Skip Navigation
Fediverse @lemmy.world Blaze @reddthat.com

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 Opt-out is a terrible default and should be reconsidered · Issue #835 · snarfed/bridgy-fed

It should be pretty obvious that a decentralized network that many use specifically to not be connected to centralized networks houses mostly people who do not wish to have their posts bridged to B...

Opt-out is a terrible default and should be reconsidered · Issue #835 · snarfed/bridgy-fed

Github ticket: https://github.com/snarfed/bridgy-fed/issues/835

69

You're viewing a single thread.

69 comments

  • 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.

    • In ActivityPub, you have the freedom to defederate.

      This bridge doesn't allow you to do so, I can understand why people have issues with it.

      • So/so.

        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.

        • There are differences:

          1. 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.

          2. 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.

      • @Blaze What do you mean by "doesn't allow you to do so"? Instance can block bridge domain and it will not be federated

        How is it different from the rest of instances?

        @Carighan

      • Permanently Deleted

    • Permanently Deleted

    • 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.

      • False equivalence.

        • Okay, well try this one:

          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.

      • 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.

        • How is reposting content to another social media platform with over a million users "personal consumption"?

          • Thats not what I said. I was answering to this:

            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.

          • How is that any different from content from user@smallinstance.mastodon being followed by a single individual from mastodon.social?

        • Permanently Deleted

          • 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)

            • Permanently Deleted

              • 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.

                Have a good one.

      • 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.

      • Yes.

You've viewed 69 comments.