@chronohart
@luca @PCOWandre @activitypubblueskybridge @fedidevs @fediversenews

Let’s be honest most people have no idea this bridge is going to exist. So, they can’t opt-in. If nobody opts-in, you won’t be able to search for them by their ActivityPub handles. The bridge isn’t useful. People on both sides who would like to reconnect with their friends won’t be able to. However, if you know you hate BS, you can add the bridge to your personal block list and it isn’t an issue for you.

  • Hartmut Neubauer@social.cologne
    1·
    7 months ago

    @jamie@boothcomputing.social I would disagree. First, only a few people would use the bridge. But then the new connection would spread out like a seed - slowly, but spread. Then the number of bridge users will grow exponentially. That means, an opt-in (or at least no pure opt-out) would be a good option.
    @chronohart@tech.lgbt @luca@sironi.tk @PCOWandre@jauntygoat.net @activitypubblueskybridge@venera.social @fedidevs@venera.social @fediversenews@venera.social

    • Jamie Booth@boothcomputing.socialOP
      1·
      7 months ago

      @agrinova@social.cologne
      @chronohart@tech.lgbt @luca@sironi.tk @PCOWandre@jauntygoat.net @activitypubblueskybridge@venera.social @fedidevs@venera.social @fediversenews@venera.social

      That takes a lot of time, and as someone in IT, most people take the defaults and are SHOCKED to learn some features exist. 😁

      Having this behave like the rest of the fediverse accelerates the awareness and usefulness of the bridge.

      You can more rapidly achieve the goal of allowing people to connect and converse. That is after all why the fediverse exists. The rest of this is semantics.

      • shiri@foggyminds.com
        1·
        7 months ago

        @jamie@boothcomputing.social @luca@sironi.tk @PCOWandre@jauntygoat.net @agrinova@social.cologne @chronohart@tech.lgbt Hell, I’m aware of a few bridges and don’t use them and have never even seen traffic from them… There’s a few that I’m wary about, but again… I’ve never even seen any of the traffic from them.

      • Hartmut Neubauer@social.cologne
        0·
        7 months ago

        @jamie @chronohart @luca @PCOWandre @activitypubblueskybridge @fedidevs @fediversenews Okay, this is the other side. On the other hand, one can admit that we discuss about a bridge to bluesky, but if, anywhere in the world, a server would join the fediverse spreading hatred, bad thoughts and dangerous algorithms, nobody would discuss.
        Anyway. Before the new bridge service starts, I would strongly recommend to deal with European data protection laws for they are stronger in the EU than elsewhere.

        • Jamie Booth@boothcomputing.socialOP
          1·
          7 months ago

          @agrinova@social.cologne
          @chronohart@tech.lgbt @luca@sironi.tk @PCOWandre@jauntygoat.net @activitypubblueskybridge@venera.social @fedidevs@venera.social @fediversenews@venera.social

          I’m not a GDPR expert, but because the bridge isn’t stateful (ie just forwards posts) I don’t think you are going to apply any of the data directives. Worst case, you might have to do something for instances hosted in Europe. But whatever you do applies much more strongly to actual instance servers. Those are hosting data created by and about users.