@chronohart
@luca @PCOWandre @activitypubblueskybridge @fedidevs @fediversenews
Let’s be honest most people have no idea this bridge is going to exist. So, they can’t opt-in. If nobody opts-in, you won’t be able to search for them by their ActivityPub handles. The bridge isn’t useful. People on both sides who would like to reconnect with their friends won’t be able to. However, if you know you hate BS, you can add the bridge to your personal block list and it isn’t an issue for you.
@[email protected] I would disagree. First, only a few people would use the bridge. But then the new connection would spread out like a seed - slowly, but spread. Then the number of bridge users will grow exponentially. That means, an opt-in (or at least no pure opt-out) would be a good option.
@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected]@[email protected]
@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected]That takes a lot of time, and as someone in IT, most people take the defaults and are SHOCKED to learn some features exist. 😁
Having this behave like the rest of the fediverse accelerates the awareness and usefulness of the bridge.
You can more rapidly achieve the goal of allowing people to connect and converse. That is after all why the fediverse exists. The rest of this is semantics.
@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] Hell, I’m aware of a few bridges and don’t use them and have never even seen traffic from them… There’s a few that I’m wary about, but again… I’ve never even seen any of the traffic from them.
@jamie @chronohart @luca @PCOWandre @activitypubblueskybridge @fedidevs @fediversenews Okay, this is the other side. On the other hand, one can admit that we discuss about a bridge to bluesky, but if, anywhere in the world, a server would join the fediverse spreading hatred, bad thoughts and dangerous algorithms, nobody would discuss.
Anyway. Before the new bridge service starts, I would strongly recommend to deal with European data protection laws for they are stronger in the EU than elsewhere.@[email protected]
@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected]I’m not a GDPR expert, but because the bridge isn’t stateful (ie just forwards posts) I don’t think you are going to apply any of the data directives. Worst case, you might have to do something for instances hosted in Europe. But whatever you do applies much more strongly to actual instance servers. Those are hosting data created by and about users.
What if I block #BS (just love the acronym 😉) and the BS #bridge but one or more of my followers who ARE “bridged” boost or link my content? Will it appear on #BS?
@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected]
@[email protected]
@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected]This is a really good question and I don’t know the answer. This is the kinda of thing I think we should be asking about the bridge.
@[email protected] do you know the answer to this?
@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] I already posted a similar question. https://social.cologne/@agrinova/111932268169103522
@agrinova
@shiri
(1/2)
I guess I can answer this question now: once s.o. quotes or boosts your content (= new post) you lose control of your content and cannot prevent it from being shared.
I’d say, unless you limited the post to your followers, however if one of your followers were on the #Friendica or #Hubzilla platform, they’d still be able to quote your post and then you’d still lose control,…
@jamie @chronohart @luca @PCOWandre @activitypubblueskybridge @fedidevs @fediversenews @snarfed@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected]
Of course, you are right regarding the issue of boosting content. So I would like to intervene a little bit earlier.
If, e.g., Babsi on Bluesky follows Mary on Mastodon, Mary already has given her consent to interact with BS via the Bridge. But now Freddie, another fediverse user who has NOT given this consent, answers to Mary’s post. Question: Can Babsi read Freddie’s comments?
->@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] Proposal 1:
Yes, but the “like”, “share” and “answer” buttons are hidden or disabled for Babsi; furthermore Freddie’s fediverse address (“@[email protected]”) is hidden so that it is not easy for Babsi to mention him. Perhaps it is even possible to prevent textwise selection and copying. But even if copy & paste would be possible, as @[email protected] mentioned, no trail would be left. ->@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] 2nd possibility: to hide Freddie’s posts to Babsi. Okay, in this case not the whole discussion would be visible. But this might be done if Freddie has actively contradicted to the Bridge.
3rd: to display and allow all. But this might be difficult and a contradiction to that what Freddie has agreed to.@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] Maybe that there is still something to do for the development. For example, if Mary answers to a couple of users (and usually you see all their fediverse names in the head of the message), Babsi sees a copy of this message with only the @ names of the Bluesky users and those Fediverse users who have agreed to the Bridge, but without those who have not.
Sounds öike an excellent solution
We need to beef up moderation!–We’re going to be inundated by people with a completely different (net) sozialization and #netiquette:
https://mastodon.social/@HistoPol/110664442749882273
@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected]
@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected]
(2/2)
…correct @[email protected]? (I hope I have understood everything correctly that all of you had such great patience to explain to me today.
//I’d say, unless you limited the post to your followers, however if one of your followers were on the #Friendica or #Hubzilla platform, they’d still be able to quote your post and then you’d still lose control,…
Not exactly accurate. Anyone can copy and paste your words into the post box and quote you. Some platforms make it easier than others though.
Also, Mastodon is rumored to be including quote posts soon, so even on Mastodon, people will be able to quote you.
Copy and paste is possible, anywhere, always, yes.
Difference: copy & paste will not leave a trail to your original post, a link will.
#Mastodon was supposed to have quote posts last summer. Then @[email protected] sent a lengthy explanation that resources had to be recomitted to fix backend features. Since, I haven’t heard anyhting new regarding this, but I have not searched for it either.
Copy and paste is possible, anywhere, always, yes.
Difference: copy & paste will not leave a trail to your original post, a link will.
Actually, it can. I can manually type your handle and what you said and it will reference you. Just mentioning someone’s handle such as
@HistoPol@mastodon.socialreferences them (i.e. @HistoPol)
