@evan @blaine @wjmaggos

@evan @blaine @wjmaggos

Do you want Bluesky and the Fediverse to just be able to talk to each other without 'bridges', however that might happen?

Yes please!!

@chris @blaine @wjmaggos it's funny that you say "without bridges" and "however that may happen" in the same breath. If we don't care how it happens, why rule out one particularly powerful technique for interoperability?

BridgyFed works GREAT. It's fucking amazing. Is there room for improvement? Absolutely. But it's a really good service.

@evan @chris @blaine

it is amazing. I guess my problem is that it's opt in.

*ducks*

and the burden is on two amazing dudes to pay for and manage it (hopefully with all our donations).

@wjmaggos @chris @blaine one of my big problems with it too. I think @anewsocial are aware of that limitation and are working on some solutions.

@evan @wjmaggos @chris @blaine @anewsocial

Appreciate all the kind words in the thread! That said, I still strongly believe opt-in is a feature, not a bug. The right solution isn't to force people onto networks they don't want to be a part of; it's to clean up the rough edges of unbridged interactions and content so it makes less of a difference.

@evan @wjmaggos @chris @blaine @anewsocial

I understand the instinct of "make these work together", but there are technical and cultural differences that make it more than just two standards talking to each other. A couple of simple examples are "I don't want to be in a public, auditable firehose" or "I had a bad experience there, I don't trust them with my safety."

@quillmatiq @evan @chris @blaine @anewsocial

I understand if you don't want to have the conversation but these are public systems like blogging with your email address available, we just don't think of them like that. it's old school twitter, not even your network of friends and family on facebook. not having algos/ads doesn't mean everything isn't boostable to the world by default. maybe people want to use something designed to be inherently private, but that's not fedi etc. IMHO

@wjmaggos @evan @chris @blaine @anewsocial

I agree with you there! But often it's not about *how* public things are, it's more about *where* they're public. In other words, many users I've spoken to who are either not bridged or are straight-up anti-bridge have chosen that route because they don't (yet) trust the entities on the other side to have that much ownership over their data. There's also a cohort who don't want to have to depend on *us* to bridge them either.

It's a lot more complex!

@quillmatiq @evan @chris @blaine @anewsocial

they're public on the internet! screenshots?

I think the complexity is mostly about having so few people here and thinking it will stay that way. that being here is safety through obscurity. that a fedi server is a community instead of much more a portal to a possibly universal social media network. they built and maintained this place (huge kudos!) to get away, but actually made the best network not to.

they need a fork that's default opt in.

@wjmaggos @evan @chris @blaine @anewsocial

Huge difference between screenshotting vs always being a part of another network and another organization's infrastructure by default.

To be clear, I don't agree with Fediverse platforms depending on a blocklists, I much prefer approve-lists, but I don't think that's a popular opinion either.