4 ms·

That was quit the mess. Ryan Barrett is a smart guy and seems quite nice, but it was very ill-advised to unilaterally decide to build an opt-out bridge. In gene

That was quit the mess. Ryan Barrett is a smart guy and seems quite nice, but it was very ill-advised to unilaterally decide to build an opt-out bridge. In general, if users one platform A want their stuff to be on platform B, they'll find a way to make that happen. If someone else takes it upon themselves to copy everything from A to B, people understandably get pretty bent about it. If it had been an opt-in system, the response would probably have been far different.

Repulsion9513 3y ago
Public is public. And someone else will just go build an opt-out (or maybe even no opt-out!) bridge.
- kstrauser 3y ago
  Nah. Consent is a thing and this wasn't consensual. Yes, the posts were publicly accessible, but the intent of posting to Mastodon isn't to have it show up automatically on another network. It's technically possible, yes. It's still a dick thing to do and it pissed people off. And again, it wasn't about Bluesky in particular. If Google announced that they were going to ingest all Mastodon content and post it in a new Google Groups kind of thing, they'd be pretty understandably upset about that, too. In general, "if I wanted my stuff on Bluesky, I would have put it there". It wasn't the bridge creator's decision to make.
  - Repulsion9513 3y ago
    Public = consent for the public to see it. That includes the public on Bluesky. It was consensual. And the ruckus was in fact about Bluesky in particular. That's why the same project already supported other protocols without a big ruckus. In general, "I want my stuff on Bluesky but don't want to deal with cross-posting to multiple different platforms and keeping up with responses on all of them" And, "I want my stuff on whatever platform people want to read it on without having to individually approve each one" (which is quite literally the entire point of public posts on Mastodon). OH - and it wasn't the bridge creator's decision anyway; it was the decision of people on Bluesky to follow you that would trigger your posts to be federated, so...
    - 15457345234 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - Repulsion9513 3y ago
        When you share a public post on Mastodon, you are by implication licensing that content for redistribution. Because other Mastodon servers have to redistribute it in order for anyone on another instance to see it. Hope that helps you understand the basic stuff here. (Either that or every Mastodon server in existence is a massive copyright violation, which is frankly quite possible given how bad copyright law is)
        kstrauser 3y ago
        I’m a sucker for a particular mix of condescending plus wrong.
        rglullis 3y ago
        Except they are not wrong. Maybe not in the specifics but in general this is exactly how AP-servers work. If you are on server A and follow someone on server B, then the posts from B will be on your server and there is absolutely no way that the "original owner" of the post on server B to remove the post from A.
        Repulsion9513 3y ago
        So am I, that's why I replied to the people who were condescending plus wrong :)
        Angostura 3y ago
        > When you share a public post on Mastodon, you are by implication licensing that content for redistribution…. … on Mastodon
        icehawk 3y ago
  - rglullis 3y ago
    > "if I wanted my stuff on Bluesky, I would have put it there" How about "If I wanted my stuff on the your Mastodon server, I would have put it there"? "If I wanted my Mastodon content on your RSS feed, I would have put it there". How about "If I wanted my stuff on the Internet, a publicly available internet, I would have put it there". This tribalism around network/brands/protocols is beyond stupid. The thing that is killing Twitter is its closedness and the assumption that the means of communication is what matters. It's not. Let open protocols be open. If people want privacy, then they should use a secure communication protocol and not a social media network.
  - ehPReth 3y ago
    >If Google announced that they were going to ingest all Mastodon content and post it in a new Google Groups kind of thing, they'd be pretty understandably upset about that, too. exactly like they did with usenet without any issue?
    - pests 3y ago
      Well, at least they paid money for Deja. Slight difference no?
      - nl 3y ago
        I'm completely confused under what moral framework the fact that Google paid to buy the Dejanews archive makes a any difference. To make it clear, for people who don't know: Google Groups was originally Dejanews, which was a web based archive and front end to Usenet. Google started searching Usenet, but didn't have historical archives so they bought Dejanews. Obviously no one who posted on Usenet got paid under this transaction. It's like if Google bought a Mastadon archive off someone now: this argument seems to indicate that would be better somehow than Google archiving Mastadon posts themselves. I don't understand why at all?
