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, unlisted, or otherwise private posts or profiles. Still, if you want to opt out, I understand. Feel free to DM me at @snarfed@indieweb.social [indieweb.social] (different account than this one), email me [snarfed.org], file a GitHub issue [github.com], or put #nobridge in your profile bio.
(Admins, if you decide beforehand that you don’t want your instance to federate with Bluesky over the bridge, the domain to limit or block is bsky.brid.gy.)
A number of us have thought about this for a while now [snarfed.org], 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.
@snarfed.org [fed.brid.gy] @activitypubblueskybridge @fedidevs @fediversenews
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.
@PCOWandre @snarfed.org@snarfed.org [snarfed.org] @activitypubblueskybridge @fedidevs @fediversenews
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.
@luca [sironi.tk] @activitypubblueskybridge @fedidevs @fediversenews 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.
@PCOWandre @activitypubblueskybridge @fedidevs @fediversenews 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.
@luca
It's not a matter of trust; it's a matter of choice. I (and many others) made the *choice* to not touch bluesky and now that choice is being taken away from everyone, by default, unless the individual user happens to know this is coming and hoe to stop it.
When the alternative is to flip this "simple" opt-out to an *equally simple* opt-in, the decision to make it opt-out is a decision to take choice away from your demographic in order to artificially enhance the user uptake of your product.
@PCOWandre @activitypubblueskybridge @fedidevs @fediversenews
@chronohart Dude it's already been made opt-in.
@julian
Can you point me to where the developer made that decision? I'm not finding it, though I could easily have overlooked it with the massive amount of discussion still happening about this thing.
@julian
Ah, yes. I saw that already. While this strategy is *loads* better than the original one, I still would not consider this an opt-in model. Opt-in should mean if I change *nothing* about the way I do things now, I shouldn't have *any* interaction with the thing unless *I* seek it out. With this new strategy, I would still receive, unbidden, a message requesting my approval if someone tried to connect with me from bsky. After I, personally, have already made that choice by *not joining bsky*.
What is so difficult/painful about making the folks who *want* this bridge be the ones that have to do a thing? If this bridge had been introduced from the start as "if you want to connect to bluesky, all you have to do is add #bskybridgeme to your bio" no one who wanted the bridge would be complaining that it's too hard and the worries from the rest of us would, at worst, amount to "can we trust this thing to ignore us?"
@chronohart Coincidentally I just got asked the same thing in another thread, so I can give you my answer to it as soon as I've finished writing it down. Gonna take me a good couple of paragraphs though. Will report back.
@chronohart Alright, my full response in the other thread is 2.5k words long. 
So lemme take a crack at an actual tl;dr here. It'll still be a couple of posts.
Why not just make a protocol bridge fully opt-in in a way that you never hear about it unless you've proactively signaled that you want to interact with it? 
A bridge facilitates interactions between pairs of people. There are actions you can initiate, and there are actions others can initiate with you on the receiving end.
(1/4)
@chronohart Proactive opt-in fully solves for actions you initiate. 
What do we do about actions initiated from the other side?
Some people don't want anything to do with Bluesky and would prefer not to hear about it if someone from there tries to follow them. Others would want to know, in order to not miss out on interactions.
The bridge can't magically know which camp anyone falls into. It can rely on profile signals if present (the hashtag thing). In their absence, the options are:
(2/4)
(a) Decide for you that you don't want these interactions
(b) Decide for you that you probably do want these interactions, or are at least comfortable with handling them yourself
(c) Ask you which one you want
Ryan has moved his plans from (b) to (c). Remaining vocal critics claim that anything other than (a) is a violation.
Consider an artist trying to sell commissions. They're not terminally online enough to know about Bridgy Fed and DGAF about federation protocols.
(3/4)
@chronohart How will they feel when they learn that hundreds of people were trying to follow their account and are silently waiting for approval?
Does your wish not to be messaged trump their wish to be notified of follow requests? Maybe it does! It's a value judgment and we can come to different conclusions on it.
Just please don't tell me that making it unprompted opt-in is an obvious solution that works for everyone, or that literally asking for consent is a violation of consent.
(4/4)
@julian
That's a very capitalist-centric view, which is not something that aligns well with a lot of folks on the fediverse. The artist chose to be on the fediverse, knowing it was not bluesky. If the artist wants to be available for folks on bluesky to follow, they can go get on bluesky directly or, if they've heard about this bridge, opt in to that.
If all those people on bluesky want to follow the artist on the fediverse, they can join the fediverse or they can tell the artist about the bridge, if the artist has other means of being reached. If they don't have another means of being reached, too bad! It was the artist's choice to *only* be reachable *on* the fediverse.
