mastodon.social is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
The original server operated by the Mastodon gGmbH non-profit

Administered by:

Server stats:

336K
active users

Morning all. Quite a day yesterday, and today so far. I’m obviously taking a beating from everyone who thinks the Bluesky bridge should be opt in. OK.

I want to run one idea by you all. The way the bridge is currently designed, no fediverse profiles or other content are proactively bridged into Bluesky. If someone on Bluesky wants to see or follow someone on the fediverse, they have to manually request it on the bridge. That fediverse user’s posts are then only bridged going forward, and only if someone follows them.

What if, the first time someone on Bluesky requests to follow someone on the fediverse via the bridge, the fediverse user gets prompted, “X from Bluesky wants to follow you. Are you ok with connecting with Bluesky?”, maybe via DM. I assume that would still be considered opt in?

Realistically, most people in the fediverse will never hear about the bridge. Traditional opt in and opt out both generally expect people to proactively find a setting or take some action, often one that only a tiny fraction of people ever learn about. I don’t really care how many people discover or use the bridge, but this kind of just-in-time prompt, only shown when someone wants to follow or interact with them, feels like a useful improvement in that it puts the decision in front of them directly.

Thanks to @kio for the idea. It seems promising; I’m now planning to try it out well before launch. Let me know if you don’t like it.

KitsuClubKio (@Kio)Hi! I'm Kio. I run Kitsunes.club! I'm from Toronto, Ontario. I run flashfire. Also, I run this place. I'm nuts. c: You're kinda cute. [AMA](https://retrospring.net/@imKio) - [CBSA](https://catboyslave.army)

@snarfed.org I could live with this but it seems unnecessarily obtuse. We don't expect new Mastodon instances to do this and I don't understand why your bridge would need to. If people want to pre-approve followers there's already a setting for that (which it sounds like you'd support in your bridge anyway).

@snarfed.org To be entirely honest, I think if you have buy-in from major Mastodon instances like dot social, I would prefer you simply stick with opt-out and let the people freaking out about this defederate from you. They want their own small walled garden so they can have it. Good riddance.

@VamptVo @snarfed.org@snarfed.org But people already opted out by not signing up on Bluesky. Why do I have to opt out again?

@stefan I see you're on a different instance from me. Did you "opt out" of being on mastodon.social? Since you didn't sign up for my instance, should the default be that we can't talk to each other?

@VamptVo Of course not.

I run my own fediverse server expecting other fediverse servers to connect to it. That's how fediverse works, and knowing that, I did opt into "being on" mastodon.social.

What does this have to do with corporate social networks I did not sign up for and don't want to contribute to though?

@stefan "Corporate" isn't a distinction with any meaning in the actual tech. You can of course choose to block instances that meet your own standard of "corporate" (including the many existing commercial ActivityPub instances already out there, and this bridge). But you're on a federated social network, so by definition you're already federating with any software that uses the same protocol, including ones that may not share your values.

@VamptVo You know, just forget about the word "corporate".

I already opted out of having my posts show up on Bluesky. Why do I have to opt out again?

Evan Minto

@stefan That's my point, you didn't opt out. You just used ActivityPub while BlueSky used a different protocol. They're going to start speaking the same language, so you'll now have a choice about whether to federate with them, exactly like you do when a new Mastodon instance comes online. Don't like it? Block and move on.

@VamptVo But they're not "speaking the same language", that's the whole point of having the bridge in the first place.

If Bluesky's CEO set up a separate, fediverse-compatible server, of course I'd expect my posts to show up there. Just like I'd expect my posts to show up on Threads, if I didn't already block them. That is how fediverse works and that's all fine.

@VamptVo But Bluesky is not a fediverse server, and I opted out of it already. Why should I opt out again and every time someone thinks they know better than me and try to opt me in?

@stefan I don't understand how this is functionally different from BlueSky supporting ActivityPub, but also I can tell from your opinion on this that if they DID you would be having the same reaction to that. You would block BlueSky, right? So again, block the bridge and move on with your life.

