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.
Instance can block bridge domain and it will not be federated
I was referring to the
Put the text #nobridge in your profile bio, refresh your profile on your user page, and Bridgy Fed will stop bridging your account. Or feel free to send me a request privately.
That's user level changes. You can still defed from the bridge. It actually makes this whole situation even more ridiculous. If you don't agree with who your instance federates with you fucking leave.
You can’t defederate from the bridge because it’s not going to be the only instance of the bridge. Anyone will be able to host an instance of the bridge server, just like anyone can host an instance of any fedi software. Sure, you can block brid.gy, but then you also have to block every other instance, too. On the mastodon instance I use, there are 45 blocked instances of Birdsite Live, a (now defunct, one way) Twitter bridge!
Opting out with a hashtag technically works, but there is a character limit in the mastodon bio. It also depends on all bridges agreeing to the same hashtag.
Opt-in just makes a lot more sense, imo. It avoids different instances hosting duplicate mirrors and it avoids anyone (on bsky or fedi!) from having their posts scraped and mirrored to a different network without their knowledge.
You only have the option if it’s your instance that you’re having defederated. You cannot prevent anyone from:
Spinning up a new instance then federating with you, then bridging the content from there to the defederated instance.
Simply using a web-scraper and a bot to post your stuff on another instance.
The second part is basically what is happening here.
Importantly, I feel people misunderstand on a fundamental level what it means to post things openly on the internet. Your only way to prevent this is simply to not post to a site that people can access freely and without a process through which you are vetting them for whether you trust them. As in: Just like IRL when you decide whether to tell things to friends or acquaintences or well, not.
But, on the web, you not only cannot prevent someone taking your public data and copying it over to wherever they so desire, you don’t even know since they could be posting it in a place that you in turn have no access to so you cannot see it there.
Copying data through a protocol that purports to be integrated with the network frames that copying as a part of that network. If it was acquired through a bridge that does not respect federation then it is dishonestly coopting the legitimacy of the fediverse. Screenshots or copy-pastes won’t have the same appearance of integration and will be intuitively understood by the reader as being lifted from another context. This happens all the time and we’re very familiar with it. If copying data were all this was about, this solution should be sufficient.
It brings fediverse users into direct contact with non-federated networks in a way that they have not consented to. The ability to post directly back & forth exposes people to the kinds of discussions that we had previously moderated out of our networks. Defederation is an important tool for limiting the access bad actors have to our discussions, and accepting a situation where we can no longer defederate neuters that tool.
This isn’t just about “information wants to be free”. This is about keeping the door closed to the bigots, and forcing them to come onto our territory if they want to talk to us, so we can kick them out the moment they show their asses.
EDIT:
Spinning up a new instance then federating with you, then bridging the content from there to the defederated instance.
This is exactly part of the problem with a bridge that doesn’t rely on federation. With threads, we could just defederate and forget about it. With a bridge like this, we’re playing whackamole with every anonymous instance that bluesky spins up, which they can do easily faster than we can detect them.
If this open source system is told to pack its bags and leave, then yes, they can do it more covertly, but if they do that then they’re doing shady shit, and that can be exposed as the shady shit that it is. The point of protesting this is saying that we won’t allow this kind of entryism to openly exist on the network.
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.
Take any media publicly uploaded by a major artist on X and repost it to YouTube unaltered. You should be able to defend any copyright strikes because of your “publicly available” argument, right?
Allowing public broadcast once doesn’t void the rights of the creator to control when and where that content gets broadcast again.
Again, false equivalence, and I don’t think you understood what @Crackhappy meant when they said it.
You are trying to equate the concept of whether you can do something with whether a civil lawsuit would rule that you are liable for damages for it.
Of course you can copy something someone uploaded to the internet. They made it publicly available, it’s trivial to copy. Disney or so might take you to court for it, and here we get to the crux of the matter: Assuming you were to post all your posts here under an “all rights reserved” license and the instance you’re doing that on confirm you in writing that they’ll comply with orders for data in case you need it for a lawsuit, you’d absolutely be able to go after someone creating a bridge copying your data to Threads in a civil lawsuit.
Are you going to do that over any comment you post here? Probably not, plus, honestly, good luck showing that you have been materially damaged by the copy.
But again, false equivalence. You can trivially copy anything on the web. Whether you are liable for it is a wholly different thing nobody was talking about.
Copyright has fair use provisions, and one could argue that a bridge that lets you public content on a different network is no different than providing a VCR-to-DVD service.
Well, go ahead and take a music video your favorite artist posted publicly on X and upload it to YouTube unaltered and see how far fair use gets you with the defense that the content was publicly available. 🤷
That’s is not the right analogy. No one is making the bridge and saying “I can take the content from person A on Lemmy and sell it on Bluesky”. they are just saying “Here is a copy of what Person A posted on Lemmy”.
In terms of copyright, why is it okay from someone on a different Mastodon server to relay content from a Lemmy server and even redistribute it (through, e.g, RSS readers), but it’s not okay for a bridge to redistribute it to a Bluesky server?
Those examples are all forms of linking back to the content which is still hosted by the original server in which it was posted. Effectively they are sharing links to the content over the content itself, because if the hosting server removes the content then it is no longer available through those other mediums. And yes there are caching mechanisms involved, but those fall to the personal use case because the cache is not made publicly available.
For these bridge services to work, they are creating and hosting duplicates of the content. That is the biggest difference. If BlueSky actually federated then they would not be rehosting the content either.
