@holsta@onepict yeah it's a bleeding shame we have to set #nobridge to opt-out of something WE NEVER AGREED TO.. sorry it's just so damn frustrating how egocentric and narcissistic some are.
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.
Let me know if I won't be able to protect myself from Zuckerberg or Jack in here. If I can't, I'll just bring my foray into social media to a close. This isn't a need, it's a like.
@StillIRise1963 I just sent a nasty message to one of the guys trying to merge those assholes into mastodon yesterday. Told him in no uncertain terms that people like him who want to share mastodon info with those vultures that I wanted nothing to do with them or him.
I'll tag you in the toot that attracted my attention about it so you can do the same. I also added #nobridge to my profile although it pisses me off we have to opt out of his plans rather than have those who want it to opt in.
X creates a mastodon instance. Not one that bridges to X or federates X to the fediverse, but a native Mastodon instance. Do we have the same complaints about "consent" with them becoming part of the fediverse?
Is it the company that is objectionable, or the fact that it's not a native fediverse app that is the problem?
@jerry I haven't seen anyone else bring this up explicitly, so I guess I gotta speak my mind. In my eyes, the biggest issue is the unofficial nature of bridging. If I don't want to talk to bluesky, and I block bluesky, nothing happens. I have to block the bridge.
But a bridge can be created trivially now that the software has been created. So I could block both the bridge and bluesky and another bridge could open bluesky back up. So even if I clearly don't consent to interacting with a third party, an opt out bridge still violates my consent by default.
When blocking is the officially supplied method to withdraw consent, any method which bypasses blocking is unacceptable, and could even be considered malicious. If bluesky supported activitypub themselves, I'd have no issue, as I could use the tools built into activity pub to withdraw consent.
As for the #nobridge profile, this is unacceptable for several reasons.
1: profiles tend to have character limits, limiting the accessibility of this method.
2: standardization: if a bridge can require any arbitrary tag, arbitrarily many bridges leads to ridiculous profiles (which would be likely, as one might want to block a bridge only to specific third parties). Imagine a year from now when everyone's profile contains #nofacebookbridge#noredditbridge#nobirdbridge etc
Culminating in 3: as stated earlier, we have an official, built in way to handle this issue already and that's blocking and activitypub. Where blocklists go where they're supposed to be and keeping track of this mess is easy and supported
If a site wants to interact with the fediverse, it should use activitypub, as it contains all the tools necessary for doing so in the manner in which everyone who created a federated account intended for their content to be used.
Who actually thought that using hashtags in the profile is a good way to express consent or refusal of something?
I definitely wanna add 100 hashtags to my profile just to opt-in or opt-out of various services.
The first thing I do every morning is spending an hour to check if there is some new fedi bot so I can add the appropriate hashtags to my profile :neocat_facepalm:
I’ve just learned that this social media network where I’ve been rashly posting my thoughts is broadcasting this information on the public internet without my explicit consent (aside from the bit where I set up an account, agreed to the terms, and repeatedly posted the content). Apparently I have to opt out of this if I don’t like it? What is this!
“Only fully public content is bridged, not followers-only or otherwise private posts or profiles. Still, if you want to opt out, I understand. Feel free to DM me at @snarfed (different account than this one), email me, file a GitHub issue, or put #nobridge in your profile bio.”
It’s not clear about what it means for those who disable indexing, so that’s a fair question. I’m not actually sure what that setting does beyond your own server.
If you don't want your data shared with Bluesky - and then used by them as they see fit - please take a min. to email Ryan Barnett ( public@ryanb.org )
Ryan didn't make it easy to find his email address, but I'm sharing it, knowing it was his intent to be contacted by all of us. A LOT. Otherwise, he would have made his bridge opt-in.
And Ryan? If you have a problem with me sharing your email address and blasting it across the Fediverse, please let me know if you'd like to opt out. Thanks!
I’ve added #noindex to my profile to opt out of this Bluesky bridge thing. I’m generally not opposed to links to my posts being shared manually but I don’t think automatically opting everyone into a bridge is reasonable.
Still, if you want to opt out, I understand. Feel free to DM me at @snarfed@indieweb.social (different account than this one), email me, file a GitHub issue, or put #nobridge in your profile bio.
How about a robot SHOULDN’T follow me without my consent? How will I even know that if I put this in my bio that it won’t do that? I just have to trust you, do I?
Also, you realise that by making this service OPT-OUT, you are in violation of the EU and UK GDPR, which requires informed consent from a user?
Just putting up a little notice on a blog that nobody will ever read in their life does not count as me acquiescing to you.
Fediverse! I’ve been building a bridge to Bluesky, and they’re turning on federation soon, which means my bridge will be available soon too. You’ll be able to follow people on Bluesky from here in the fediverse, and vice versa.
Bluesky is a broad network with lots of worthwhile people and conversations! I hope you’ll give it a chance. Only fully public content is bridged, not followers-only or otherwise private posts or profiles. Still, if you want to opt out, I understand. Feel free to DM me at @snarfed (different account than this one), email me, file a GitHub issue, or put #nobridge in your profile bio.
@snarfed.org@snarfed.org build bridges not walls is great! being able to add #nobridge to individual profiles seems like a reasonable way for folks to opt out. Thanks for all your work!
@snarfed.org@snarfed.org I trust that you will change OptOut to OptIn before your bridge goes online.
Just to make sure, I hereby prohibit the bridging of any information from this instance to BlueSky.
Furthermore, what are your plans for posts with more than 300 characters? I hope that you are not planning to forward incomplete posts to Bluesky, possibly destroying their meaning.
@snarfed.org@snarfed.org please consider adding #noBlueskyBridge as a valid keyword to opt-out since people might opt in some bridges and not others: #noBridge is about opting out ALL bridges which is not what one may want.
Bridgy Fed, a bridge between the Fediverse and other protocols such as BlueSky, is using an opt-out model and that raises a lot of discussion (github.com)
Github ticket: github.com/snarfed/bridgy-fed/issues/835