  - mulmen 3y ago
    > Yes, the posts were publicly accessible, but the intent of posting to Mastodon isn't to have it show up automatically on another network. I thought that was the point of activitypub.
  - Repulsion9513 3y ago
    I’m a sucker for a particular mix of condescending plus wrong.
  - cabalamat 3y ago
    > Consent is a thing and this wasn't consensual The whole point of a fediverse is it's a federation. Therefore there is implied consent to copying from one instance to another. > but the intent of posting to Mastodon isn't to have it show up automatically on another network Mastodon isn't a network, the network is the fediverse. Mastodon is some software that runs on the network.
  - Arnt 3y ago
    What thing is consent? Mastodon is an odd sort of network, there's more blocking than I expected and it somehow seems as if blocking is an intrinsic part of the design. In Mastodon, blocking looks like a choice one makes for whatever reasons, not an unloved measure needed for fighting abuse. As if the design doesn't tell users "you can follow people in the fediverse" but rather "your ability to follow people in the fediverse is limited by you and three other parties and the software isn't among the three". So… if the mastodonish idea of consent doesn't extend to all of the fediverse, what makes bluesky different from some unvetted mastodon site run by weird people? If the poster's/follower's/would-be follower's consent isn't taken for granted in one case and isn't taken for granted in the other, what makes the two cases different? There obviously is a technical difference, but what is the difference wrt. consent?
    - NoGravitas 3y ago
      > what makes bluesky different from some unvetted mastodon site run by weird people? Absolutely nothing! Fediverse admins block unmoderated sites all the time, for being unmoderated. Bluesky is just, effectively, one unmoderated instance that everyone will block by default.
      - Repulsion9513 3y ago
        Assuming your assertions are correct (they're not, but let's assume they are) - what's the problem with the bridge being opt-out if everyone will block it anyway?
  - psionides 3y ago
    > If Google announced that they were going to ingest all Mastodon content and post it in a new Google Groups kind of thing, they'd be pretty understandably upset about that, too. Except that's not what the bridge does, at all. It only follows you on someone's behalf when someone on Bluesky specifically requests to follow you through the bridge.
- NoGravitas 3y ago
  And Fediverse admins will block that bridge, just like they would any other site with bad/nonexistent moderation, and will advise each other to block it. That's just how moderation works in the Fediverse. I guess it's sad that, unlike the admin of an instance with bad moderation, the bridge operator can't do anything to fix the problem, but in the end, that's their problem.
CaptainFever 3y ago
I'm surprised that the tool in question is Bridgy Fed. Bridgy Fed has existed for a long time and is a very useful tool. Its alternative, Bridgy, has also been used to bridge between closed social networks and the open IndieWeb. Why are Fediverse people only angry about it now? It's an open protocol. If you want privacy, don't publish something for the entire world to see. That's just basic common sense. At the very least, use Mastodon's privacy controls. The Fediverse is not special here, it doesn't get to destroy the open Web for everyone else.
- jeromegv 3y ago
  Well first not everyone on the fediverse is opposed to the bridge. I agree that public is public. But there are concerns about moderation being incompatible, it’s normal to voice them. As for the fediverse destroying the open web for everyone else, I think you’re hyperboling quite a bit, the fediverse has done mountains to make social media more open, probably more than everyone else.
  - CaptainFever 3y ago
    Yeah you're right, I think I did overgeneralise there. I was meaning more of the culture of "Mastodon users"; Mastodon itself has done a lot to help the open Web too. Though I think "voicing concerns" is a bit of an understatement. I feel really bad for the developer of Bridgy Fed, working on their passion project and just getting caught up in all this heat and harassment.
- rakoo 3y ago
  I'm one of the persons who blocks the bridge, not because of privacy concerns but because it bluesky, specifically. I do not like the idea of for-profit, vc-backed entities being given data, or any kind of decision. We all know exactly where that leads, a term has been coined, mountains have been wrtten about it and yet it still happens. It's the same situation with Threads. As for privacy I disagree with you. There's nothing because nothing has been discussed, but the technical feasability should never dictate what we want as a society. When a family member dies, even though the news is known you know how to behave, who to share that information with, what to say. Would you be okay with a company coring up to you and saying "hey we learned your mother died, would you like to tweet it ? It is free !"

