@Snowshadow @allen099 you are not being signed up for anything with this, it's just another instance translating between the two protocols and all normal tools still apply.
The arrogance is thinking you can make public posts on a federate platform and dictate how they federate.
I'll also note that this isn't a corporate person doing this, it's a private individual. Bluesky has promised to federate under it's own protocol since it's beginning, once it does so you will see many instances on the bluesky protocol much the same as we're talking on the activitypub protocol, this bridge just connects the two protocols and a lot of people are interested in implementing such tools because that's the whole point of federation.
allen099@mastodon.online 8 months ago
@shiri @Snowshadow Am I understanding correctly that you think it’s arrogant to simply ask an instance moderator a question, while not threatening to burn the village down?
It’s cool that people are interested. Where there’s one side, there’s another. The point we’re trying to make is this should be OptIn BECAUSE it’s created by a private entity, that’s all. It’s not an outrageous take.
scott@authorship.studio 8 months ago
Out of the over 46,000 independently operated servers on the fediverse, how many are run by private entities? I don't know but I am guessing that it is more than 1.
At least with Bluesky and Threads, it is easy to block. But I am guessing that it would be nearly impossible to figure out which of the 46,000 ActivityPub-enabled servers are commercial and which are not.
And Threads will be connecting to ActivityPub natively. And so will WordPress. Both will bring in millions of users.
I respect people's choice to block whomever they want, but the ActivityPub part of the fediverse already has commercial servers in it. Bluesky would just be one more, which you are free to block.