bailem
in reply to Kinky Kobolds • •@Kinky Kobolds @Ryan Barrett The entire fediverse is opt-out structure by default.
If you want opt-in I recommend moving to or setting up a whitelist instance (an instance configured to only federate with instances added to the whitelist, meaning all instances are opt-in by your admin).
like this
Scott M. Stolz likes this.
reshared this
Fediverse News, Fediverse Developer Discussion and AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
Kinky Kobolds
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •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
Fediverse News, Fediverse Developer Discussion and AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
Shiri Bailem
in reply to Kinky Kobolds • •@Kinky Kobolds it's a bridge, so it'll try to reflect those edits across as well... but those edits are also security theater, you only have as much control as each user chooses to let you have (any number of instances may not support those features, or choose to disable them... and you'll immediately have no control).
And as far as copyright: that argument only holds up if you also believe you can also sue every instance in the fediverse for viewing your post.
On top of that even if applicable, Ryan is in the US and the DMCA applies. If you go to a lawyer they'll just write a letter to Ryan and he'll opt you out... you'll get a really expensive lesson in copyright law and he'll just get a really fancy and overly formal opt-out request. (DMCA protects sites like fediverse instances and bridges, you have to issue a take-down request first and then you can't sue until they ignore that take-down request... or in other words, they would have to ignore your opt-out request).
And that's before even getting to the fact that a bridge isn't a host, it's a translator. A lot of people don't understand how federation, let alone bridging works and think this is just scraping accounts and posting the content on bluesky...
Chris Alemany🇺🇦🇨🇦🇪🇸
in reply to Kinky Kobolds • • •reshared this
Fediverse News, Fediverse Developer Discussion and AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
Miles
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.
Shiri Bailem likes this.
reshared this
Fediverse News, Fediverse Developer Discussion and AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
Shiri Bailem
in reply to Miles • •@Miles @Kinky Kobolds a history of edits is an explicit feature that some demand. Now I'm trying to remember if my server software supports that... would definitely turn it off if it was an optional feature regardless.
Edits are not security, I'd honor a delete but edits? pfft, show me the edit trail so people can't use it to gaslight.
Allen Versfeld
in reply to Miles • • •i thought history was already visible though? The UI is s little clumsy, making it non-obvious, but I often refer to histories. Standard web client shows a clickable asterisk next to the age of the post, whereas clients like Tusky give a detailed diff of each update.
I seem to recall the history being a requirement of the edit feature, to avoid the entrapped endorsements risk (where a bad actor posts something innocuous to get likes from a prominent user, then edits to something controversial, so that they can claim endorsement from people who normally wouldn't)
Shiri Bailem likes this.
Kinky Kobolds
in reply to Allen Versfeld • • •@uastronomer @cmiles74 Far as I know, the history is a built-in feature that cannot be turned off. And it's exactly for the kind gaslighting concern that @shiri raised.
Edit: Also, if you boost a post that is later edited, you'll also receive a notification that it was edited.
Sara
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
jeremiah
in reply to Sara • • •Shiri Bailem
in reply to jeremiah • •@jeremiah @Ryan Barrett @Sara The entire fediverse is opt-out structure by default.
If you want opt-in I recommend moving to or setting up a whitelist instance (an instance configured to only federate with instances added to the whitelist, meaning all instances are opt-in by your admin).
like this
Scott M. Stolz likes this.
reshared this
Fediverse News, Fediverse Developer Discussion, AP-AT-Bridge Group and Moritz reshared this.
jeremiah
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •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
Fediverse News, Fediverse Developer Discussion and AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
Shiri Bailem
in reply to jeremiah • •@jeremiah @Ryan Barrett @Sara ... this really is the same as another fediverse server.
A bridge translates between networks, and the typical format is something like user1@bluesky because user1.bluesky@brid.gy, likewise user2@ap turns into user2.ap@brid.gy. You block brid.gy and you've blocked all of it.
The only difference between a bridge and a bluesky instance being on the network is that you won't be able to block just a server on the other network, you have to block either the entire bridge or just one user at a time.
There are already tons of bridges on activitypub to other platforms (if you think Bluesky is bad, look up Nostr...).
jeremiah
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •"The only difference between a bridge and a bluesky instance being on the network is that you won't be able to block just a server on the other network, you have to block either the entire bridge or just one user at a time."
Already this is a strictly worse experience and not the same as any other Fediverse server.
