@oliphant
@HistoPol @snarfed
@snarfed.org @luca @PCOWandre @fedidevs @fediversenews @chronohart @activitypubblueskybridge
I’m wondering if that means there may be a functional difference between blocking the bridge vs adding the #nobridge tag?
@oliphant
@HistoPol @snarfed
@snarfed.org @luca @PCOWandre @fedidevs @fediversenews @chronohart @activitypubblueskybridge
I’m wondering if that means there may be a functional difference between blocking the bridge vs adding the #nobridge tag?
It’s because that’s not the bridge, that’s a Friendica group about working on such bridges. Friendica supports group accounts that you post to by tagging the group.
Group accounts work by boosting every post that tags them.
The initial post was made to the Fediverse News, Fediverse Developer Discussion, and AP-AT-Bridge Group groups, which is why you’ll see them boosting almost every comment throughout this entire thread. Anyone who didn’t explicitly removed them from the references is posting to that group as well.
The bridge will not appear as a single account. The bridge will translate accounts through it, so if I made an account named Shiri on the official bluesky server, then followed you through the bridge you would see a follow request from shiri:bsky.social@bsky.brid.gy (name formatting probably will differ slightly), likewise that would be the name that would appear for everything I do through the bridge with your account.
If you wanted to block my specific bluesky account from accessing your account, you could block it as normal and it’ll work just the same as it always has.
With # NoBridge in your bio, when I go to look up your account through the bridge I either won’t get anything at all as if you don’t exist or it’ll tell me that you’ve opted out of the bridge.
@HistoPol@mastodon.social @jamie@boothcomputing.social @oliphant@oliphant.social @snarfed.org@snarfed.org @luca@sironi.tk @PCOWandre@jauntygoat.net @chronohart@tech.lgbt @snarfed@indieweb.social
@shiri
Thanks for the explanation, Shiri.
I pay attention to such thinks, but even with hindsight, I do not see such a group reference.
On #Mastodon, groups are also possible, but I forgot how to use them, as I used them so little.
@jamie @oliphant @snarfed.org @luca @PCOWandre @chronohart @snarfed
Unless it was recently added, groups are not a thing on Mastodon itself. I do know in the Mastodon side of things a lot of people use Guppe: a.gup.pe/ for groups, which work in the same fashion as Friendica groups, just with no moderator/admin.
In the case of the groups, all 3 have it in their description that they’re groups.
Because Mastodon has no support for groups there’s no indicator anywhere other than the description that an account is a group account.
@HistoPol@mastodon.social @jamie@boothcomputing.social @oliphant@oliphant.social @snarfed.org@snarfed.org @luca@sironi.tk @PCOWandre@jauntygoat.net @chronohart@tech.lgbt @snarfed@indieweb.social
@HistoPol
That’s because Mastodon doesn’t tell you that
Not yet. They’re working on it. And everything else that has working groups/forums now is afraid that Mastodon will re-invent the wheel in a way that’s the most incompatible possible to what already exists on more than half a dozen Fediverse projects.
What you mean is probably Guppe, but that isn’t built into Mastodon and a far cry from what’s possible on Friendica.
CC: @Jamie Booth @Oli @Ryan Barrett @Luca Sironi @Andre @chronohart
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #Mastodon #Friendica #Groups