Active opt-in solves every concern I've seen and the only "problem" it introduces is the bridge might not get popular enough for people to learn about. That's a product design problem, not a user choice problem. If it's a good product that provides value, people will learn of it.
@chronohart Mh, the "selling commissions" bit isn't all that important for the argument. You can substitute a union trying to gain popularity or a disadvantaged person looking for community support, if that changes things. Point being, people who want to talk to one another should be able to. I'm past letting platforms shape the contours of my social graph. 
As far as whether a fedi account is an affirmative decision not to talk to Bluesky, we'll have to chalk that up to "agree to disagree."
@chronohart There's also a difference between being willing to talk to Bluesky users and being willing to be on Bluesky.
Reasons I'm not on Bluesky include 1. their half-baked concept of decentralization reeks of "let the free market compete to solve our problems" libertarianism, 2. I don't like the idea of AI in moderation, and 3. I don't wanna juggle multiple microblogging accounts. But I'm excited to talk to Bluesky users. 
They can decide where to keep their account, I'll decide for mine.
@chronohart If I may try to cap this off, I think the useful conversation isn't how things we don't use should voluntarily stay out of our hair, but how the things we *do* use – our instance, its software, the protocol – would need to be improved to provide us the privacy and safety we need without relying on the goodwill of everyone else in the world. If that's something you're interested in following up on, here are two threads I enjoyed:
- https://social.polotek.net/@polotek/111931851861113347
- https://hachyderm.io/@hrefna/111926298169017073
@julian
That first thread, in particular, was a good read. Definitely some good things to think about.
@julian
I do want to say that I really appreciate your effort at having a civil discussion, regardless of how badly at odds we may be on this topic.
@chronohart Thank you, likewise. One of my more strongly held beliefs about this situation, stronger than any of my beliefs regarding the philosophy of federation, is that all the shouting and the insults and whatnot make things worse for everyone involved, and many uninvolved.
@chronohart
@luca [sironi.tk] @PCOWandre @activitypubblueskybridge @fedidevs @fediversenews
Let's be honest most people have no idea this bridge is going to exist. So, they can't opt-in. If nobody opts-in, you won't be able to search for them by their ActivityPub handles. The bridge isn't useful. People on both sides who would like to reconnect with their friends won't be able to. However, if you know you hate BS, you can add the bridge to your personal block list and it isn't an issue for you.
@HistoPol@mastodon.socialWhat if I block #BS (just love the acronym 
) and the BS #bridge but one or more of my followers who ARE "bridged" boost or link my content? Will it appear on #BS?
@chronohart @luca [sironi.tk] @PCOWandre @activitypubblueskybridge @fedidevs @fediversenews
@HistoPol
@chronohart @luca [sironi.tk] @PCOWandre @activitypubblueskybridge @fedidevs @fediversenews
This is a really good question and I don't know the answer. This is the kinda of thing I think we should be asking about the bridge.
@snarfed do you know the answer to this?
@jamie @HistoPol @chronohart @luca [sironi.tk] @PCOWandre @activitypubblueskybridge @fedidevs @fediversenews @snarfed I already posted a similar question. https://social.cologne/@agrinova/111932268169103522
@HistoPol@mastodon.social@agrinova
@shiri
(1/2)
I guess I can answer this question now: once s.o. quotes or boosts your content (= new post) you lose control of your content and cannot prevent it from being shared.
I'd say, unless you limited the post to your followers, however if one of your followers were on the #Friendica or #Hubzilla platform, they'd still be able to quote your post and then you'd still lose control,...
@jamie @chronohart @luca [sironi.tk] @PCOWandre @activitypubblueskybridge @fedidevs @fediversenews @snarfed
@HistoPol@mastodon.social@agrinova @jamie @chronohart @luca [sironi.tk] @PCOWandre @activitypubblueskybridge @fedidevs @fediversenews @snarfed
(2/2)
...correct @shiri? (I hope I have understood everything correctly that all of you had such great patience to explain to me today.
//
I'd say, unless you limited the post to your followers, however if one of your followers were on the #Friendica or #Hubzilla platform, they'd still be able to quote your post and then you'd still lose control,...
Not exactly accurate. Anyone can copy and paste your words into the post box and quote you. Some platforms make it easier than others though.
Also, Mastodon is rumored to be including quote posts soon, so even on Mastodon, people will be able to quote you.
@HistoPol@mastodon.socialCopy and paste is possible, anywhere, always, yes.
Difference: copy & paste will not leave a trail to your original post, a link will.