Repulsion9513 3y ago

Public is public. And someone else will just go build an opt-out (or maybe even no opt-out!) bridge.

kstrauser 3y ago
Nah. Consent is a thing and this wasn't consensual. Yes, the posts were publicly accessible, but the intent of posting to Mastodon isn't to have it show up automatically on another network. It's technically possible, yes. It's still a dick thing to do and it pissed people off. And again, it wasn't about Bluesky in particular. If Google announced that they were going to ingest all Mastodon content and post it in a new Google Groups kind of thing, they'd be pretty understandably upset about that, too. In general, "if I wanted my stuff on Bluesky, I would have put it there". It wasn't the bridge creator's decision to make.
- Repulsion9513 3y ago
  Public = consent for the public to see it. That includes the public on Bluesky. It was consensual. And the ruckus was in fact about Bluesky in particular. That's why the same project already supported other protocols without a big ruckus. In general, "I want my stuff on Bluesky but don't want to deal with cross-posting to multiple different platforms and keeping up with responses on all of them" And, "I want my stuff on whatever platform people want to read it on without having to individually approve each one" (which is quite literally the entire point of public posts on Mastodon). OH - and it wasn't the bridge creator's decision anyway; it was the decision of people on Bluesky to follow you that would trigger your posts to be federated, so...
  - 15457345234 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - Repulsion9513 3y ago
      When you share a public post on Mastodon, you are by implication licensing that content for redistribution. Because other Mastodon servers have to redistribute it in order for anyone on another instance to see it. Hope that helps you understand the basic stuff here. (Either that or every Mastodon server in existence is a massive copyright violation, which is frankly quite possible given how bad copyright law is)
      - kstrauser 3y ago
        I’m a sucker for a particular mix of condescending plus wrong.
        rglullis 3y ago
        Except they are not wrong. Maybe not in the specifics but in general this is exactly how AP-servers work. If you are on server A and follow someone on server B, then the posts from B will be on your server and there is absolutely no way that the "original owner" of the post on server B to remove the post from A.
        Repulsion9513 3y ago
        So am I, that's why I replied to the people who were condescending plus wrong :)
      - Angostura 3y ago
        > When you share a public post on Mastodon, you are by implication licensing that content for redistribution…. … on Mastodon
        icehawk 3y ago
- rglullis 3y ago
  > "if I wanted my stuff on Bluesky, I would have put it there" How about "If I wanted my stuff on the your Mastodon server, I would have put it there"? "If I wanted my Mastodon content on your RSS feed, I would have put it there". How about "If I wanted my stuff on the Internet, a publicly available internet, I would have put it there". This tribalism around network/brands/protocols is beyond stupid. The thing that is killing Twitter is its closedness and the assumption that the means of communication is what matters. It's not. Let open protocols be open. If people want privacy, then they should use a secure communication protocol and not a social media network.
- ehPReth 3y ago
  >If Google announced that they were going to ingest all Mastodon content and post it in a new Google Groups kind of thing, they'd be pretty understandably upset about that, too. exactly like they did with usenet without any issue?
  - pests 3y ago
    Well, at least they paid money for Deja. Slight difference no?
    - nl 3y ago
      I'm completely confused under what moral framework the fact that Google paid to buy the Dejanews archive makes a any difference. To make it clear, for people who don't know: Google Groups was originally Dejanews, which was a web based archive and front end to Usenet. Google started searching Usenet, but didn't have historical archives so they bought Dejanews. Obviously no one who posted on Usenet got paid under this transaction. It's like if Google bought a Mastadon archive off someone now: this argument seems to indicate that would be better somehow than Google archiving Mastadon posts themselves. I don't understand why at all?
- mulmen 3y ago
  > Yes, the posts were publicly accessible, but the intent of posting to Mastodon isn't to have it show up automatically on another network. I thought that was the point of activitypub.
- Repulsion9513 3y ago
  I’m a sucker for a particular mix of condescending plus wrong.
- cabalamat 3y ago
  > Consent is a thing and this wasn't consensual The whole point of a fediverse is it's a federation. Therefore there is implied consent to copying from one instance to another. > but the intent of posting to Mastodon isn't to have it show up automatically on another network Mastodon isn't a network, the network is the fediverse. Mastodon is some software that runs on the network.
- Arnt 3y ago
  What thing is consent? Mastodon is an odd sort of network, there's more blocking than I expected and it somehow seems as if blocking is an intrinsic part of the design. In Mastodon, blocking looks like a choice one makes for whatever reasons, not an unloved measure needed for fighting abuse. As if the design doesn't tell users "you can follow people in the fediverse" but rather "your ability to follow people in the fediverse is limited by you and three other parties and the software isn't among the three". So… if the mastodonish idea of consent doesn't extend to all of the fediverse, what makes bluesky different from some unvetted mastodon site run by weird people? If the poster's/follower's/would-be follower's consent isn't taken for granted in one case and isn't taken for granted in the other, what makes the two cases different? There obviously is a technical difference, but what is the difference wrt. consent?
  - NoGravitas 3y ago
    > what makes bluesky different from some unvetted mastodon site run by weird people? Absolutely nothing! Fediverse admins block unmoderated sites all the time, for being unmoderated. Bluesky is just, effectively, one unmoderated instance that everyone will block by default.
    - Repulsion9513 3y ago
      Assuming your assertions are correct (they're not, but let's assume they are) - what's the problem with the bridge being opt-out if everyone will block it anyway?
- psionides 3y ago
  > If Google announced that they were going to ingest all Mastodon content and post it in a new Google Groups kind of thing, they'd be pretty understandably upset about that, too. Except that's not what the bridge does, at all. It only follows you on someone's behalf when someone on Bluesky specifically requests to follow you through the bridge.
NoGravitas 3y ago
And Fediverse admins will block that bridge, just like they would any other site with bad/nonexistent moderation, and will advise each other to block it. That's just how moderation works in the Fediverse. I guess it's sad that, unlike the admin of an instance with bad moderation, the bridge operator can't do anything to fix the problem, but in the end, that's their problem.