I can and have blocked individual servers without bothering admins. In this scenario, I either have to bother admins or go invest more of my time and effort to avoiding corporate networks.
A truly staggering number of hours over the course of my life have gone into this. Based on the feedback this guy is getting, I'm sure others feel that having yet another thing to block or workaround is a chore that we didn't ask for.
I understand there are other bridges to bad and worse networks that operate the same way. I have the same feedback for those bridges.
Sometimes people aren't looking for scale. Sometimes we're looking for pseudo-anonymity and relative obscurity.
Evan Minto
in reply to Ryan Barrett • • •Shiri Bailem likes this.
malena
in reply to Ryan Barrett • • •Shiri Bailem likes this.
chronohart
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...
Shiri Bailem
in reply to chronohart • •@chronohart @Ryan Barrett because this is the fediverse and people are getting upset that their public federated posts are... getting federated?
"Opt out" is basically just a nice gesture since not all platforms have user level instance blocking.
I've also seen a few people complaining who confuse a bridge with a webscraper and have no idea how a bridge works...
like this
Scott M. Stolz and Jupiter Rowland like this.
reshared this
Fediverse News, Fediverse Developer Discussion, AP-AT-Bridge Group and Miles reshared this.
chronohart
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •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
Fediverse News, Fediverse Developer Discussion and AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
Shiri Bailem
in reply to chronohart • •@chronohart @Ryan Barrett the only reason I can't imagine it being a problem is because it's so completely manageable... if I get too much trouble over the bridge? I block the bridge.
Starts coming through over a different bridge? Another quick and easy block. And mind you that they have to find a bridge to harass me over and they get what... one harassing post before they have to go find another bridge? That's alot of extra work on their part as bridges aren't that plentiful.
That's before getting to the array of other moderation tools available, well before talking the tools available as a server admin.
On top of that, their opt out system is fantastic, just by a simple tag dropped in my profile block all bridges using this software? Hell yeah, that's a great measure and I hope it catches on elsewhere.
Altogether... I'm more worried about people already here than people accessing through a bridge. I think there are more self-righteous people here than any other platform.
Luca Sironi likes this.
reshared this
Fediverse News, AP-AT-Bridge Group and Fediverse Developer Discussion reshared this.
Shiri Bailem
in reply to Shiri Bailem • •@Ryan Barrett @chronohart you also mistake "loudest" for majority, much like the "fedipact" nonsense where a lot of people thought they had enough support to bully Facebook... They were absolutely a small minority of the fediverse, they weren't numerous... just loud.
Most of the people here? We just welcome more people to talk to and more ways out of corporate networks (and this is a way out of a corporate network).
Don Ray
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.
Shiri Bailem
in reply to Don Ray • •@Don Ray @Ryan Barrett yet you decided the same for us with this comment?
If you take issue with how your public federated post is federated... then you should join a whitelist instance.
Jupiter Rowland likes this.
reshared this
Fediverse News, Fediverse Developer Discussion and AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
Grrrr, Darth Moose Shark
in reply to Ryan Barrett • • •@activitypubblueskybridge @fedidevs @fediversenews
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.
AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
Shiri Bailem
in reply to Grrrr, Darth Moose Shark • •@Grrrr, Darth Moose Shark @Ryan Barrett it neither violates the GDPR (and if you think it does you either woefully misunderstand what a bridge is or what the GDPR covers), and as a privacy advocate... any privacy advocate that actually cares about their privacy rather than the vague concept of privacy would shrug at this.
You posted publicly and it's visible on another instance... that's all that's happening here.
I've noticed others below seem to think this is something like a web scraper or that it will do something invasive? A bridge just translates between protocols, once this is up it just means that bluesky users and activitypub users would be able to talk to eachother through this instance with it translating requests between the two (ie. user1@bluesky wants to follow user2@mastodon, they'd follow something like user2.mastodon@brid.gy; user2 will get a follow request from something like user1.bluesky@brid.gy; if they accept then they'll be sharing their posts between eachother)
like this
Jupiter Rowland likes this.
reshared this
Fediverse News, Fediverse Developer Discussion and AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
Moritz
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •Michael T. Richter
in reply to Ryan Barrett • • •@snarfed.org@snarfed.org @activitypubblueskybridge @fedidevs @fediversenews
> … we're very open to feedback.
Here's your feedback you fuckwit: get fucked.