#Mastodon was supposed to have quote posts last summer. Then @Gargron sent a lengthy explanation that resources had to be recomitted to fix backend features. Since, I haven't heard anyhting new regarding this, but I have not searched for it either.
Copy and paste is possible, anywhere, always, yes.
Difference: copy & paste will not leave a trail to your original post, a link will.
Actually, it can. I can manually type your handle and what you said and it will reference you. Just mentioning someone's handle such as
@HistoPol@mastodon.social references them (i.e. @HistoPol [mastodon.social])
#FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #AltText
@HistoPol@mastodon.socialNot if you only have 500k and deep links...no real estate left 4 what u want 2 say.
(And no, after image, alttext and the source, this service ends--s.o. wanting link shortener, kindly program this feature into #Mastodon)
@HistoPol @jamie @chronohart @luca [sironi.tk] @PCOWandre @activitypubblueskybridge @fedidevs @fediversenews @snarfed @shiri
Of course, you are right regarding the issue of boosting content. So I would like to intervene a little bit earlier.
If, e.g., Babsi on Bluesky follows Mary on Mastodon, Mary already has given her consent to interact with BS via the Bridge. But now Freddie, another fediverse user who has NOT given this consent, answers to Mary's post. Question: Can Babsi read Freddie's comments?
->
@HistoPol @jamie @chronohart @luca [sironi.tk] @PCOWandre @activitypubblueskybridge @fedidevs @fediversenews @snarfed @shiri Proposal 1:
Yes, but the "like", "share" and "answer" buttons are hidden or disabled for Babsi; furthermore Freddie's fediverse address ("@freddiemiller@friendica.xyz") is hidden so that it is not easy for Babsi to mention him. Perhaps it is even possible to prevent textwise selection and copying. But even if copy & paste would be possible, as @HistoPol mentioned, no trail would be left. ->
@HistoPol@mastodon.social
@HistoPol @jamie @chronohart @luca [sironi.tk] @PCOWandre @activitypubblueskybridge @fedidevs @fediversenews @snarfed.org [fed.brid.gy] @shiri 2nd possibility: to hide Freddie's posts to Babsi. Okay, in this case not the whole discussion would be visible. But this might be done if Freddie has actively contradicted to the Bridge.
3rd: to display and allow all. But this might be difficult and a contradiction to that what Freddie has agreed to.
@HistoPol @jamie @chronohart @luca [sironi.tk] @PCOWandre @activitypubblueskybridge @fedidevs @fediversenews @snarfed.org [fed.brid.gy] @shiri Maybe that there is still something to do for the development. For example, if Mary answers to a couple of users (and usually you see all their fediverse names in the head of the message), Babsi sees a copy of this message with only the @ names of the Bluesky users and those Fediverse users who have agreed to the Bridge, but without those who have not.
@HistoPol@mastodon.socialSounds like an excellent solution
We need to beef up moderation!--We're going to be inundated by people with a completely different (net) sozialization and #netiquette:
https://mastodon.social/@HistoPol/110664442749882273
@jamie @chronohart @luca [sironi.tk] @PCOWandre @activitypubblueskybridge @fedidevs @fediversenews @shiri @snarfed.org [fed.brid.gy]
@jamie
If you are an ActivityPub user that wishes to connect with bsky, you will likely find information about this bridge, assuming it isn't an immediate failure, as soon as you search the web for a method to connect ActivityPub to bsky.
@luca @PCOWandre @activitypubblueskybridge @fedidevs @fediversenews
@chronohart
@luca [sironi.tk] @PCOWandre @activitypubblueskybridge @fedidevs @fediversenews
What about if the person reaching out is from BS? If my friend on the AP side hasn't found this bridge and opted in, they won't show up when I try to add them. A lot has to go right for these people to reconnect if they have to opt in. In my case, all I have are remembered Twitter handles that I'll try to search across the bridge fir that handle. If I get results, I'll try to follow.
@jamie
What about people that came to ActivityPub specifically because people that were harassing them are not here? This bridge makes it just that much easier for abusers to find their victims again because all they have to do is try a remembered Twitter handle to see if they get a hit through the bridge.
Do you disagree that this sort of abuse can happen?
@luca @PCOWandre @activitypubblueskybridge @fedidevs @fediversenews
@chronohart
@luca [sironi.tk] @PCOWandre @activitypubblueskybridge @fedidevs @fediversenews
No, but they could also create an AP account and harass the person. This bridge doesn't make that any more or less likely. You still have the same tools to block a user even if they are over the bridge.
I think there are a lot of positives to connect people who landed on different platforms. The possibility of harassment is really a more global Internet problem not AP/BS/Threads specific.
