RE: https://mastodon.social/@osma@mas.to/115039233805777372

@osma makes some important points here and we always appreciate his feedback. His thoughts have helped shape some of our priorities in the past, so - thank you! But there's a lot to unpack here, so let's dive in: (1/8)

2. On unbridged interactions being invisible

Couldn't agree more. We're actively working on building mechanisms that solve this, and talk about the "unbridged interactions" roadmaps basically on a weekly basis at this point. We're starting with a test that makes users be aware of unbridged responses/quotes, and are considering next steps from there. (4/8)

are on Bridgy Fed, then you're on Bsky's public firehose, and not everyone will want that. This is why we've built tools for instances to make their own decisions, and some may decide to go multi-protocol during sign-up. Toxicity exists, no doubt, but that's not the reason I believe consent-driven bridging is the right approach. (3/8)

1. On "toxic attitudes in the Fedi"

While there are toxic folks in any social ecosystem, I think this is the wrong interpretation. When Ryan tried to do auto-bridging early on, there *were* toxic responses, and, frankly, those people suck. But there were also folks who had valid criticisms about consent and privacy. A lot of folks may choose an ecosystem because they actively want to *avoid* another one, and ATProto being very public by default is a fair reason to do so. If you (2/8)

Move slow, grow sustainably is the mantra.

This is the perfect time for me to plug our Patreon and merch. We love doing this work, and we'd appreciate any help from the community to help us continue doing it.

Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/ANewSocial
Merch: http://store.anew.social/

(7/8)

working on fundraisers and grants, but long-term funding would be required for us to do more lofty things like this.

We're only two full-time folks, along with an incredible board and some advisors, and we're *all* volunteering our time because we believe this is critical infra for the open social web. But eventually, raised expenses could force us to make some hard decisions, and we're trying to do all of this as sustainably as possible.

(6/8)

3. On mass-bridging

Consent is the major reason, but the other reason we haven't done mass-bridging, even for platforms that are *very* public by default and want this, is costs. @anewsocial is almost fully self-funded by us, and to be honest - it's not even cheap as we stand today! If everyone decided that "okay, let's put it all aside and everyone can be bridged," we literally couldn't afford it because the open social web is thriving beyond our expectations (good problem!). We're (5/8)

Again, really appreciate Osma's feedback, and hopefully we can fix some of these issues, but we'll be keeping consent at the center of our decisions. (8/8)

RE: https://mastodon.social/@osma@mas.to/115039233805777372

@osma makes some important points here and we always appreciate his feedback. His thoughts have helped shape some of our priorities in the past, so - thank you! But there's a lot to unpack here, so let's dive in: (1/8)

@quillmatiq @osma Totally agreed, I was waiting bridgyFed to come, and the fedi drama after snarfed announcement was terrible, it became impossible to follow influencers from Bluesky

Hopefully someday it gets better, if Bluesky had a federate button it could help. (And they announce it to make it visible to all)

@quillmatiq @osma If someone from Bluesky follows you, it should already be “opt-in” enough.

Blocking the bridge would have being easy like a lot of servers do with the Nostr -> Fediverse bridge.

@nunesdennis I disagree with that - just bc someone opted into bridging and wants to be exposed to another network does not mean interacting in your own ecosystem is allowance for someone else to expose you the other way. People don't "like" things expecting to be opted into a whole other network.

@osma

@quillmatiq @osma Sure, I understand that, and I hate when meta optOut users on their features.

but people dont need to opt in to any other fediverse instance, or in bluesky they dont need to opt-in to wafrn, being in a open protocol means people can come from anywhere.

BridgyFed is just another instance of atProto+ActivityPub

Isnt it why we have blocking?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

One idea, what if instead of not showing responses from not opt-in users from Bluesky, we show the responses on the fediverse, but private to mentioned people? (They may not want to federate, but they want to respond)

Another idea, They could be visible users with request to follow (until federated - opt-in)

@quillmatiq great thread, thank you!

Yeah really. Excellent thread, and I very much appreciate the approach of moving slowly and growing sustainably.

@UlrikeHahn @quillmatiq

@nunesdennis I think that argument works for the AT-to-AP direction since AT is public. The other way is trickier because many folks go on the Fedi to avoid public firehoses, search etc. But, we also know folks that use AT specifically to avoid Fedi culture.

Again, I think platforms/instances are better decision-makers for their communities. We're happy to support opt-out if a platform owner decides that's the direction they want to go, but that decision shouldn't be centralized by us.

@osma

One thing I'd push back on though is the "those people suck". Ryan didn't react ot initial gentler feedback that his originally-proposed approach ignored consent. So it's not surprising that the tone of the criticisms got sharper and started to include personal attacks on somebody who was advocating for ignoring consent -- especially since the people who were advocating for consent were getting attacked as well (and continue to). That doesn't make they suck.

@UlrikeHahn @quillmatiq

@thenexusofprivacy @UlrikeHahn @quillmatiq

Well, Anuj limits "those people suck" to "toxic" responses, which makes it a true statement by (circular) definition, depending on how you apply the "toxic" label.

Clearly not all criticism, even if it was pointed, should be labeled as toxic.

But when all this happened, I made a mental note of the worst toxicity I saw, and the person calling for Ryan's email to be spammed with CSAM definitely sucks.

One thing I'd push back on though is the "those people suck". Ryan didn't react ot initial gentler feedback that his originally-proposed approach ignored consent. So it's not surprising that the tone of the criticisms got sharper and started to include personal attacks on somebody who was advocating for ignoring consent -- especially since the people who were advocating for consent were getting attacked as well (and continue to). That doesn't make they suck.

@UlrikeHahn @quillmatiq