Victoria Fierce :vbike:
in reply to Michael T. Richter • • •Shiri Bailem
in reply to Victoria Fierce :vbike: • •@Victoria Fierce :vbike: @Michael T. Richter ... you did consent though?
If you didn't consent you'd have set up your server as a whitelist instance...
reshared this
Fediverse News, Fediverse Developer Discussion and AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
Anders Borch
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.
Shiri Bailem likes this.
reshared this
Fediverse Developer Discussion and AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
tallship
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?:
https://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
⛵️
.
fep
Codeberg.orgJohannes Ernst
in reply to Ryan Barrett • • •Shiri Bailem likes this.
tallship
in reply to Johannes Ernst • • •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
⛵️
.
Shiri Bailem likes this.
Johannes Ernst
in reply to tallship • • •The counterpoint is that people generally respect CC licenses (weakly) attached to their creations. (For people != the AI crowd)
We need something similar to that — well, inspired by — for posts. I’m sure Ryan would gladly honor “do not propagate to for-profit entities”, for example, if it could be attached to a post.
@fediversenews @fedidevs @activitypubblueskybridge @snarfed.org
Shiri Bailem likes this.
tallship
in reply to Johannes Ernst • • •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
Johannes Ernst
in reply to tallship • • •jakob 🇦🇹 ✅
in reply to Ryan Barrett • • •@Ryan Barrett @Ryan Barrett
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...
Fill feature-requests to your projects to build a pressure-peergroup for your devs to demonstrate the need for.
For my part...
I left the commercial serviceproviders, when i discovered the fediverse. They are destroying the internet and they are also destroying democraties all over the world with their algorithms and monetarization of their users ...
This is evident. Free democratic countries do not need humanophobe tech-bros from silicon-valley or somewhere else.
So... i won't support their business-model. Free internet works by people like me, who host their own services, and work by devs of free software, who build code for selfhosters.
Think about, whose busimess you will support with your bridge.
Franc Mac
in reply to jakob 🇦🇹 ✅ • • •@jakob 🇦🇹 ✅
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
Shiri Bailem likes this.
Eli the Bearded
in reply to Ryan Barrett • • •JP
in reply to Eli the Bearded • • •Shiri Bailem likes this.
amd
in reply to Ryan Barrett • • •https://fed.brid.gy/r/https://snarfed.org/ This is a gross misuse of the fediverse.
Reconsider and make this opt in only.
What is the user agent and IP you use for crawling?
JP
in reply to amd • • •Shiri Bailem likes this.
Hazelnoot
in reply to Ryan Barrett • • •reshared this
Fediverse News, Fediverse Developer Discussion and AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
JP
in reply to Hazelnoot • • •I think we will be notified if it’s used to follow us from a different network 😊 this bridge is a Fediverse instance itself, so you’ll be notified if anyone uses it to follow you in the same way as any other Fediverse instance; then you can block the user, the server (ie. the whole bridge instance), allow it, or follow back!
I really like that not only is it the same choice as any other Fediverse server, it’s the same approach, nothing new to learn!
Shiri Bailem likes this.
Shiri Bailem
in reply to Hazelnoot • •@Hazelnoot @Ryan Barrett @Ryan Barrett what JP said, but also bridge services are open things. Opt-in really is more about your usage and server than the bridge.
For users who want a choice in how their posts are federated, I strongly recommend whitelist servers. Otherwise you've already opted in to the fediverse (and bridges are an important part of the fediverse) as a whole.
Hazelnoot
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •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.
Shiri Bailem
in reply to Hazelnoot • •@Hazelnoot @Ryan Barrett @Ryan Barrett Bluesky and Nostr are the fediverse (or rather, Bluesky will be once they choose to federate, which this bridge is just preparing for), it's not my fault you didn't know the difference.
One of the key elements of the fediverse is you don't get to control what platform others use to view and access your account. There's no "block firefish" or "block hubzilla" or "block mastodon". A bridge is just another extension of that and long before ActivityPub even existed bridges were already established as a major feature of federated networks (hell, I reference an XMMP-Matrix bridge in my bio, all of which predate Activity-Pub and that bridge can only be opted out of by blocking the server... like most bridges).
Basically, this is the way the system was always supposed to work, I'm sorry that you were mislead to think otherwise.
