#FediBlock snarfed.org and brid.gy for bridging fediverse folks to Bluesky against their will (and in likely contravention of GDPR in the EU) with typical Silicon Valley techbro sense of entitlement:
“[O]pt in results in far fewer users, and users are critical for a bridge to be useful.”¹
PS. I just suspended (domain blocked) both snarfed.org and brid.gy from my personal fediverse instance and saw that there was already one account from one and eleven accounts on the other so my account was apparently already being bridged without my consent.
Those links are now severed and they never should have existed without my knowledge or approval to begin with.
@Skoop Just block the main domains – that’ll be more future proof. (Of course the software is in the public domain so anyone can set up an instance at any domain in the future so it’s likely going to be cat and mouse. Thankfully, it’s more expensive to set up a server than it is to block one.) ;)
@aral
It's quite possible to block the entire domain as a regular user: find a profile on the offending domain, and hit the menu. Depending on your client there should be an option to "block domain" or some equivalent option. @LeeFromVT
@aral@Lu_Tze@LeeFromVT I can "ignore" an entire domain as a user, but that's not really sufficient. That won't stop my own posts from making the trek over the bridge.
I checked the relevant documentation, and it seems you're right. The option may be called "block domain," but it's more accurately described as "mute domain."
@aral Lots of people use Bridgy for webmentions to get comments from Mastodon or other places under their articles - the discussion about that being murky privacy-wise is definitely underway.
@sarajw You see, I’d be far less inclined to object if that was the only use case. There’s a world of difference between having something appear on a personal blog of some person and on a billionaire-funded libertarian Silicon Valley social network. That said, the latter should also be opt-in. It all comes down to whether or not you respect people’s consent or whether you feel entitled to do whatever you want just because you can.
@aral The, ah, discourse on this is going to keep being interesting.
There‘s at least a subset of people who are really interested in pushing the networks together, even though BlueSky‘s moderation intent is IMHO more than suspect, and there‘s a bunch of communities on BlueSky who would post to the Feddiverse with intent to harm.
@Sevoris It’s not a lack of awareness it’s a sense of entitlement. They’re aware; they know perfectly well that making it opt-in – in other words, making it respect consent – is against their goal of having as many users as possible. They’ve literally said so themselves (see quote in original post).
@zeitverschreib@Natanox The linked post is the one we acted on. It explicitly says that the specific subdomain (and no other domains) will bridge to bsky
I'm often condused by such ethics. Aren't fediverse posts publicly accessible on the web by default, without any app or authentication, unless set as private?
"When signing up to a service inside the fediverse I agree for my data to be shared inside the network. No permission was ever granted to use my data outside of the network, such as with Bluesky."
@aral
But do you restrict this access to corporations, who can scrape it anyways, or to users, who will have more problems finding it?
My main problem with fediverse is the powerlessness of users, untill they become admins. Users are rarely allowed to have a say whom they can communicate with or where their content can be used. They are always at mercy of allmighty righteous admins. I won't be surprised when corporate extractionists will lure decentralisation fans simply by being more open.
@justinas If someone is being abused by a powerful entity, it doesn’t make that abuse ethical. It doesn’t also give you the right to abuse that person while pointing at the more powerful entity.
You’re right that the architecture of the fediverse is not egalitarian and that hierarchies and power structures exist. That’s been my criticism from the start and that’s why I’m working on the Small Web (where every person is equal). The fediverse is not perfect but it’s a useful bridge.
@justinas@aral nothing is stopping you from running your own instance? You don't have to be subject to an admin if you don't want to. Surely you making that choice doesn't mean that the rest of us have to forfeit our legal rights? Because no, I have not consented to Bluesky, which IS outside the network, to handle my information, which means that it's a breach of GDPR for them to do so.
@craftycat@justinas We do have to qualify that “nothing” with possibly (a) lack of technical knowledge and/or (b) lack of financial means.
But yes, there are enough instances at the moment that you can likely find one that fits your requirements even if you lack one and/or both of the two prerequisites above.
Add comment