Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Ryan Barrett (snarfed.org@fed.brid.gy)'s status on Wednesday, 14-Feb-2024 03:36:48 JST Ryan Barrett

   • Kio

   Morning all. Quite a day yesterday, and today so far. I’m obviously taking a beating from everyone who thinks the Bluesky bridge should be opt in. OK.

   I want to run one idea by you all. The way the bridge is currently designed, no fediverse profiles or other content are proactively bridged into Bluesky. If someone on Bluesky wants to see or follow someone on the fediverse, they have to manually request it on the bridge. That fediverse user’s posts are then only bridged going forward, and only if someone follows them.

   What if, the first time someone on Bluesky requests to follow someone on the fediverse via the bridge, the fediverse user gets prompted, “X from Bluesky wants to follow you. Are you ok with connecting with Bluesky?”, maybe via DM. I assume that would still be considered opt in?

   Realistically, most people in the fediverse will never hear about the bridge. Traditional opt in and opt out both generally expect people to proactively find a setting or take some action, often one that only a tiny fraction of people ever learn about. I don’t really care how many people discover or use the bridge, but this kind of just-in-time prompt, only shown when someone wants to follow or interact with them, feels like a useful improvement in that it puts the decision in front of them directly.

   Thanks to @kio for the idea. It seems promising; I’m now planning to try it out well before launch. Let me know if you don’t like it.

   • Embed this notice
     Chicken :cqlgusu: (lookitmychicken@blorbo.social)'s status on Wednesday, 14-Feb-2024 09:16:17 JST Chicken :cqlgusu:

     in reply to

     @snarfed.org ... Or you could just make it opt-in.

   • Embed this notice
     Strypey (strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Tuesday, 20-Feb-2024 04:35:48 JST Strypey

     in reply to

     • Evan Minto
     • Stefan Bohacek

     The fediverse as we know it today came about because some software started bridging both the OStatus and Diaspora networks. This convinced developers that it was possible to create a social web protocol that would work for both, which led to the standardisation of ActivityPub.

     If the developer who'd implemented OStatus and Diaspora protocols in Hubzilla, Friendica faced the level of vitriol @snarfed.org has, ActivityPub might never have happened.

     (2?)

     @stefan
     @VamptVo

     Linux Walt Alt (@lnxw37a2) {3EB165E0-5BB1-45D2-9E7D-93B31821F864} likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Strypey (strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Tuesday, 20-Feb-2024 04:35:50 JST Strypey

     in reply to

     • Evan Minto
     • Stefan Bohacek

     @stefan In 2024, the relationship between ActivityPub and BlueSky is like that between OStatus* and Diaspora. In both cases, both are working on open, decentralised protocols. But the latter has gone for a new protocol, to add things they perceived as missing from the older protocol.

     This creates a new space for protocol experimentation, but it means people have to have accounts on both to talk to everyone.

     (1/2)

     *the first protocol used in the fediverse, before ActivityPub existed

     @VamptVo

   • Embed this notice
     Stefan Bohacek (stefan@stefanbohacek.online)'s status on Tuesday, 20-Feb-2024 04:35:52 JST Stefan Bohacek

     in reply to

     • Strypey
     • Evan Minto

     @strypey @VamptVo I am a huge fan of the fediverse, as I understand it. I see it as an opportunity to finally get excited about technology. A chance to get the social web right.

     To me, Bluesky and Threads represent the old system clawing its way back. Yes, they both approach it differently, but the goal seems to be the same. Meta and Bluesky don't want to lose control over the social web. And I just want no part in that

   • Embed this notice
     Strypey (strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Tuesday, 20-Feb-2024 04:35:52 JST Strypey

     in reply to

     • Evan Minto
     • Stefan Bohacek

     @stefan
     > I am a huge fan of the fediverse, as I understand it... A chance to get the social web right

     100%.

     > Meta and Bluesky don't want to lose control over the social web

     This conflates 2 very different things. Unlike Meta, BlueSky never had control of the social web. Its minimal relationship with Titter ended when it was spun off as a separate entity or Melon Husk would have killed it when he bought Titter. Dorsey left both the BS company and the network to go all-in on Nostr.