And I guarantee you W3C (the actual stewards of ActivityPub) were absolutely expecting bridges like this to show up immediately (bridges to diaspora* and OStatus would have been some of the first bridges on ActivityPub, again operating silently with no opt-in or opt-out mechanism).
Luca Sironi likes this.
AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
Hazelnoot
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •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.
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.
Franc Mac
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
Shiri Bailem likes this.
Herr Günni
in reply to Ryan Barrett • • •@activitypubblueskybridge @fedidevs @fediversenews
Ryan Barrett
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.
https://snarfed.org/2024-02-12_52106
snarfed.orgreshared this
Mastodon Migration and HACK13 reshared this.
james is actually afk
in reply to Ryan Barrett • • •Shiri Bailem
in reply to james is actually afk • •@james is actually afk @Ryan Barrett they're exploring it, and honestly I think it's a horrible idea, will just result in bridges that don't check for # nobridge to flourish over it.
If you want opt-in you really should just be on a whitelist server.
james is actually afk
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •Mastodon•ART 🎨 Curator
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.
AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
Shiri Bailem
in reply to Mastodon•ART 🎨 Curator • •@Mastodon•ART 🎨 Curator @Ryan Barrett ... why don't you just block the instance?
You've been here how long and you think you're entitled to how your posts are federated beyond who you block? Sure you don't want to switch your server to a whitelist server instead?
like this
Jupiter Rowland likes this.
reshared this
Fediverse News, Fediverse Developer Discussion and AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
Mastodon•ART 🎨 Curator
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •ged likes this.
reshared this
Fediverse News, Fediverse Developer Discussion and AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
Anders Borch
in reply to Mastodon•ART 🎨 Curator • • •You may want to reconsider your "Fuck off" comment while on mastodon.art:
https://mastodon.art/about/more#code-of-conduct
Mastodon.ART
Mastodon hosted on mastodon.artreshared this
Fediverse News, Fediverse Developer Discussion and AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
PhantaNews ✅
in reply to Anders Borch • • •reshared this
Fediverse News, Fediverse Developer Discussion and AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
Mastodon•ART 🎨 Curator
in reply to PhantaNews ✅ • • •George Saich
in reply to Ryan Barrett • • •retiolus
in reply to Ryan Barrett • • •Tim Erickson, @stpaultim
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.
Löhwe :tchncs:
in reply to Ryan Barrett • • •Andre
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.
Luca Sironi
in reply to Andre • • •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.
Andre
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.
Luca Sironi
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.
Andre
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.
Shiri Bailem
in reply to Andre • •like this
Jupiter Rowland likes this.
reshared this
Fediverse News, Fediverse Developer Discussion and AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
Andre
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •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.
Grrrr, Darth Moose Shark
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.
AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
Csepp 🌢
in reply to Ryan Barrett • • •Shiri Bailem
in reply to Csepp 🌢 • •reshared this
Fediverse News, Fediverse Developer Discussion and AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
Csepp 🌢
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •reshared this
Fediverse News, Fediverse Developer Discussion and AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
Allen
in reply to Ryan Barrett • • •Snowshadow
in reply to Allen • • •Who would want to deal with an organization that has the audacity to pull this stunt!
Allen
in reply to Snowshadow • • •Snowshadow
in reply to Allen • • •The Arrogance!!
Shiri Bailem
in reply to Snowshadow • •@Snowshadow @Allen you are not being signed up for anything with this, it's just another instance translating between the two protocols and all normal tools still apply.
The arrogance is thinking you can make public posts on a federate platform and dictate how they federate.
I'll also note that this isn't a corporate person doing this, it's a private individual. Bluesky has promised to federate under it's own protocol since it's beginning, once it does so you will see many instances on the bluesky protocol much the same as we're talking on the activitypub protocol, this bridge just connects the two protocols and a lot of people are interested in implementing such tools because that's the whole point of federation.
like this
Jupiter Rowland likes this.
reshared this
Fediverse News, Fediverse Developer Discussion and AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
Allen
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •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
Fediverse News, Fediverse Developer Discussion and AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
Scott M. Stolz
in reply to Allen • • •@Allen
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
Fediverse Developer Discussion and AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
Proxima Centauri
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.
