Unless there’s some actual technical reason why this a bad idea, I don’t buy the “ethical” hand-wringing here. It sounds like just another case of not liking specific social media companies and wanting the defaults to conform to those personal dislikes.
It’s exactly this. Bluesky has its problems but there is a massive overreaction from the fediverse crowd that it makes it hard for me to sympathise with them even if I agree on the principle.
EDIT: JSYK, the Bridgy Fed developer is working towards making the bridge opt-in! https://tech.lgbt/@ShadowJonathan/111925391727699558
is working towards making the bridge opt-in
That kinda sucks. We need more openly accessible information without everyone erecting their little walled gardens. :'(
deleted by creator
I think the fediverse, and that includes Lemmy, have this warped idea of what Bluesky is and what ActivityPub/the fediverse actually is. They think ActivityPub is the de-facto protocol for microblogging, when it has glaring issues that Bluesky wanted to solve with Atproto (the queer.af debacle is a great example of this, imagine if you’ve got an account on queer.af and you want to move your data to a new instance). If you’re a Linux guy, you might have seen parallels between ActivityPub/Mastodon vs. Atproto/Bluesky and X11 vs. Wayland.
deleted by creator
I think the people mad about these massive networks joining the Fediverse want to shield their little social networks from the big bad internet. They don’t want the Fediverse or any part of it to succeed and become mainstream, because that brings in the toxic waste of opinions and trolls that the wider social media is known for, and their tiny servers don’t have the moderation capacity to deal with that.
And I mean, I don’t necessarily disagree - but I find it wild that the very same group would then not also want their social network to be inaccessible from the outside, so that it cannot simply be scraped like this bridge does.
But it’s also a bit weird insofar that if AP ever gets big, that’s a problem we’ll have to do deal with sooner rather than later anyways. Or at least have a plan how to handle it that goes beyond DEFEDERATE EVERYTHING™️. We need to accept that either there’s a certain baseline obscurity always baked in that also means at any point it could be that the world at large swings to using a different federation protocol and then we’re the weird pariah on a weird non-standard protocol. Or it gets mainstream acceptance and then Threads will be just one problem in an ocean of corporate federation.
Personally, I just go 🤷 in regards to the actual data-federation, and rather focus on moderation/administration tooling and automation. It’s a problem that eventually needs solving anyways, so might as well get in front of it and have a solution for when or if large corporate instances and their masses of users end up dumping data into AP.
deleted by creator
Should federation between servers be opt-in?
Should Mastodon-compatible clients have posts private-by-default on the UI?
This argument against bridges is beyond stupid. If you are posting on a public network, it’s more than reasonable to work with the expectation that your content will be visible outside of original channel.
deleted by creator
They also assert that Bluesky doesn’t federate (it currently doesn’t, but the protocol is designed for federation!) when it’s clear that it now does.
I’m not surprised about the skepticism there though. These are just promises, and we all know that a for-profit entity will happily sacrifice any promies if it means they make more money that way. Also depending on how exactly that federation will work it might be practically useless as well.
deleted by creator
I don’t get the problem. It’s just syncing public information back and forth. I mean, the information is fully public for anyone to access. If you mind who accesses it, you shouldn’t make it public.
deleted by creator
In ActivityPub, you have the freedom to defederate.
This bridge doesn’t allow you to do so, I can understand why people have issues with it.
deleted by creator
Does that mean every TV show broadcast over the air, every song on the radio, and every book in a public library is now “free” to pirate on the Internet because they were made publicly available? There’s a reason that social media companies include clauses in their EULA that posting content gives them (and only them unless otherwise noted) the right to reproduce that content.
It does indeed outside of the united IP holders of america.
In the free world, you can record any tv or radio program that is freely available for your personal consumption.
Welcome to the actual land of the free.
Edit: answering another comment of yours. You can absolutely repost the twitter, reddit and whatnot post of anyone. It is paywalled stuff that you are not allowed to share.
deleted by creator
Thanks for elaborating. The obvious flaw in this logic is that even the most original thing brings both the platform and the writer the visibility. Assuming you‘re knowledgeable and technically correct, this would always be unenforceable because it is the whole purpose of the platform to retweet, cite and repost.
I‘m not too knowledgeable in IP law or the local US court proceedings but where I live, your EULA/TOS become null and void if you put the customer at a disadvantage. Having this damocles sword dangling above their heads would most likely not hold in court (retweet = visibility but technically against TOS)
deleted by creator
