@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)

@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

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

@UlrikeHahn @quillmatiq

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

I think the argument potentially works for the AT direction ... although in practice quite possibly it'll depend on how quickly the "bad fedi" instances start attacking bridged posts and what the defenses are.

@quillmatiq @nunesdennis @osma

@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.

I certainly think that's an incredibly toxic response, and it's quite possible that had I see the post I too would conclude that person sucked.

But in general, when somebody from a marginalized background in a highly emotionally-charged situation where a more privileged person is advocating doing something that will harm marginalized communities makes a toxic response, that doesn't necessarily mean they suck as a person. At least in my view!

@julian @UlrikeHahn @quillmatiq

@thenexusofprivacy This is fair pushback, I shouldn't have categorized all the "toxic" responses as people who suck. Appreciate the feedback - some sucked, some were angry for fair reasons.

@julian @UlrikeHahn

Cool. A rare moment of consensus!

OK that's enough consensus, now back go arguing. In this thread I shall ... (1/275)

@quillmatiq @julian @UlrikeHahn