nonphotoblue

@nonphotoblue@sh.itjust.works

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Bluesky and Mastodon users are having a fight that could shape the next generation of social media⁩ ⁨⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Ok, let me explain my POV from a different perspective:

  By signing up for an account, whether it be on a Lemmy or Mastodon or any other ActivityPub implementation, I have consented to functionality in which my posts are distributed to other instances within the Fediverse. It’s widely advertised and clearly explained that is how things function. I can readily find which implementations are part of the fediverse. And yes, within that system, I can use blocking/unblocking of users, communities, and instances, as a form of moderation that I can manage. But as a common user, I don’t have the option of easily block all instances that use a common ActivityPub implementation, which is why bridges require special consideration. I can’t, in a user friendly way, specify that I don’t want to ever be connected in any way to a bridge instance or any of its incarnations and limit my consent to ActivityPub implementations of my choosing, because that’s something not possible to do do with any other type of instance either. Bridge instances are not comparable to other implementations like Lemmy or KBin, et al, solely because their function is to translate data to other protocols and move that data to other decentralized networks outside and separate from the fediverse, which operate under different rules and policies. As such, they should not be treated like other instances when federating. Or maybe, they shouldn’t even be an instance at all. Making it an instance that can federate may be the easiest way to implement the bridge functionality across multiple ActivityPub implementations, but in doing so, makes it overly obscure to end users.

  Without historical knowledge, or going all the way to the ActivityPub docs is there any mention of bridges or even what they do or what they bridge to/from, unless you read through their documentation as well. So, to the common user, we have no knowledge that being able to directly communicate with platforms like BlueSky or Nostr is possible, or is being actively developed, and foreknowledge of this would likely inform some user’s choice in joining the fediverse. Unless this functionality is made common knowledge to the user when they sign up for an instance, or when an instance decides to federate with a bridge, then it should be opt-in, because it’s enabling functionality that users currently are unaware of and may not want. Common users are not notified when their instance federates with other instances, so unless they actively check, they have no idea of changes to the federation of their instance. Right now, there is a very concrete boundary, in that without a bridge, it’s not possible to directly interact with non-federated, separate platforms like BlueSky or Nostr.

  This is why people are having an adverse reaction to this whole ordeal, specifically people whom are actively avoiding said platforms. And as I said in my previous post, because the Bridgy developer consciously chose to enact an opt-out policy, specific to their project and outside the norms of other instances, it has been perceived that this is something different that they are trying to force on to people without their consent and behind their backs.

  Just because opt-out is the norm for other use cases, doesn’t mean it should be used for all new functionality that is introduced to the fediverse. Besides, there are numerous features across ActivityPub implementations that are opt-in. And telling users that are concerned, just block it if you don’t want it, is frankly a lazy solution, that pushes blame and does nothing to alleviate user concerns or gain trust. Such attitudes drive people away from the fediverse, rather than attract.

  I have done my due diligence and read a whole lot of documentation over the past couple of days to better understand ActivityPub and protocol bridges. So my comments are not meant to be taken as I am trying to come off as an expert, because I am far from it. I am just trying to get people to see the other side of the story and at least consider where people are coming from and why exactly they are arguing for opt-in, even if the other side feels like it’s an unfounded overreaction.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Bluesky and Mastodon users are having a fight that could shape the next generation of social media⁩ ⁨⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Thank you for confirming my point, because you are still just referring differences in the technology itself. I asked how opting out is different in either case, and the fact is they are not.

  The fact that the Bridgy developer is making it a possibility is what matters, and that they consciously chose to make it opt-out. It’s apparent that they already spent time and effort into implementing a system that allows you to add a hashtag to your profile to signal that you want to opt out. Why not just make it the other way around, and make it for opting in? Surely all the people who would want to be able to bridge wouldn’t mind that? It doesn’t matter if you think this is something innocuous or insignificant, because to others, it isn’t. And if you think that’s because of a misunderstanding in the user with the technology, then the developer needs to do better in explaining that and gaining users trust. You don’t build trust in users by using practices like opt-out, which is again, the only argument I am trying to make.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Bluesky and Mastodon users are having a fight that could shape the next generation of social media⁩ ⁨⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Ok, then please tell me, in terms of giving one’s consent, exactly how the two are different?

  Because I fail to see how opting out in either case is any way a different process than the other.

  The developers are putting the onus on the end user that is affected, and relying on them having knowledge that their product exists. Then it is the users’s responsibility to figure out the process to remove themselves from the user group and trusting the developer/admins to actually take any action to do so.

  This is the only argument I am trying to make - opt out is bad. Please stop using it when developing technologies that affect user’s data and/or privacy.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Bluesky and Mastodon users are having a fight that could shape the next generation of social media⁩ ⁨⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Saying that the bridge is nothing more than another ActivityPub instance is very disingenuous.

  While it may be built upon the ActivityPub protocol, but its main purpose is to act as a bridge to non-federated platforms, which is unique to that instance. When signing up for a fediverse instance, it should be known to the user that their data will be shared within the fediverse network. But, no permission is given to share on any platforms outside the fediverse network, using non-ActivityPub protocols.

  So, no, opt-in should not be necessary for all instances, but in the case of the bridge, it is, because it’s enabling a feature that users haven’t explicitly agreed too and isn’t a core part of the ActivityPub protocol. And since the bridge is being made open-source, should users also be expected to track down any other instances that pick up and use it and manually block and opt-out of those?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Bluesky and Mastodon users are having a fight that could shape the next generation of social media⁩ ⁨⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Tbh, I wasn’t talking about the legalities of AI or copyright law. I was using that as an example of why opt-out is a shitty business practice that makes people frustrated and upset. Because people commenting on this post and defending the bridge don’t seem to understand that.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Bluesky and Mastodon users are having a fight that could shape the next generation of social media⁩ ⁨⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  The other thing, that I see even more people upset about, is that the bridge requires you to Opt-Out, rather than Opt-In for being included.

  It’s totally fine if you want to be included, especially if you have friends on BlueSky. But, it’s just a shitty practice that is all too prevalent in new tech. AI companies are doing the same thing - if you’re an artist, you’re supposed to magically know all of these new, obscure AI startups and somehow find how to opt-out of being included in their training data set. It’s ridiculous.

  Same concept here, I would have had no idea this was a thing, if not for people speaking up about it. Some people make a conscious choice to join Fediverse communities because they want nothing to do with big tech and want more control of their data and privacy and who has access to it. Why is such a big deal to respect that?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨How many of you have beaten the main story now?⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  I just completed main story a couple days ago. Before that, I also did Pirates, Freestar, Terramorph, Ryujin and all the Constellation companion quests, except for Sam. Also did a lot of the activities and side quests. I’m not a completionist, so I feel like I’ve gone far enough and got to experience the majority of what the game had to offer.

  I may go through just enough to check out Sam’s quest, but other than that, really don’t have any desire to go further than that or play through again as a bad guy. Outposts, exploration, crafting are too much of a grind with little payoff. Too many frustrating issues, as others mentioned.