@stefan And speaking of, I'll be doing the same to you, since this kind of pedantic bikeshedding is the reason so many people left Mastodon for BlueSky

@VamptVo
> But Bluesky is not a fediverse server

... but since Ryan's bridge supports ActivityPub, it *is* a fediverse server. It effectively makes BlueSky part of the fediverse, in the same way Ryan's IndieWeb bridge makes IndieWeb sites part of the fediverse.

It allows people in the existing fediverse and BlueSky who want to interact to do that. Why is that such a bad thing?

@stefan
> I don't understand how this is functionally different from BlueSky supporting ActivityPub

This!

(1/2)

@VamptVo
> I opted out of it already

You opted out of what? It can't be interacting with a server run by the BlueSky company, because you said;

> If Bluesky's CEO set up a separate, fediverse-compatible server, of course I'd expect my posts to show up there

So what is it you opted out of? The particular group of people who are using BlueSky? Servers that also support the AT Protocol? Something else?

Honestly, I'd really like to understand what's at the root of the objection.

(2/2)

@stefan

@strypey @VamptVo > It effectively makes BlueSky part of the fediverse

That really is debatable, see results of this poll: stefanbohacek.online/@stefan/1

> Why is that such a bad thing?

To this I'll just say, if an angry crowd showed up at my door yelling about something I've created, those are definitely not the people I'd want using my product/service/etc. I'd say, good riddance, I don't need you. If my thing is as useful as I think it is, you will be the ones coming to me.

Stefan's Personal Mastodon ServerStefan Bohacek (@stefan@stefanbohacek.online)Alright, what is the #fediverse? "Social networks that..." [ ] Natively support ActivityPub [ ] Support other common protocols [ ] May use a third party bridge [ ] Not sure

@strypey @VamptVo > I don't understand how this is functionally different from BlueSky supporting ActivityPub.

If I block the bridge, someone else can rehost it, and I have to block each new instance of the bridge. If I know it exists at all.

If Bluesky ever adopts ActivityPub, I only have to block them once.

@strypey @VamptVo > If Bluesky's CEO set up a separate, fediverse-compatible server, of course I'd expect my posts to show up there

I hope this makes more sense knowing that I don't view Bluesky as part of the fediverse without a native ActivityPub support. Once they do have native support, I'd consider it a fediverse server, much like Gab and Truth Social are fediverse servers. I'd still block them, but not because they're not part of the fediverse.

.

@strypey @VamptVo > Honestly, I'd really like to understand what's at the root of the objection.

And I appreciate being able to have this conversation. I hope my answers make sense. The bottom line is, all those who oppose Bluesky and/or the bridge have different reasons for it, and a different understanding of what the fediverse is and what it is for.

@strypey @VamptVo I am a huge fan of the fediverse, as I understand it. I see it as an opportunity to finally get excited about technology. A chance to get the social web right.

To me, Bluesky and Threads represent the old system clawing its way back. Yes, they both approach it differently, but the goal seems to be the same. Meta and Bluesky don't want to lose control over the social web. And I just want no part in that

@stefan
> I am a huge fan of the fediverse, as I understand it... A chance to get the social web right

100%.

> Meta and Bluesky don't want to lose control over the social web

This conflates 2 very different things. Unlike Meta, BlueSky never had control of the social web. Its minimal relationship with Titter ended when it was spun off as a separate entity or Melon Husk would have killed it when he bought Titter. Dorsey left both the BS company and the network to go all-in on Nostr.

@VamptVo

@stefan In 2024, the relationship between ActivityPub and BlueSky is like that between OStatus* and Diaspora. In both cases, both are working on open, decentralised protocols. But the latter has gone for a new protocol, to add things they perceived as missing from the older protocol.

This creates a new space for protocol experimentation, but it means people have to have accounts on both to talk to everyone.

(1/2)

*the first protocol used in the fediverse, before ActivityPub existed

@VamptVo

The fediverse as we know it today came about because some software started bridging both the OStatus and Diaspora networks. This convinced developers that it was possible to create a social web protocol that would work for both, which led to the standardisation of ActivityPub.

