Skip to main content


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.

reshared this

in reply to Ryan Barrett

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

Pagan Plus will be blocking the blue sky bridge for automaticly opting unaware users into sharing and introducing the fediverse to bluesky's moderation problems.
in reply to :jan:‍:abreath:‍‍🌬:dandelion:

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

Looks like, yes! There are some details on his site: https://snarfed.org/2023-11-27_re-introducing-bridgy-fed

AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.

in reply to Ryan Barrett

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

I promise I know how the fediverse works. have a great life.

reshared this

in reply to DJ Sundog - from the toot-lab

@DJ Sundog - from the toot-lab @Ryan Barrett @Ryan Barrett clearly not if you are upset at a bridge offering an opt-out feature, as opposed to all the other bridges which don't. Or that you're upset at a bridge existing on the fediverse in general...
in reply to Shiri Bailem

we're not talking about the entire fediverse, we're talking about this bridge.

Please reread what you're replying to before you reply.

in reply to Cloudbreaker

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

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

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

AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.

in reply to JP

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

AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.

in reply to Blake Leonard

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

AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.

in reply to JP

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

AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.

in reply to JP

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

This entry was edited (7 months ago)

reshared this

in reply to eishiya

Yeah, that makes sense—I don’t expect my posts on StackOverflow to end up on some other random site (and it’s frustrating when they do!)
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!
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.

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)

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)

This entry was edited (7 months ago)
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).

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.

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.

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.

in reply to Daisy Doo & TuxieGirl Betty

@Stevie Cat, Daisy Dog & Betty @JP @eishiya for the hashtag to work you need to put it in your profile. When a Bluesky user tries to follow you through this bridge it'll check your profile and hide your account if you have that tag in your profile.
in reply to Daisy Doo & TuxieGirl 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

in reply to Shiri Bailem

the main problem is bluesky is techbro startup capitalist prone to enshittification crap.
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.

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.

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)

reshared this

in reply to SuperMoosie

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

AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.

in reply to SuperMoosie

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

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

in reply to Tim Erickson, @stpaultim

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

in reply to Tim Erickson, @stpaultim

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

in reply to the roamer

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

in reply to Shiri Bailem

Instances develop individual cultures, based on own sets of rules, enforcement, local law, and kind of users they attract.
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
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.

in reply to Sam :verified:

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

AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.

in reply to Markus

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

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

@Världens bästa Kille™ @Sam :verified: @Ryan Barrett @Zatty :meowybara: @Markus they'd be defederated, and-or users would migrate from Bluesky to Mastodon now that they can do so without cutting off contact to other Bluesky users.

reshared this

in reply to Shiri Bailem

Or possibly the other way around. Can’t imagine they’d do this without having the next few steps figured out.
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.

AP-AT-Bridge Group reshared this.

in reply to Ryan Barrett

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

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

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

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

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.

in reply to Ryan Barrett

@activitypubblueskybridge @fedidevs @fediversenews Glad to hear it! I would prefer to have a single account that gives me access to the wider Fediverse than have to have multiple identities across multiple networks. Thanks for your work! How do we use it?
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

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...

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.

in reply to unlofl [Promoted Toot]

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

reshared this

in reply to Ryan Barrett

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

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

@Toatrika, Witch of Numbers 🏆 @Kaknäsin Thorne @Ryan Barrett y'all could also learn to use the concept of consent with public speech... get over yourselves, you consented by posting publicly. If you don't understand that then you need a primer in what the fediverse is and how it actually works...

reshared this

in reply to Ryan Barrett

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

reshared this

in reply to Joshix


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


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

in reply to Ryan Barrett

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

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

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

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

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

in reply to Yas-O-Lantern :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?)

pavo reshared this.

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.

in reply to Ryan Barrett

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

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

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

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

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

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

in reply to Pusher Of Pixels (old account)

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

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

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

OptOut is a terrible idea on every angle.

in reply to Pusher Of Pixels (old account)

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

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

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

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

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

⛵️

.

in reply to Pusher Of Pixels (old account)

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

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

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

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

in reply to 🌸 lily 🏳️‍⚧️ :flag_pansexual: :flag_ace: 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

in reply to chris@strafpla.net

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

in reply to chris@strafpla.net

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

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

@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

in reply to Shiri Bailem

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

reshared this

in reply to Baral'heia Stormdancer ΘΔ🐲

@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.

in reply to Shiri Bailem

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

@Baral'heia Stormdancer 🔜 TFF @Ryan Barrett how would it get the follow activity without already bridging the profile? That's the part you're missing.

And again, it's a massively burdensome process that is a wild departure from federation standards, both in following and in how bridges operate.

in reply to Shiri Bailem

I'm not a developer so I honestly don't know the exact action behind how that initial account discovery happens. My previous experience with these sorts of bridges was with bird.makeup, and you had to know the exact name of the account you were looking for from Twitter. You'd then add "@bird.makeup" to the end of it (example: @/nwsnorman@bird.makeup) and search for that to find the account to follow on Fedi. If nobody followed that handle, it was just an empty placeholder - and when you followed it, only then it would start forwarding posts over. If I've read the docs correctly it seems like Bridgy is intended to work on a similar basis.
in reply to Ryan Barrett

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

Cătă doesn't like this.

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.

reshared this

in reply to Shiri Bailem

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

reshared this

in reply to Evan Minto

@Evan Minto most of them are convinced that Mastodon is the entire fediverse and that their experience of it is the "one-true-fedi"
in reply to hazelnot :yell:

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

reshared this

in reply to Cătă

techbros understand consent challenge (impossible)

Cătă doesn't like this.

reshared this

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.

reshared this

in reply to Ryan Barrett

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

in reply to Ryan Barrett

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

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

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

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.

in reply to Ryan Barrett

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

in reply to Johannes Hentschel

@Johannes Hentschel @Ryan Barrett If you take issue with your post being federated then you really should note that you've opted in already by posting publicly and on a non-whitelist server.

reshared this

in reply to Shiri Bailem

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

reshared this

in reply to 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.