shiri
@shiri@foggyminds.com
- Comment on 2 months ago:
@soc @snarfed.org I recommend then either blocking the bridge or selecting one of the options they provide to opt-out. Their # nobridge tag is thorough because it'll also opt you out of other bridges running their software, but if you don't like that you can just block their bridge's instance.
Be aware though that if you're on the fediverse and not on a whitelist instance, you will be bridged to all reasonably compatible federated networks.
- Comment on 2 months ago:
@f4grx @snarfed.org congratulations, you don't have to have anything to do with Bluesky. But bridges are a normal part of federation, if this feels threatening I strongly recommend you read up on how ActivityPub (the protocol used by Mastodon) works, how bridges work, and the history of bridges in the fediverse.
Odds are you'll never see any personal impact from this whatsoever unless you make friends with someone who's on Bluesky or share something that goes super viral (in which case you'll probably be thankful for this because you have zero control over screenshots, but through the bridge you'll still have access to blocking, deleting, and editing of posts)
- Comment on 2 months ago:@roburleconquerant @aeris @snarfed.org you only need to check compliance if you're in a GDPR country (they are not), and GDPR's stance on this will be the exact same as on federation in general (as such if this is illegal than the entire fediverse is illegal to begin with)
- Comment on 2 months ago:
@gregsie @snarfed.org they're already doing the right thing from the start and exceeding expectations, offering any such feature is totally abnormal for a bridge.
Maybe you should consider whether you're doing the right thing by coming into the fediverse with assumptions that bridges should be opt-in when in the community they've always been automatic, opting out purely by blocking.
And in regards to the GDPR (A) nobody outside of a GDPR country cares (B) GDPR applies as much to bridges as it does to other instances, if it's illegal for the bridge to operate then it's also going to be illegal for multiple core AP functions to operate as well.
- Comment on 2 months ago:
@retiolus @snarfed.org Biggest problem is that there are plenty (and likely more) people who don't want to deal with bots but who don't mind bridges
The hashtags in description is unfortunately just a limitation of AP until they come up with some other method to set a flag like that. (Think of it like how hashtags themselves weren't a feature anywhere until after people had already been using them in their posts on Twitter for quite a while)
- Comment on 2 months ago:@user8e8f87c @snarfed @Gargron @proximacentauri @chris @allen099 @Snowshadow @dogzilla you missed the point of what a bridge is if you're saying you hope they implement it... A bridge isn't some web scraper, it's a translator between protocols. It speaks the AP protocol and one side and the AT protocol on the other.
- Comment on 2 months ago:@grislyeye @grislyeye.com @snarfed.org nothing to access yet, Bluesky is about to federate but hasn't yet
- Comment on 2 months ago:
- Comment on 2 months ago:
@unlofl @snarfed.org That's literally a whitelist server, you join a server that only federates with pre-approved servers.
That's the only functional way if you want to pro-actively avoid being accessible from all bridges. Though to be honest you can also just pay attention to the usernames of whomever follows you to see if it's a bridge account, not like it's hard to spot randomuser:bluesky@instance
- Comment on 2 months ago:
@FinchHaven @snarfed.org ... "opt-in or I opt-out"?
How's that a threat? It's literally how these things work...
- Comment on 2 months ago:
@SuperMoosie @snarfed.org @snarfed @blake to be clear, where have you signed up for my server's TOS? And I don't mean that just to be silly, it's very explicitly how the legal take works here.
You can not apply your TOS to outside users and they can't apply their TOS to you. If you take issue with it you can block the instance.
And as far as "Bridges should be opt in" that ship passed decades ago, bridges aren't remotely new, this is just probably the first you've noticed.
- Comment on 2 months ago:
@hazelnot @snarfed.org reporting you to your server admins for violating rule 7 on your server...
Bridges are a dime a dozen (literally there are so many out there already and this is open source so good luck de-federating them all without just joining a whitelist server), the fediverse doesn't work the way you think it does, bridges probably don't work the way you think they do, and dogpiling on someone for sharing their project for feedback, especially for offering a polite feature to exclude yourself from the bridge which no other bridge I've seen offers just makes it clear you're an asshole.
- Comment on 2 months ago:
@baralheia @snarfed.org that's pretty much already native with how a bridge works.
When a Bluesky user goes to follow you, you'll get a follow request from that user:instance@bridge (or similiar format username).
A lot of the confusion and freak out comes from people (a) not knowing how bridges work and (b) taking vague offense because they don't like Bluesky and think that the whole fediverse should conform to their personal standards
- Comment on 2 months ago:
@Cyrus @gogobonobo @snarfed.org I get the feeling you think a bridge is a scraper...
