My grandmother was Scottish Ladies Chess Champion. She was a highly competitive bridge player. She also held a PhD in early ophthalmics which she wrote before WW2. On marrying my grandfather a research vet (who didn’t have a doctorate) he got an academic job and she was told she could only be part time as a demonstrator in the labs. We owe it to women like her to keep beating on the trail they blazed. #AcademicChatter#AcademicWomen#Chess#Bridge
How is this very post licensed and how would you know? Do #Mastodon instances dictate a #license on users posts? Is there a way for me, the #author, to assign one and pass the information through the #fediverse? Do I give away my #copyright in the moment, I press on "Publish!" below? (Or press C-c C-c in #Emacs#mastodonEl?) Can I limit #distribution e.g. to notforprofit entities? (Not that I wanted to. At least not now.)
Once winter came, it came hard! For months, we had no snow, and then everything was buried. Fortunately, the county sent plows through the trails, opening them up again.
OK this will probably be an unpopular opinion, but regarding the #bluesky#bridge and whether it's ok to be opt-out... For me the discussion doesn't make much sense because this is how fedi works. When you enable federation, your posts are federated to any activitypub-supporting server, unless you opt-out by fediblocking. Do you approve all of these servers? Do you agree with their ToS? Have you read the ToS of all of them, or know where they belong to? No. I know this might make you insecure about your data, but it's better to be honest than create a false impression of control, which then feels attacked when Threads or Bluesky appear. I understand that somebody may not want their content appearing in Zuckerberg's or Dorsey's platform. But they could already be running an AP server that's federated to your server, and you will never know. This is what we signed up for, adopting an open protocol and using software that federates with everyone as the default. And tbh I like it this way - an opt-in federation would be a disaster for smaller servers, it would practically be impossible to federate. By using an AP-enabled server, I'm telling everyone that it's ok to interact with my content - unless I actively block them. It doesn't include an agreement for how or from whom this content will be used. The fact that both servers run AP-compatible software is only a technicality. So if Bluesky implemented AP support it would suddenly be ok that interacting with their users would be opt-out, like with every AP server?
Don't get me wrong, I understand that everyone wants to be in control of their social circle, and I support you if you want to block Threads or Bluesky bridges. But I don't really see how it's unethical to have a bridge that is opt-out, just like any other AP-server. Our only "agreement" is using an open protocol, not any common ToS. ActivityPub is not ethically superior by definition, anyone can adopt it, and we have the right to block them, and this is all by design, it's not a different corner of the internet, everyone in the internet can use the protocol and see/display your public content. The drama every time some server does basically what we allowed them to do and we don't like it, is getting really old quickly. It doesn't "protect" fedi, it only makes it hostile and boring. If you're concerned about who sees your content, please run a followers-only account and control your followers. Running a public account in an openly federated platform and then getting angry when you don't agree with every single server you're federating with is a recipe to make sure you'll be angry for years to come.
Bryan writes a Bluesky <--> Fediverse bridge application
Bryan has total administrative control over said bridge application
Bryan effectively has a man-in-the-middle viewport into all bi-directional traffic through his bridge - don't try to claim this isn't true
What does Bryan do with the participant IDs and traffic content he can view?
Is there any notice or consent involved other than opt-in re: Bryan's monitoring and potentially using said bridge traffic?
Is there any option to opt-out for --> third parties <-- who are participating in a public conversation they believe is on one end only and do not want to be bridged over to the opposite side of Bryan's bridge?
Finally this has boiled over on the Bluesky #Github (where it's the most recent post in a very long thread):
"Interoperability with Mastodon/ActivityPub #1716"
Whenever I see this foundation stone inscription, it always makes me wonder if William Wilson, the contractor who built this Glasgow bridge, had permission to add his name on its right-hand side, or if he just went ahead and did it anyway!
The crown spire of the Kelvin Stevenson Memorial Church in Glasgow standing above the main arch of the Belmont Street Bridge as seen today from the Kelvin Walkway.
Sky Bridge (skybridge.fly.dev)
Bring your favourite Mastodon apps and use them with Bluesky!