Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Tim Erickson, @stpaultim (stpaultim@fosstodon.org)'s status on Tuesday, 13-Feb-2024 19:08:39 JST Tim Erickson, @stpaultim

   • the roamer

   @the_roamer

   This argument about consent is fictional. Anyone can create a server on the Fediverse and everyone on the Fediverse is conntected, without their consent.

   Bluesky could create a Mastodon server, any commercial entity can create a server and everyone is linked without consent.

   The only way to preserve consent on the Fediverse, is to create a server that is not linked to other servers, in which case you don't have to worry about this bridge.

   • AP-AT-Bridge Group repeated this.
   • Embed this notice
     Tim Erickson, @stpaultim (stpaultim@fosstodon.org)'s status on Tuesday, 13-Feb-2024 19:08:41 JST Tim Erickson, @stpaultim

     in reply to

     • the roamer

     @the_roamer

     If you really believe in consent, then you should be advocating that no one is connected to any server other than the one they signed up for, unless they opt-in.

   • Embed this notice
     Ben Thompson 🐕 (jbenjamint@mastodon.scot)'s status on Tuesday, 13-Feb-2024 19:09:07 JST Ben Thompson 🐕

     in reply to

     • the roamer

     @stpaultim @the_roamer With respect it is not at all like a commercial Mastodon server. A bridge contributes to a social media platform that's not (yet) proven its bona fides as regards being anti-monopolistic.

     AP-AT-Bridge Group repeated this.
   • Embed this notice
     Tim Erickson, @stpaultim (stpaultim@fosstodon.org)'s status on Tuesday, 13-Feb-2024 19:19:39 JST Tim Erickson, @stpaultim

     in reply to

     • the roamer
     • Ben Thompson 🐕

     @jbenjamint @the_roamer

     The developer has made clear that this bridge is only possible if Blue Sky turns on Federation and made clear it will be a two way bridge.

     I'll leave it at that.
     https://snarfed.org/2023-11-27_re-introducing-bridgy-fed