@shiri @snarfed.org
If it's so fantastically easy to just drop a hashtag in your bio to block the bridge, why can't that method be used to *join* the bridge instead? We should be operating from a consent-first model. Folks already chose to avoid bluesky *by joining a network that isn't bluesky* and now this bridge is going to force them to actively reinforce that decision.
That's assuming they even know this bridge exists in the first place! As much discussion as there is about this thing right now, there are and always will be folks that don't know anything about the bridge in time to prevent it from touching them. This is going to be yet another complication that folks have to consider when they join the fediverse, which is already criticised for being very complicated for new users.
@scott
I'm very much aware that the fediverse (and ActivityPub specifically) is a lot more than just Mastodon. I'm also very aware that the ActivityPub network does not, and will not, include bsky because bsky is using a brand new protocol that they developed to specifically *not* use ActivityPub. Their FAQ clearly states AT Protocol *is not ActivityPub*. Don't assume I'm completely ignorant of the most basically technical aspects of this system. https://atproto.com/guides/faq
@scott
Can you answer any of these questions, definitively?
- Can you block individual bsky users through this bridge?
- Can you report a bsky user for abuse and, if so, is there any way to send that report across to the host server, aka bsky?
- If you block the bsky bridge but your friend joins it and boosts your posts, is your post blocked from the bridge or sent across it?
Probably you can't because this isn't just another ActivityPub server that follows ActivityPub rules. It's something different that does it's own thing, ActivityPub rules be damned.
@[handle]@bsky.brid.gy
for Mastodon, and [handle]@bsky.brid.gy
for everyone else on ActivityPub.