Unless there's some actual technical reason why this a bad idea, I don't buy the "ethical" hand-wringing here. It sounds like just another case of not liking specific social media companies and wanting the defaults to conform to those personal dislikes.
It's exactly this. Bluesky has its problems but there is a massive overreaction from the fediverse crowd that it makes it hard for me to sympathise with them even if I agree on the principle.
EDIT: JSYK, the Bridgy Fed developer is working towards making the bridge opt-in! https://tech.lgbt/@ShadowJonathan/111925391727699558
is working towards making the bridge opt-in
That kinda sucks. We need more openly accessible information without everyone erecting their little walled gardens. :'(
I think the fediverse, and that includes Lemmy, have this warped idea of what Bluesky is and what ActivityPub/the fediverse actually is. They think ActivityPub is the de-facto protocol for microblogging, when it has glaring issues that Bluesky wanted to solve with Atproto (the queer.af debacle is a great example of this, imagine if you've got an account on queer.af and you want to move your data to a new instance). If you're a Linux guy, you might have seen parallels between ActivityPub/Mastodon vs. Atproto/Bluesky and X11 vs. Wayland.
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:
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
Well, go ahead and take a music video your favorite artist posted publicly on X and upload it to YouTube unaltered and see how far fair use gets you with the defense that the content was publicly available. 🤷
That's is not the right analogy. No one is making the bridge and saying "I can take the content from person A on Lemmy and sell it on Bluesky". they are just saying "Here is a copy of what Person A posted on Lemmy".
In terms of copyright, why is it okay from someone on a different Mastodon server to relay content from a Lemmy server and even redistribute it (through, e.g, RSS readers), but it's not okay for a bridge to redistribute it to a Bluesky server?
Those examples are all forms of linking back to the content which is still hosted by the original server in which it was posted. Effectively they are sharing links to the content over the content itself, because if the hosting server removes the content then it is no longer available through those other mediums. And yes there are caching mechanisms involved, but those fall to the personal use case because the cache is not made publicly available.
For these bridge services to work, they are creating and hosting duplicates of the content. That is the biggest difference. If BlueSky actually federated then they would not be rehosting the content either.
Lemmy's federation model is that all posts and comments get replicated across all instances. If an instance goes down, the copied content still will live in my instance. It's not just caching.
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.
Should federation between servers be opt-in?
Should Mastodon-compatible clients have posts private-by-default on the UI?
This argument against bridges is beyond stupid. If you are posting on a public network, it's more than reasonable to work with the expectation that your content will be visible outside of original channel.
mastodon users continuing to show why mastodon will never reach mass appeal.
complaining about a tool that makes posts based on an open protocol that allows them to be shared across networks is bonkers.
this is probably the best tool that we'll have that will make social media actually fun to use again since twitter ruined it and segregated every service. if it gets ruined by going to an explicit opt-in service because of the loud minority, i'm gonna be so sad.
We can make a bridge to different protocols?? Pretty Cool
This concern is made even more ridiculous by the fact bsky.app already offers login gating for any user who wishes to use it, and I believe it blocks RSS as well. It's just such a funny practice. like? who hurt you ??
Reading through that thread, it highlights why I object to blue-sky stuff being posted in Fediverse areas like they're one in the same and have the same values. The fact that someone is stealing content to prop up blue-sky is egregious. That this is being defended is baffling.
Calling it "stealing content" is loaded terminology. You're posting content on an open protocol whose very purpose is to broadcast it far and wide.
Yeah, I'd argue that using such loaded terminology to imply incorrect things is the real moral violation here
The reality is that a bunch of the content creators are here rather than on a centralised billionaire/VC backed platform. Surely if those content creators wanted their content on BlueSky they would post there. I know for example that I personally declined invitations, so why would I want my toots and Lemmy posts there?
You signed up for federation when you joined lemmy and mastodon. Your posts federating to other servers should not be a surprise.
To ActivityPub services. BlueSky doesn't support the protocol
So if/when they do this is a non issue, right? Or have they confirmed they won't ever be supporting activitypub?
BlueSky employs a competing protocol
I'm not a fan of Bluesky, but to call it "centralized billionaire backed platform" makes no sense anymore. They are opening for federation already, and Jack Dorsey is now just shilling Bitcoin on Nostr.
My choice of present continuous was deliberate.
A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, KBin, etc).
If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to !moderators@lemmy.world!
Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration), Search Lemmy