Lemmy’s federation model is that all posts and comments get replicated across all instances. If an instance goes down, the copied content still will live in my instance. It’s not just caching.
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.
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?
The answer to that is yes, at least if you‘re not living in a corpo hellscape.
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)
I do kind of get where you’re coming from but I think you’re overstating the danger here.
Life is riddled with dangers. Cars that can kill you, diseases, angry humans, animals. The risk isn’t great - statistically speaking - but it’s never zero. I can relate to fear creeping into ones thoughts but we mustnt give into them.
Besides insane privilege, the only way to improve ones situation in this world is to take risks. As Youtube has flourished through copyright infringement before pulling up the ladder after themselves, we need to abolish the idea of the law abiding citizen. There is no good in following law, only morals. Obviously one should choose wisely which laws to ignore and do so in a smart way. We should also change them to benefit humanity, not mega corporations but that is a longer task.
In any case, I suggest we all give it a try and do what we think is best instead of letting fear govern our lives.
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.
How does it work exactly? From a quick look at the docs, it sounds like everything through the bridge would appear as coming from @web.brid.gy. Is that right? If so, that kind of mucks up the standard behavior of Lemmy. Lemmy allows both users and admins to block entire instances, so aggregating instances into one “mega-instance” effectively breaks that functionality. That’s not good from a UX perspective.
I tried searching for some bridges instances but didn’t have any luck. I guess I’m doing it wrong. Does anyone have a real example of something that works?
it sounds like everything through the bridge would appear as coming from @web.brid.gy.
Because this is the only current deployment of the bridge. The code is open source, if you want to host/run/manage your own bridge, you can do it.
That was the same issue that I had with fediverser and alien.top. Everyone got so obsessed with the bots from alien.top and caused so much drama that no admin would be interested in using it for the “login with reddit” functionality. If there was a few more other instances running the software, it would have been incredibly more helpful to get people to move away from Reddit while helping bootstrap the niche communities here (which are until today completely lacking in content and not attractive at all for the masses).
Doesn’t that mean we’d have a proliferation of duplicate content, if multiple bridges connect to the same external services?
I love this idea in theory, but I don’t think it makes sense in the context of Lemmy. Maybe it makes more sense in Mastodon? Or maybe I just misunderstand something.
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.
mastodon users continuing to show why mastodon will never reach mass appeal.
complaining about a tool that makes posts based on an open protocol that allows them to be shared across networks is bonkers.
this is probably the best tool that we’ll have that will make social media actually fun to use again since twitter ruined it and segregated every service. if it gets ruined by going to an explicit opt-in service because of the loud minority, i’m gonna be so sad.
This concern is made even more ridiculous by the fact bsky.app already offers login gating for any user who wishes to use it, and I believe it blocks RSS as well. It’s just such a funny practice. like? who hurt you ??
Reading through that thread, it highlights why I object to blue-sky stuff being posted in Fediverse areas like they’re one in the same and have the same values. The fact that someone is stealing content to prop up blue-sky is egregious. That this is being defended is baffling.
The reality is that a bunch of the content creators are here rather than on a centralised billionaire/VC backed platform. Surely if those content creators wanted their content on BlueSky they would post there. I know for example that I personally declined invitations, so why would I want my toots and Lemmy posts there?
I’m not a fan of Bluesky, but to call it “centralized billionaire backed platform” makes no sense anymore. They are opening for federation already, and Jack Dorsey is now just shilling Bitcoin on Nostr.
Bottom line is, if people are concerned of having their conversation and content distributed out of their intended audiences, we’ll all have to move to a fully encrypted network, where every message can only be decoded by the intended recipients. Getting upset because other people are not agreeing to your expectations of privacy is pointless.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect that platforms you’re not a member don’t host content you create in order to make it look at though their platform is more popular and vibrant than it is, thus generating revenue of which you’re not going to get a share of.
And neither via federation like in AP. It’s a bit of a hole that should the technology get truly big will eventually come to a head.
We already had lawsuits in Germany related to linking to copyright infringing content, it’s not a big stretch that if you scrape or federate a link that could infringe, you are in turn infringing.
Where exactly does a “platform” end? Is it only lemmy.tf, or all Lemmy instances? Either way Mastodon or Peertube can hardly be considered to be the same platform as Lemmy. Activitypub is a protocol and definitely not a platform. Or would you consider threads.net part of your “platform” once it implements Activitypub?
That’s a good question. We have the Lemmy platform, but that’s built on the wider ActivityPub platform. So I would consider threads part of the platform.
Can we please get out of this tribal mindset? The thing about decentralized systems is that it lets everyone where they want to be without being forced into a walled garden. Why should I care about the platform that other people are using, if I can reach them just the same?
Who cares if Bluesky or Nostr become more popular than ActivityPub? As long as the “platform” is open source and not actively working to hold its users as hostages, we should praise and hope they get to grow as large as possible. We should be fighting against the big corporations, not the small independent developers. There are almost 3 billion people using Twitter/Facebook/Reddit/TikTok. They are the ones that we should be actively engaging and trying to win them over to our side.
I don’t even truly know where I stand if I had to personally decide it. I guess i’m one of those filthy Neutrals, I have no strong opinion either way. 😑
I’m of the opinion that we don’t value our content enough. We should respect it and people. But we should also believe in our community to create its own content. I get so much help here and am so grateful for all the people. I love every experience I have here and I believe everyone can have similar experiences if they stop trying to recreate old experiences.
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!tech.lgbt/
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.
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.
Add comment