Allen
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.
user8e8f87e
in reply to Allen • • •Allen
in reply to user8e8f87e • • •Snowshadow
in reply to user8e8f87e • • •chris@strafpla.net
in reply to user8e8f87e • • •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.
dogzilla
in reply to chris@strafpla.net • • •Shiri Bailem likes this.
user8e8f87e
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! 🖤❤️)
Snowshadow
in reply to Proxima Centauri • • •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.
lime360
in reply to Ryan Barrett • • •Jon Quass
in reply to Ryan Barrett • • •@activitypubblueskybridge @fedidevs @fediversenews
zeitverschreib [mastodon]
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
Shiri Bailem
in reply to zeitverschreib [mastodon] • •@zeitverschreib [mastodon] @Ryan Barrett (a) the hashtag goes in your bio (b) that's not going to change, they're being nice, the norm is that bridges don't ask and the only way to have a say at all is to just block the bridge... which you can always do.
If you feel like your content needs to be opt-in to distribute, you should set all your posts private (bridge will only see them if you accept a follow request from a Bluesky user on the bridge), or you should move to a whitelist server (where your posts will only federate to explicitly approved servers)
reshared this
Fediverse News, Fediverse Developer Discussion and AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
Joana de Castro Arnaud
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.
Shiri Bailem
in reply to Joana de Castro Arnaud • •@Joana de Castro Arnaud @Ryan Barrett it basically is opt in because someone on one side or the other will have to request the content, either one of your users requests a bluesky account or a bluesky user requests your account.
And the assumption is perfectly reasonable given that it's essentially just another instance, as if Bluesky spun up an activitypub endpoint themselves. The opt-out is at least a nice gesture (though unnecessary because blocking a server is an opt out regardless).
reshared this
Fediverse News, Fediverse Developer Discussion, AP-AT-Bridge Group, Allen Versfeld, Damon and Jamie Booth reshared this.
L. Rhodes
in reply to Ryan Barrett • • •A few more questions, if you don't mind:
1. Where does the bridge pass messages on the Bluesky side? Directly to other PDS? Through the Relay? Does it function as a PDS?
2. What ATproto services is it using to pull posts back to the fediverse side? An App View? A feed generator? A labeller?
3. Is the choice of those services set by the PDS, or will they be customizable from the fediverse side on a per-account basis?
Formally Known As Bending Unit
in reply to Ryan Barrett • • •#nobridge #idontconsent #fuckinvasivetechbros
seahorse
in reply to Formally Known As Bending Unit • • •Shiri Bailem
in reply to seahorse • •@seahorse @Formally Known As Bending Unit @Ryan Barrett pro-active statement that doesn't even knowledge of your network: bridges like this are passive, they appear and operate just the same as regular AP instances, only difference is that they're translating the requests on the other end to Bluesky and vice versa.
It's not live yet because it won't function until Bluesky federates, once they do it'll appear as a completely separate Bluesky instance in their network.
Bridges already exist for other networks as well, the only reason this is new is because Bluesky hasn't federated at all before.
As far as how to deal with it, if you don't want to see Bluesky accounts you can block the domain from your user account, or if an admin feels it's unacceptable they can block the domain server-wide. Both just like you can with a regular AP instance.
reshared this
Fediverse News, Fediverse Developer Discussion, AP-AT-Bridge Group and Allen Versfeld reshared this.
Formally Known As Bending Unit
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •My admin took care of it.
I do not consider a bridge to bluesky or anything owned by (edit: sorry, affiliated with) a scumbag like dorsey to be "passive." I consider it to be the first step to #enshittification.
reshared this
Fediverse News, Fediverse Developer Discussion and AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
Shiri Bailem
in reply to Formally Known As Bending Unit • •@Formally Known As Bending Unit @Ryan Barrett @seahorse passive is a technical, not emotional term. Alternatively an "active" bridge would be akin to a webcrawler, actively pulling in posts whether or not they're requested.
That is also a wild misuse of enshittification. Enshittification is when a platform or product offers an explicit feature and upon achieving market dominance removes that feature.
This is simply someone using the existing features and design of ActivityPub in a way you dislike. This is not being provided by any of the platforms involved and is not something added or changed about the ActivityPub protocol.
This is as much enshittification as complaining about platforms other than Mastodon using ActivityPub.
reshared this
Fediverse News, Fediverse Developer Discussion and AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
Formally Known As Bending Unit
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •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.
Thanks for being my reply guy today.
reshared this
Fediverse News, Fediverse Developer Discussion and AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
Shiri Bailem
in reply to Formally Known As Bending Unit • •@Formally Known As Bending Unit @Ryan Barrett I'm just calling out people for being assholes because OP is getting shit on for spending the extra effort to offer a respectful feature...
