the funniest thing is when they accuse bluesky of being a transphobic network when it’s literally one of the most pro trans networks around.
Comment on Tear Down Walls, and Build Bridges
Corvid@lemmy.world 11 months ago
This insane isolationism from the vocal minority will kill ActivityPub. The fact that the author is now backing down and switching to an opt-in system is infuriating. Makes want to fork the project and host a copy of the bridge that’s opt-out.
cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 months ago
phillaholic@lemm.ee 11 months ago
It’s naivety all around. You can’t have a completely open anything. These libertarian-esk principals don’t exist in regular society for good reasons.
Blaze@reddthat.com 11 months ago
Makes want to fork the project and host a copy of the bridge that’s opt-out.
Wouldn’t you get defederated fast too?
Corvid@lemmy.world 11 months ago
That’s exactly the point. Isolationists instances can always defederate bridges if they don’t like them. This outrage is them imposing their will on the rest of the fediverse.
sabreW4K3@lemmy.tf 11 months ago
Framing it as isolationists is ludicrous.
I love the idea of an Internet without borders, but there needs to be some shared values. That’s what the ActivityPub protocol provides a platform for. To suggest that everything we do or post should be free is ridiculous. If the communities of BlueSky and Nostfr want to access our content, why don’t they switch to ActivityPub and problem solved?
As a point, say that I write a poem and put it on my mastodon and then bridgey scrapes it and copies it. How do we get that taken down? A picture of my kid? A picture of someone else’s kid?
There’s absolutely no issues with ActivityPub growing, it can encompass the whole internet for all I care, but that needs to come with the protections, provisions and failsafes that the ActivityPub protocol offers. Bridgey doesn’t do that, so again I say… If BlueSky and Nostfr want to pivot to ActivityPub, they’re more than welcome, but the Internet I’m trying to build isn’t about profiting off of small people without a voice and that’s what Bridgey and this isolationism rhetoric tries to do.
Corvid@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Bridgy doesn’t scrape anything. It works the same as any other ActivityPub instance, the only difference is that it converts some JSON from one format to another.
It also converts edit and deletion events, so in your scenario it would relay that you want your poem or photo deleted.
This isn’t a web scrapper that reposts content like all the bots reposting Reddit threads to Lemmy. This is a protocol translator between federated networks that speak different languages.
TORFdot0@lemmy.world 11 months ago
ActivityPub doesn’t guarantee your post gets taken down on other instances after you delete it. Federation with another site isn’t more a less trustworthy just because it uses AP proper or a bridge.
I think that everyone being on the same protocol is better for compatibility and UX but I think bridges can have their place for those who choose to use them until then.
Carighan@lemmy.world 11 months ago
why don’t they switch to ActivityPub and
problem solvedimmediately get defederatedFTFY. That’s what would actually happen, and you and me both know it. 😛
rglullis@communick.news 11 months ago
That’s what the ActivityPub protocol provides a platform for.
That’s ridiculous. ActivityPub is a standard to allow communication between different systems. What you are saying is that people should only be allowed to speak English if they want to be part of the British Empire and be subjects to the crown.
RobotToaster@mander.xyz 11 months ago
Yeah, no amount of bending the knee will ever be enough for censorious extremists.
cosmic_slate@dmv.social 11 months ago
Anything remotely useful to connect to other people gets shouted down rather quickly and irrationally.
Look at the foam-mouthed Threads opponents.
I get the feeling the vocal people don’t actually want ActivityPub-based social media to be adopted by anyone, or desperately need a hobby outside of complaint generation.
Carighan@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Yeah it’s all “We hate walled gardens” and then a minute late “DO NOT TOUCH MY GARDEN WALLS!!!1!!”.
SineNomineAnonymous@lemmy.ml 11 months ago
rglullis@communick.news 11 months ago
The idea is that the network should not be owned and controlled by a corporation, not that no corporation should ever participate in it.
Besides, how “corporate” is a startup with a few dozen developers working on a fully open source project?
wise_pancake@lemmy.ca 11 months ago
Honestly I see the fediverse as a massive opportunity for corporations.
If you’re Google, why not host a Google corporate instance where everything is authenticated as your own content, under your own URL, but you can still reshare outside content? You’ll never have the issues of unwanted or controversial content appearing with your brand. There’s no chance of a parody account pretending to be your customer service, and you won’t have to pay a protection fee for an authentic checkmark.
This is 10x more important for governments to do, as right now I can’t view official political discourse from my own government without giving my data to a private company.
SineNomineAnonymous@lemmy.ml 11 months ago
0x1C3B00DA@kbin.social 11 months ago
And nobody is disagreeing with their right to do that. They have the tools to curate their own experience. But they can't demand the fediverse work they way they want it to and no other way.
sudneo@lemmy.world 11 months ago
While I disagree with some of the positions in this specific instance. They do have their right to express their opinion on the nature and direction of the fediverse. Reducing everything to the individual experience is focusing on technical features but not on the collective and social aspects.
There are also tons of people who can’t really help but using the same corporate metrics: growth, reach, users count, adoption. Not everyone agrees on these as objectives to pursue, and it makes sense to be vocal about the general direction from that perspective (because it goes way beyond my personal narrow experience).
That said, I can’t stand those who use excuses like “privacy” or “there are bad actors”, as their main motivations, because these are also largely individual problems. On the other hand, opposing to keep separated a corporate, for profit, social media from the fediverse is a whole different matter.
Adanisi@lemmy.zip 11 months ago
“Foam mouthed Threads opponents”
Threads is quite blatantly just going to throw it’s weight around. It’s not in good faith. They’re already not going to properly implement ActivityPub (which they apparently would do, according to pro-Threads federation people), and so certain content will appear different on Threads and AP.
Smaller services and services which aren’t megacorps are fine. Honestly, BlueSky federation seems like a good thing to me. But we’ll have to see about that.
dameoutlaw@lemmy.ml 11 months ago
Mastodon and many others do not “properly” implement ActivityPub and have a ton of their own extensions and implementations
Adanisi@lemmy.zip 11 months ago
But do they ignore existing implementations of a feature when they want to add that feature? And make it crappier when federated?
ginerel@kbin.social 11 months ago
I kinda get all the Threads worries and the fact that some people might not be comfortable with Meta collecting their data for advertising. But this is just insane. It just makes me think people are just irrationally angry at everything, and they like being that, instead of informing themselves about what everything does.