@jamie
You're confusing "possible" with "likely". Yes, it is absolutely *possible* for an abuser to join AP in order to find their victim, but it's less *likely* because that is an additional barrier.
On the other hand, if the abuser joins BS because they prefer that network and the only way to find their victim is to join AP, that will be enough of a barrier for many abusers to give up, making it less *likely* for the abuse to happen.
I agree that there are a lot of positives to connecting folks across networks *when they actively want to do so*, but it shouldn't be foised on people that already actively chose to join AP *instead* of BS.
@luca @PCOWandre @activitypubblueskybridge @fedidevs @fediversenews
@chronohart
@luca [sironi.tk] @PCOWandre @activitypubblueskybridge @fedidevs @fediversenews
I don't believe the choice of network matters that much. I think the harasser is more likely to go that extra step. If not, then a simple AP block solves that problem and that's a minor cost to enable better communication between people.
If this conversation around Bridgy Fed proves anything it's that we need more, less hostile communication between people.
This bridge makes it just that much easier for abusers to find their victims again because all they have to do is try a remembered Twitter handle to see if they get a hit through the bridge.
They could try, but it's highly unlikely that they'll succeed.
They'd have to know or guess on which instance to look for their victims. So they'd theoretically have to try countless instances of dozens of projects, one by one. If their victims aren't residing on big, popular Mastodon instances, they'd have a problem.
@jupiter_rowland
If that's how this will work, what benefit does this automatic opt-in provide to folks that want to use the bridge? If BS users are, realistically, going to need to know the exact username and instance of the AP user, they are going to need to get that information *from* the AP user, in which case they could ask their AP friend to opt-in to the bridge when they ask for the user's name and instance.
If that's how this will work, what benefit does this automatic opt-in provide to folks that want to use the bridge?
There is no automatic opt-in. If this bridge goes online, your Mastodon account is not automatically fully connected to Bluesky, much less automatically data-scraped by Bluesky.
When someone from Bluesky comes and asks you on Mastodon if they may follow you, and you confirm that, yes, they may follow you, then you opt in. And only then will your Mastodon account be connected to Bluesky. No earlier.
Unless, of course, your account is set up so that anyone can follow you without your interaction and your explicit consent. And I sincerely doubt that tech.lgbt, out of all instances, has this setting as a default.
If BS users are, realistically, going to need to know the exact username and instance of the AP user, they are going to need to get that information *from* the AP user
...which is exactly how it works in the Fediverse itself.
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #Bluesky #Bridge #BridgyFed #BlueskyBridge
@jupiter_rowland
It *is* auto opt-in. If I do nothing, I can be follow requested by a BS user. I never said the opt-in was for a full connection.
The setting to automatically approve follow requests is a user-level setting, not instance, so me being on tech.lgbt has nothing to do with that.
That last part you took out of context. Yes, that *is* how it works on the fediverse. The difference is someone has to *be on* the fediverse to find you. If a BS user needs to get the full handle of their friend to find them through the bridge, why can't they also just ask their friend to opt-in to the bridge?
It *is* auto opt-in. If I do nothing, I can be follow requested by a BS user. I never said the opt-in was for a full connection.
As long as you don't confirm the request, no connection of your account with Bluesky will be established.
That is, if the goal is to make it absolutely impossible for anyone on Bluesky to even send you a follow request... or even only find you...
The setting to automatically approve follow requests is a user-level setting, not instance, so me being on tech.lgbt has nothing to do with that.
In just too many cases, instance-level is user-level because just too many Mastodon users never adjust any settings in their accounts or profiles and go with the defaults forever. They feel it's too complicated or too inconvenient, or whatever mobile app they use doesn't have controls for these settings, or they don't even know that certain settings exist, or whatever.
Same reason why opt-out for full-text search was rioted against: 99% of all Mastodon users will never even come across the switch, and they'll have the default setting forced upon them, whether that's okay for them or not.
The .lgbt TLD implies that the target audience of tech.lgbt is the LGBTQIA+ community. People who were often harassed on Twitter before they came to Mastodon. And the "tech" part implies someone tech-savvy behind it.
I cannot for the life of me imagine that tech.lgbt, out of all Mastodon instances, has automatic follow request confirmation on as the instance-wide default.
That last part you took out of context. Yes, that *is* how it works on the fediverse. The difference is someone has to *be on* the fediverse to find you.
The only sure-fire way of finding everyone in the Fediverse is by copy-pasting their ID into a search field. No different from Mastodon from Hubzilla or, when the bridge goes live, from Bluesky. This means you need that ID in the first place, and searching only serves to turn the ID into something clickable.