     @VamptVo

   • Embed this notice
     Stefan Bohacek (stefan@stefanbohacek.online)'s status on Tuesday, 20-Feb-2024 04:35:53 JST Stefan Bohacek

     in reply to

     • Strypey
     • Evan Minto

     @strypey @VamptVo > Honestly, I'd really like to understand what's at the root of the objection.

     And I appreciate being able to have this conversation. I hope my answers make sense. The bottom line is, all those who oppose Bluesky and/or the bridge have different reasons for it, and a different understanding of what the fediverse is and what it is for.

   • Embed this notice
     Stefan Bohacek (stefan@stefanbohacek.online)'s status on Tuesday, 20-Feb-2024 04:35:54 JST Stefan Bohacek

     in reply to

     • Strypey
     • Evan Minto

     @strypey @VamptVo > If Bluesky's CEO set up a separate, fediverse-compatible server, of course I'd expect my posts to show up there

     I hope this makes more sense knowing that I don't view Bluesky as part of the fediverse without a native ActivityPub support. Once they do have native support, I'd consider it a fediverse server, much like Gab and Truth Social are fediverse servers. I'd still block them, but not because they're not part of the fediverse.

     .

   • Embed this notice
     Stefan Bohacek (stefan@stefanbohacek.online)'s status on Tuesday, 20-Feb-2024 04:35:55 JST Stefan Bohacek

     in reply to

     • Strypey
     • Evan Minto

     @strypey @VamptVo > It effectively makes BlueSky part of the fediverse

     That really is debatable, see results of this poll: https://stefanbohacek.online/@stefan/111947541579206016

     > Why is that such a bad thing?

     To this I'll just say, if an angry crowd showed up at my door yelling about something I've created, those are definitely not the people I'd want using my product/service/etc. I'd say, good riddance, I don't need you. If my thing is as useful as I think it is, you will be the ones coming to me.

   • Embed this notice
     Stefan Bohacek (stefan@stefanbohacek.online)'s status on Tuesday, 20-Feb-2024 04:35:55 JST Stefan Bohacek

     in reply to

     • Strypey
     • Evan Minto

     @strypey @VamptVo > I don't understand how this is functionally different from BlueSky supporting ActivityPub.

     If I block the bridge, someone else can rehost it, and I have to block each new instance of the bridge. If I know it exists at all.

     If Bluesky ever adopts ActivityPub, I only have to block them once.

   • Embed this notice
     Strypey (strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Tuesday, 20-Feb-2024 04:35:57 JST Strypey

     in reply to

     • Evan Minto
     • Stefan Bohacek

     @VamptVo
     > I opted out of it already

     You opted out of what? It can't be interacting with a server run by the BlueSky company, because you said;

     > If Bluesky's CEO set up a separate, fediverse-compatible server, of course I'd expect my posts to show up there

     So what is it you opted out of? The particular group of people who are using BlueSky? Servers that also support the AT Protocol? Something else?

     Honestly, I'd really like to understand what's at the root of the objection.

     (2/2)

     @stefan

   • Embed this notice
     Strypey (strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Tuesday, 20-Feb-2024 04:35:58 JST Strypey

     in reply to

     • Evan Minto
     • Stefan Bohacek

     @VamptVo
     > But Bluesky is not a fediverse server

     ... but since Ryan's bridge supports ActivityPub, it *is* a fediverse server. It effectively makes BlueSky part of the fediverse, in the same way Ryan's IndieWeb bridge makes IndieWeb sites part of the fediverse.

     It allows people in the existing fediverse and BlueSky who want to interact to do that. Why is that such a bad thing?

     @stefan
     > I don't understand how this is functionally different from BlueSky supporting ActivityPub

     This!

     (1/2)

   • Embed this notice
     Stefan Bohacek (stefan@stefanbohacek.online)'s status on Tuesday, 20-Feb-2024 04:35:59 JST Stefan Bohacek

     in reply to

     • Evan Minto

     @VamptVo But Bluesky is not a fediverse server, and I opted out of it already. Why should I opt out again and every time someone thinks they know better than me and try to opt me in?