Thread is full of assholes who think it's impossible and unreasonable to just block an instance and that somehow it's a deep violation of the principles of the fediverse for it to federate, let alone federate by default.
"How dare bridges, a thing that's been around for every single federated platform throughout history, offer an opt-out function, a feature that few if any other bridges offer as the norm is for them to just connect and not care"
And again on the topic of enshittification... you share the whole definition but clearly only read half of it because you don't understand what a two-sided market is... and how this is not a two sided market...
To clarify: a two-sided market is a business with two different sides to it, in most cases with enshittification we're talking about users and advertisers, but it can also be something like a credit card company (cardholders and merchants). Enshittification does not happen between platforms, it happens within a platform that's acting as a two-sided market.
ActivityPub is not a market at all, the vast majority of AP instances are not two-sided markets (I haven't seen any as of yet, but I'm sure there's an ad driven one out there somewhere), the bridge is not a two-sided market, the only two-sided market in this conversation is Bluesky itself.
like this
Jupiter Rowland likes this.
reshared this
Fediverse News, Fediverse Developer Discussion and AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
Formally Known As Bending Unit
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •Oi, how about unwelcome assholes that feel the need to unwantedly splain things?
Hold this mute, since you don't take hints
reshared this
Fediverse News, Fediverse Developer Discussion and AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
LCWebsXOXO [mod]
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •tness16
in reply to Ryan Barrett • • •@ghazi
@nizarus
Shiri Bailem
in reply to tness16 • •@tness16 @Nizar Kerkeni 🇹🇳 نزار القرقني @Ghazi @Ryan Barrett this isn't a window, it's an adjoining door. It's letting us and them talk without having to first exit the house, walk around the building and re-enter a completely different house.
And to be clear, the fediverse is both, this bridge is the fediverse in action. What you mean is ActivityPub.
reshared this
Fediverse News, Fediverse Developer Discussion and AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
Johanna, CanCon variant
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •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
Fediverse News, Fediverse Developer Discussion and AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
Shiri Bailem
in reply to Johanna, CanCon variant • •Shiri Bailem
in reply to Ryan Barrett • •like this
Scott M. Stolz likes this.
reshared this
Fediverse News, Fediverse Developer Discussion and AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
Bennett
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •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.
Bennett
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.
Jon
in reply to Ryan Barrett • • •reshared this
Fediverse Developer Discussion and AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
Shiri Bailem
in reply to Jon • •reshared this
Fediverse News, Fediverse Developer Discussion and AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
FS9-BS "Bad Survivor"
in reply to Ryan Barrett • • •reshared this
Fediverse Developer Discussion and AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
Shiri Bailem
in reply to FS9-BS "Bad Survivor" • •@FS9-BS "Bad Survivor" @Ryan Barrett what a hateful comment to make when they're doing more than any of the other bridges.
Let alone an ignorant comment to complain about how your publicly federated posts are passed around... sounds like you just need to join a whitelist server.
like this
Jupiter Rowland likes this.
reshared this
Fediverse News, Fediverse Developer Discussion and AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
Fern Woodsson 🌿
in reply to Ryan Barrett • • •reshared this
Fediverse Developer Discussion and AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
Ubergeek
in reply to Ryan Barrett • • •reshared this
Fediverse Developer Discussion and AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
Scott M. Stolz
in reply to Ryan Barrett • • •Shiri Bailem likes this.
reshared this
Fediverse Developer Discussion and AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
Tim Chambers
in reply to Scott M. Stolz • • •reshared this
Fediverse News and Fediverse Developer Discussion reshared this.
DavidB
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
Shiri Bailem likes this.
reshared this
Fediverse Developer Discussion and AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
Nora🇲🇽
in reply to Ryan Barrett • • •reshared this
Fediverse Developer Discussion and AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.
JP
in reply to Nora🇲🇽 • • •(Disculpe, estoy aprendiendo español!) ¿Quieres "bridge" a Bluesky con tecnologías de asistencia para invidentes? (¿Es esto “Tiflo”?)
(Excuse me, I’m learning Spanish!) you want to “bridge” with Bluesky with assistive technologies for the blind? (Is this “Tiflo”?)
reshared this
Fediverse News, Fediverse Developer Discussion and AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.