Skip to content
  • Categories
  • World
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (Zephyr)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Brand Logo

The Nexus of Discussions

  1. Home
  2. Categories
  3. Uncategorized
  4. RE: https://mastodon.social/@osma@mas.to/115039233805777372

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

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Uncategorized
21 Posts 5 Posters 6 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • nunesdennis@social.vivaldi.netN nunesdennis@social.vivaldi.net

    @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)

    nunesdennis@social.vivaldi.netN This user is from outside of this forum
    nunesdennis@social.vivaldi.netN This user is from outside of this forum
    nunesdennis@social.vivaldi.net
    wrote last edited by
    #11

    @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.

    quillmatiq@mastodon.socialQ 1 Reply Last reply
    • nunesdennis@social.vivaldi.netN nunesdennis@social.vivaldi.net

      @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.

      quillmatiq@mastodon.socialQ This user is from outside of this forum
      quillmatiq@mastodon.socialQ This user is from outside of this forum
      quillmatiq@mastodon.social
      wrote last edited by
      #12

      @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

      nunesdennis@social.vivaldi.netN 1 Reply Last reply
      • quillmatiq@mastodon.socialQ quillmatiq@mastodon.social

        @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

        nunesdennis@social.vivaldi.netN This user is from outside of this forum
        nunesdennis@social.vivaldi.netN This user is from outside of this forum
        nunesdennis@social.vivaldi.net
        wrote last edited by
        #13

        @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@mastodon.socialQ 1 Reply Last reply
        • nunesdennis@social.vivaldi.netN nunesdennis@social.vivaldi.net

          @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@mastodon.socialQ This user is from outside of this forum
          quillmatiq@mastodon.socialQ This user is from outside of this forum
          quillmatiq@mastodon.social
          wrote last edited by
          #14

          @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

          thenexusofprivacy@infosec.exchangeT 1 Reply Last reply
          • ulrikehahn@fediscience.orgU ulrikehahn@fediscience.org

            @quillmatiq great thread, thank you!

            thenexusofprivacy@infosec.exchangeT This user is from outside of this forum
            thenexusofprivacy@infosec.exchangeT This user is from outside of this forum
            thenexusofprivacy@infosec.exchange
            wrote last edited by
            #15

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

            @UlrikeHahn @quillmatiq

            thenexusofprivacy@infosec.exchangeT 1 Reply Last reply
            • thenexusofprivacy@infosec.exchangeT thenexusofprivacy@infosec.exchange

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

              @UlrikeHahn @quillmatiq

              thenexusofprivacy@infosec.exchangeT This user is from outside of this forum
              thenexusofprivacy@infosec.exchangeT This user is from outside of this forum
              thenexusofprivacy@infosec.exchange
              wrote last edited by
              #16

              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

              julian@fietkau.socialJ quillmatiq@mastodon.socialQ 2 Replies Last reply
              • quillmatiq@mastodon.socialQ quillmatiq@mastodon.social

                @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

                thenexusofprivacy@infosec.exchangeT This user is from outside of this forum
                thenexusofprivacy@infosec.exchangeT This user is from outside of this forum
                thenexusofprivacy@infosec.exchange
                wrote last edited by
                #17

                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

                1 Reply Last reply
                • thenexusofprivacy@infosec.exchangeT thenexusofprivacy@infosec.exchange

                  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

                  julian@fietkau.socialJ This user is from outside of this forum
                  julian@fietkau.socialJ This user is from outside of this forum
                  julian@fietkau.social
                  wrote last edited by
                  #18

                  @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.

                  thenexusofprivacy@infosec.exchangeT 1 Reply Last reply
                  • julian@fietkau.socialJ julian@fietkau.social

                    @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.

                    thenexusofprivacy@infosec.exchangeT This user is from outside of this forum
                    thenexusofprivacy@infosec.exchangeT This user is from outside of this forum
                    thenexusofprivacy@infosec.exchange
                    wrote last edited by
                    #19

                    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

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    • thenexusofprivacy@infosec.exchangeT thenexusofprivacy@infosec.exchange

                      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

                      quillmatiq@mastodon.socialQ This user is from outside of this forum
                      quillmatiq@mastodon.socialQ This user is from outside of this forum
                      quillmatiq@mastodon.social
                      wrote last edited by
                      #20

                      @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

                      thenexusofprivacy@infosec.exchangeT 1 Reply Last reply
                      • quillmatiq@mastodon.socialQ quillmatiq@mastodon.social

                        @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

                        thenexusofprivacy@infosec.exchangeT This user is from outside of this forum
                        thenexusofprivacy@infosec.exchangeT This user is from outside of this forum
                        thenexusofprivacy@infosec.exchange
                        wrote last edited by
                        #21

                        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

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        Reply
                        • Reply as topic
                        Log in to reply
                        • Oldest to Newest
                        • Newest to Oldest
                        • Most Votes


                        Please keep the community guidelines in mind!
                        • Login

                        • Don't have an account? Register

                        • Login or register to search.
                        • First post
                          Last post
                        0
                        • Categories
                        • World
                        • Recent
                        • Tags
                        • Popular
                        • Users
                        • Groups