CaptainFever 3y ago

I'm surprised that the tool in question is Bridgy Fed. Bridgy Fed has existed for a long time and is a very useful tool. Its alternative, Bridgy, has also been used to bridge between closed social networks and the open IndieWeb. Why are Fediverse people only angry about it now? It's an open protocol. If you want privacy, don't publish something for the entire world to see. That's just basic common sense. At the very least, use Mastodon's privacy controls. The Fediverse is not special here, it doesn't get to destroy the open Web for everyone else.

jeromegv 3y ago
Well first not everyone on the fediverse is opposed to the bridge. I agree that public is public. But there are concerns about moderation being incompatible, it’s normal to voice them. As for the fediverse destroying the open web for everyone else, I think you’re hyperboling quite a bit, the fediverse has done mountains to make social media more open, probably more than everyone else.
- CaptainFever 3y ago
  Yeah you're right, I think I did overgeneralise there. I was meaning more of the culture of "Mastodon users"; Mastodon itself has done a lot to help the open Web too. Though I think "voicing concerns" is a bit of an understatement. I feel really bad for the developer of Bridgy Fed, working on their passion project and just getting caught up in all this heat and harassment.
rakoo 3y ago
I'm one of the persons who blocks the bridge, not because of privacy concerns but because it bluesky, specifically. I do not like the idea of for-profit, vc-backed entities being given data, or any kind of decision. We all know exactly where that leads, a term has been coined, mountains have been wrtten about it and yet it still happens. It's the same situation with Threads. As for privacy I disagree with you. There's nothing because nothing has been discussed, but the technical feasability should never dictate what we want as a society. When a family member dies, even though the news is known you know how to behave, who to share that information with, what to say. Would you be okay with a company coring up to you and saying "hey we learned your mother died, would you like to tweet it ? It is free !"