If the developer who'd implemented OStatus and Diaspora protocols in Hubzilla, Friendica faced the level of vitriol @snarfed.org has, ActivityPub might never have happened.

(2?)

@stefan
@VamptVo

@strypey @snarfed.org@snarfed.org @VamptVo > This conflates 2 very different things.

Yes, I got a bit lazy there and didn't use the right wording, sorry about that.

> the relationship between ActivityPub and BlueSky is like that between OStatus* and Diaspora

Yes, and it does annoy me a bit that they're not interested in implementing AP more directly, to be quite honest. I hesitate to think of them as part of the fediverse because of that.

@strypey @VamptVo Maybe I'm splitting hairs here, fair enough.

But that's the bottom line for me. I think of the fediverse as based around the ActivityPub protocol, as that's the W3C standard.

I want it to be adopted by corporations, even if I end up blocking their servers on some other principles. (Did that with Threads preemptively, not planning to do that for Tumblr. Not sure if I'd block AP-based Bluesky. Obviously blocking right-wing AP servers.)

@strypey @VamptVo And not to harp on this, just giving a bit more context, I wanted to look into whether Diaspora is considered part of the fediverse, and it's at best debatable.

See the talk page for the Fediverse entry on Wikipedia:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:F?

(Things get a bit heated there, fair warning.)

EDIT: The link doesn't seem to work because of the "?" at the end, you can just look for "Should Diaspora be on this page?".

en.m.wikipedia.orgTalk:Fediverse - Wikipedia

@strypey @VamptVo Stand out quote, emphasis not mine:

"And it's worth noting that Tilley was the Community Manager for Diaspora, so that's someone **from the Diaspora** project fairly explicitly saying it's not part of "The Fediverse" (until it implements AP)."

@stefan
> See the talk page for the Fediverse entry on Wikipedia

You may have seen my name on that talk page. I started the article and I've kept an eye on its evolution. So yes, I'm familiar with the debates there ; )

> "... Tilley **from the Diaspora** project fairly explicitly saying it's not part of "The Fediverse" (until it implements AP)."

I'm pretty sure that's not what @deadsuperhero was saying, but I'll let him comment on that.

@strypey @stefan It’s a little more complicated than that. Originally, there were two groupings of networks kind of doing similar things:

  • Anything that federated to Diaspora via its protocol was called The Federation
  • Anything that federated to each other via OStatus or some other protocol was The Fediverse

Things have gotten a little weirder nowadays, in that most of the first group collapsed into the second. However, Diaspora remains the single hold-out.

@deadsuperhero
> most of the first group collapsed into the second

Or to put it another way, they both collapsed into a unity by implementing AP, as you predicted in your famous Medium piece linked on that Wikipedia talk page. But for better or for worse, "the fediverse" was the terminology that stuck.

> Diaspora remains the single hold-out

The question is, does that mean it's not part of the fediverse, as @stefan and a number of the commenters on that talk page seem to think?

@stefan
> I wanted to look into whether Diaspora is considered part of the fediverse

Like all words, it's meaning is nebulous but patterned by common usage. It was coined to describe the OStatus network that Mastodon joined. When Hubzilla implemented OStatus and reverse-engineered Diaspora's fork of it, its meaning expanded to include both, as well as Hubzilla's Zot protocol. Once Mastodon implemented ActivityPub, any project using that was included too.

(1/2)

Since then, at fediverse.party we've defined it as including anything that federates with at least one AP project. So if @dansup's Sup Messenger adds Matrix support, that would make anything using Matrix part of the fediverse. Similarly, XMPP becomes part of the fediverse if @Goffi succeeds with his XMPP<>AP gateway;

salut-a-toi.org./b/libervia-progress-note-2023-w22-x3Wa

For us, it's not about which protocol is the One Ring. It's about whether people can communicate.

(2/2)

@stefan

salut-a-toi.orgLibervia