Untitled attachment

Notices where this attachment appears

1. Embed this notice
   Yohan Yukiya Seseㆍ사요한・謝雪矢 (youronlyone@c.im)'s status on Saturday, 17-Feb-2024 23:12:58 JST Yohan Yukiya Seseㆍ사요한・謝雪矢

   @lrhodes Just trying to understand where you are coming from.

   Is the issue about “because it's Bluesky” and not the bridge itself?

   Let's change the scenario.

   Let's say Bluesky also implemented ActivityPub side-by-side with ATproto (just like how #Socialhome implemented #diaspora side-by-side with #ActivityPub; or #Friendica / #Hubzilla / #Streams have their own protocols side-by-side with AP).

   Is there still going to be an issue about it? Or, will it turn into “let's #fediblock Bluesky!”

   If it is about “because it's Bluesky”, then the issue is similar to how some people don't want company X and company Y and company Z from implementing the W3C standard ActivityPub, otherwise, they'll fediblock them, correct?

   In the case of bridges then, if someone creates a bridge between ActivityPub and, for example, LinkedIn, it should be “opt-out” by default because some users don't want to see their posts/replies within the LinkedIn network. And if LinkedIn later decides to implement ActivityPub, they will be fediblocked?

   Thank you for clarifying!