Bluesky is about to start federating just under it's own protocol (their equivalent of ActivityPub which others will be able to host servers on the same as we can host servers on AP). A bridge translates between two protocols. Your content isn't getting scraped and uploaded to Bluesky.
A bridge just means that Bluesky users will show up to us like new users on this bridge. user1@bluesky will turn into something like user1.bluesky@brid.gy.
- Comment on 2 months ago:@johentsch @snarfed.org If you take issue with your post being federated then you really should note that you've opted in already by posting publicly and on a non-whitelist server.
- Comment on 2 months ago:
@donray @snarfed.org yet you decided the same for us with this comment?
If you take issue with how your public federated post is federated... then you should join a whitelist instance.
- Comment on 2 months ago:
@grrrr_shark @snarfed.org it neither violates the GDPR (and if you think it does you either woefully misunderstand what a bridge is or what the GDPR covers), and as a privacy advocate... any privacy advocate that actually cares about their privacy rather than the vague concept of privacy would shrug at this.
You posted publicly and it's visible on another instance... that's all that's happening here.
I've noticed others below seem to think this is something like a web scraper or that it will do something invasive? A bridge just translates between protocols, once this is up it just means that bluesky users and activitypub users would be able to talk to eachother through this instance with it translating requests between the two (ie. user1@bluesky wants to follow user2@mastodon, they'd follow something like user2.mastodon@brid.gy; user2 will get a follow request from something like user1.bluesky@brid.gy; if they accept then they'll be sharing their posts between eachother)
- Comment on 2 months ago:@PCOWandre @luca in your metaphor this isn't them coming into your house, this is you put a beer on a table labeled free beer for people to come and take. Most people are just taking them and drinking it themselves. You're upset because someone took it and gave it to their friend.
- Comment on 2 months ago:
@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.
- Comment on 2 months ago:
@zeitverschreib @snarfed.org (a) the hashtag goes in your bio (b) that's not going to change, they're being nice, the norm is that bridges don't ask and the only way to have a say at all is to just block the bridge... which you can always do.
If you feel like your content needs to be opt-in to distribute, you should set all your posts private (bridge will only see them if you accept a follow request from a Bluesky user on the bridge), or you should move to a whitelist server (where your posts will only federate to explicitly approved servers)
- Comment on 2 months ago:
@djsundog @snarfed.org @snarfed The entire fediverse is opt-out.
If you'd like an opt-in fediverse I recommend finding or setting up a whitelist instance.
- Comment on 2 months ago:
@tdfischer @qqmrichter ... you did consent though?
If you didn't consent you'd have set up your server as a whitelist instance...
- Comment on 2 months ago:
@jeremiah @snarfed.org @sarae The entire fediverse is opt-out structure by default.
If you want opt-in I recommend moving to or setting up a whitelist instance (an instance configured to only federate with instances added to the whitelist, meaning all instances are opt-in by your admin).
- Comment on 2 months ago:
@KinkyKobolds @snarfed.org The entire fediverse is opt-out structure by default.
If you want opt-in I recommend moving to or setting up a whitelist instance (an instance configured to only federate with instances added to the whitelist, meaning all instances are opt-in by your admin).
- Comment on 2 months ago:
- Comment on 2 months ago:
@maegul @shlee @snarfed.org @jbwharris I've seen this for a while, many people on here are highly xenophobic. They found a place for themselves and they now want to close the gates on anyone else joining, seeing "foreigners" (other platforms) as threats rather than a foundational part of how this service works.
On top of that, they often demand ideological purity... it's actually one of the reasons Twitter survives and people use other shitty platforms... because they hopped on here and found only hostility to any way in which their social norms differed from what people considered acceptable.
- Comment on 2 months ago:
@tness16 @nizarus @ghazi @snarfed.org this isn't a window, it's an adjoining door. It's letting us and them talk without having to first exit the house, walk around the building and re-enter a completely different house.
And to be clear, the fediverse is both, this bridge is the fediverse in action. What you mean is ActivityPub.
- Comment on 2 months ago:@snarfed.org @snarfed glad to see this already underway, sorry however to see the amount of hate you're getting from people who don't understand how the fediverse works... if they think this is bad, should I tell them about Mostr? lol
- Comment on 2 months ago:
@jcastroarnaud @snarfed.org it basically is opt in because someone on one side or the other will have to request the content, either one of your users requests a bluesky account or a bluesky user requests your account.
And the assumption is perfectly reasonable given that it's essentially just another instance, as if Bluesky spun up an activitypub endpoint themselves. The opt-out is at least a nice gesture (though unnecessary because blocking a server is an opt out regardless).