   • Embed this notice
     Evan Minto (vamptvo@mastodon.social)'s status on Tuesday, 20-Feb-2024 04:35:59 JST Evan Minto

     in reply to

     • Stefan Bohacek

     @stefan I don't understand how this is functionally different from BlueSky supporting ActivityPub, but also I can tell from your opinion on this that if they DID you would be having the same reaction to that. You would block BlueSky, right? So again, block the bridge and move on with your life.

   • Embed this notice
     Stefan Bohacek (stefan@stefanbohacek.online)'s status on Tuesday, 20-Feb-2024 04:36:00 JST Stefan Bohacek

     in reply to

     • Evan Minto

     @VamptVo But they're not "speaking the same language", that's the whole point of having the bridge in the first place.

     If Bluesky's CEO set up a separate, fediverse-compatible server, of course I'd expect my posts to show up there. Just like I'd expect my posts to show up on Threads, if I didn't already block them. That is how fediverse works and that's all fine.

   • Embed this notice
     Stefan Bohacek (stefan@stefanbohacek.online)'s status on Tuesday, 20-Feb-2024 04:36:01 JST Stefan Bohacek

     in reply to

     • Evan Minto

     @VamptVo You know, just forget about the word "corporate".

     I already opted out of having my posts show up on Bluesky. Why do I have to opt out again?

   • Embed this notice
     Evan Minto (vamptvo@mastodon.social)'s status on Tuesday, 20-Feb-2024 04:36:01 JST Evan Minto

     in reply to

     • Stefan Bohacek

     @stefan That's my point, you didn't opt out. You just used ActivityPub while BlueSky used a different protocol. They're going to start speaking the same language, so you'll now have a choice about whether to federate with them, exactly like you do when a new Mastodon instance comes online. Don't like it? Block and move on.

   • Embed this notice
     Evan Minto (vamptvo@mastodon.social)'s status on Tuesday, 20-Feb-2024 04:36:02 JST Evan Minto

     in reply to

     • Stefan Bohacek

     @stefan "Corporate" isn't a distinction with any meaning in the actual tech. You can of course choose to block instances that meet your own standard of "corporate" (including the many existing commercial ActivityPub instances already out there, and this bridge). But you're on a federated social network, so by definition you're already federating with any software that uses the same protocol, including ones that may not share your values.

   • Embed this notice
     Evan Minto (vamptvo@mastodon.social)'s status on Tuesday, 20-Feb-2024 04:36:03 JST Evan Minto

     in reply to

     • Stefan Bohacek

     @stefan I see you're on a different instance from me. Did you "opt out" of being on mastodon.social? Since you didn't sign up for my instance, should the default be that we can't talk to each other?

   • Embed this notice
     Stefan Bohacek (stefan@stefanbohacek.online)'s status on Tuesday, 20-Feb-2024 04:36:03 JST Stefan Bohacek

     in reply to

     • Evan Minto

     @VamptVo Of course not.

     I run my own fediverse server expecting other fediverse servers to connect to it. That's how fediverse works, and knowing that, I did opt into "being on" mastodon.social.

     What does this have to do with corporate social networks I did not sign up for and don't want to contribute to though?

   • Embed this notice
     Evan Minto (vamptvo@mastodon.social)'s status on Tuesday, 20-Feb-2024 04:36:04 JST Evan Minto

     in reply to

     @snarfed.org I could live with this but it seems unnecessarily obtuse. We don't expect new Mastodon instances to do this and I don't understand why your bridge would need to. If people want to pre-approve followers there's already a setting for that (which it sounds like you'd support in your bridge anyway).

   • Embed this notice
     Evan Minto (vamptvo@mastodon.social)'s status on Tuesday, 20-Feb-2024 04:36:04 JST Evan Minto

     in reply to

     @snarfed.org To be entirely honest, I think if you have buy-in from major Mastodon instances like dot social, I would prefer you simply stick with opt-out and let the people freaking out about this defederate from you. They want their own small walled garden so they can have it. Good riddance.

   • Embed this notice
     Stefan Bohacek (stefan@stefanbohacek.online)'s status on Tuesday, 20-Feb-2024 04:36:04 JST Stefan Bohacek

     in reply to

     • Evan Minto

     @VamptVo @snarfed.org@snarfed.org But people already opted out by not signing up on Bluesky. Why do I have to opt out again?