Generally: Any search on any instance in the Fediverse can only find accounts/channels which this instance knows. There is no place in the Fediverse with what amounts to a central registry of all Fediverse accounts/channels. Not even mastodon.social knows everyone.
Bluesky doesn't know anyone in the Fediverse at all right now. When the bridge goes online, Bluesky will still not know anyone at all, much less everyone. After a bit of interaction, Bluesky will only know whom it has interacted with. At most, it will also know the Fediverse IDs of accounts/channels that have been mentioned. If it's interested in that.
This is exactly how everything else in the Fediverse works, be it a brand-new Mastodon instance that has only been spun up for the first time, be it a Hubzilla hub that has been around since 2015, but whose admin turns ActivityPub on for the first time.
If a BS user needs to get the full handle of their friend to find them through the bridge, why can't they also just ask their friend to opt-in to the bridge?
Because they first have to send a follow request to their friend.
The opt-in prompt comes with the follow request. It will not be a switch in Mastodon. Otherwise, everything else (save for Friendica) would have to implement that opt-in switch for a third-party bridge separately. Thus, a follow request is necessary.
But in order to send that follow request, the Bluesky user would have to specify whoever that follow request shall be sent to.
Now, at that point, Bluesky may pretty well not know that friend at all yet, so searching them would be moot.
The only imaginable way to send the friend request would be to enter the friend's Fediverse ID into some text field or other, search field or whatever, I don't know Bluesky's UI. And enter it in a form that Bluesky understands.
If Bluesky has such a field in the first place. And one that can handle throught-the-bridge Fediverse IDs.
In fact, chances are Bluesky users will only be able to follow Fediverse accounts/channels which are already known to Bluesky, and which are presented to them in or on something they can click on.
Chances are that Bluesky's account search does not understand the Fediverse ID format that comes out of the bridge, and thus, Bluesky users can't use its search with Fediverse IDs at all. Because even when the bridge is live, if some enters
@chronohart@tech.lgbt into Bluesky's search, Bluesky will understand this as a Bluesky ID, search Bluesky for it and not find it. It won't even come up with the idea that this could be on Mastodon, i.e. on a wholly different network.Remember that Bluesky is not being developed to interact with the Fediverse. It will not have any Fediverse support built-in at all whatsoever.
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #Friendica #Bluesky #Bridge #BridgyFed #BlueskyBridge
@jamie @chronohart @luca [sironi.tk] @PCOWandre @activitypubblueskybridge@venera.social @fedidevs @fediversenews if nobody opts into a shitty service, people won't use it!
@jamie I would disagree. First, only a few people would use the bridge. But then the new connection would spread out like a seed - slowly, but spread. Then the number of bridge users will grow exponentially. That means, an opt-in (or at least no pure opt-out) would be a good option.
@chronohart @luca [sironi.tk] @PCOWandre @activitypubblueskybridge @fedidevs @fediversenews
@agrinova
@chronohart @luca [sironi.tk] @PCOWandre @activitypubblueskybridge @fedidevs @fediversenews
That takes a lot of time, and as someone in IT, most people take the defaults and are SHOCKED to learn some features exist. 
Having this behave like the rest of the fediverse accelerates the awareness and usefulness of the bridge.
You can more rapidly achieve the goal of allowing people to connect and converse. That is after all why the fediverse exists. The rest of this is semantics.
That takes a lot of time, and as someone in IT, most people take the defaults and are SHOCKED to learn some features exist.
In some ways I think this whole fiasco is a good thing. It is better that they learn now instead of later that their account is federated and what that means. People are posting with a false sense of security, not realizing how far and wide their posts currently travel.
True, but this is also a small sunset of the fediverse. I'd be surprised if more than a few hundred people have been involved in these discussions so far.
The representation has been loud but not as numerous as it seems.
@jamie @chronohart @luca [sironi.tk] @PCOWandre @activitypubblueskybridge @fedidevs @fediversenews Okay, this is the other side. On the other hand, one can admit that we discuss about a bridge to bluesky, but if, anywhere in the world, a server would join the fediverse spreading hatred, bad thoughts and dangerous algorithms, nobody would discuss.
Anyway. Before the new bridge service starts, I would strongly recommend to deal with European data protection laws for they are stronger in the EU than elsewhere.
@agrinova
@chronohart @luca [sironi.tk] @PCOWandre @activitypubblueskybridge @fedidevs @fediversenews
I'm not a GDPR expert, but because the bridge isn't stateful (ie just forwards posts) I don't think you are going to apply any of the data directives. Worst case, you might have to do something for instances hosted in Europe. But whatever you do applies much more strongly to actual instance servers. Those are hosting data created by and about users.