3 ms·

I lost interest in Bluesky when I got an “account required” blocker after I clicked on a Bluesky post link. UPDATE: OK, didn't realize it was a configurable se

I lost interest in Bluesky when I got an “account required” blocker after I clicked on a Bluesky post link. UPDATE: OK, didn't realize it was a configurable setting. I guess I ran into it a few times and assumed it was a default block. Thanks for the clarification.

excerionsforte 2y ago
Interesting given I can access this[1] without an account. [1] https://bsky.app/profile/chrisgeidner.bsky.social/post/3lfdzltlsik2i https://bsky.app/profile/chrisgeidner.bsky.social/post/3lfdz...
Starlevel004 2y ago
This is a per-account flag that's only honoured by the official web app and some third party ones
- dymk 2y ago
  I don't know if "only" is the right adverb to use when it's how the first-party apps and website works. I don't know what usage looks like for third-party sites, but I would imagine it's incredibly small compared to bsky.app, and it's nearly everyone's first impression of Bluesky.
TZubiri 2y ago
What's wrong with requiring an account to view some content? Does everything need to be 100% public? What if I want to post somewhat private thoughts or images and restrict the content in some manner?
- jazzyjackson 2y ago
  AT proto is a cleartext protocol, hiding content is a matter of clients respecting a flag, a false sense of privacy. If you want to restrict the audience of a post, you should post it encrypted and send keys to intended recipients
  - 8n4vidtmkvmk 2y ago
    Is it cryptographically possible to give different keys to everyone so they can't be shared? Or only if you re-encrypt the content for every key you hand out?
- IshKebab 2y ago
  Publicly accessible content should be accessible without an account. The only reason they ask for an account is to push you to sign up, which is just annoying. Imagine if Wikipedia asked you to log in before you could read anything. It makes some sense for something like Facebook which is more or less private by default (you couldn't see much without an account anyway), but not for X or Bluesky where it's all public.

excerionsforte 2y ago

Interesting given I can access this[1] without an account. [1] https://bsky.app/profile/chrisgeidner.bsky.social/post/3lfdzltlsik2i https://bsky.app/profile/chrisgeidner.bsky.social/post/3lfdz...

Starlevel004 2y ago

This is a per-account flag that's only honoured by the official web app and some third party ones

dymk 2y ago
I don't know if "only" is the right adverb to use when it's how the first-party apps and website works. I don't know what usage looks like for third-party sites, but I would imagine it's incredibly small compared to bsky.app, and it's nearly everyone's first impression of Bluesky.

TZubiri 2y ago

What's wrong with requiring an account to view some content? Does everything need to be 100% public? What if I want to post somewhat private thoughts or images and restrict the content in some manner?

jazzyjackson 2y ago
AT proto is a cleartext protocol, hiding content is a matter of clients respecting a flag, a false sense of privacy. If you want to restrict the audience of a post, you should post it encrypted and send keys to intended recipients
- 8n4vidtmkvmk 2y ago
  Is it cryptographically possible to give different keys to everyone so they can't be shared? Or only if you re-encrypt the content for every key you hand out?
IshKebab 2y ago
Publicly accessible content should be accessible without an account. The only reason they ask for an account is to push you to sign up, which is just annoying. Imagine if Wikipedia asked you to log in before you could read anything. It makes some sense for something like Facebook which is more or less private by default (you couldn't see much without an account anyway), but not for X or Bluesky where it's all public.