@moira @mastodonmigration @quillmatiq @anewsocial Of course a link back to a post on a random Mastodon instance is effectively a dead end at that point for a user without a login on that instance.

@lauren @mastodonmigration @quillmatiq @anewsocial ...that's... not true? At all?

Unless their account is set to private or followers-only or something, of course.

I post links to my mastodon posts all the time. Everyone sees them.

eta: if you mean for reply purposes, they can still reply from BlueSky.

@moira @mastodonmigration @quillmatiq @anewsocial What I'm saying is that once you hit a M page on an instance you don't have an account on, you can't interact with it there. It's effectively a dead end. Yeah, you can return to the truncated BS post -- which may be a fraction of the length -- and reply from there, but only up to the BS post limit. Given that M post limits vary so widely (on my personal instance, it's 20K) this is a recipe for a lot of confusion if nothing else.

@lauren@mastodon.laurenweinstein.org @moira@mastodon.murkworks.net @mastodonmigration@mastodon.online @quillmatiq@mastodon.social @anewsocial@mastodon.social The back button is a wonderful invention.

What's weird is that you seem to be talking theoritically, while it's already been happening and working fine for a year or two already.

@DavidBHimself @mastodonmigration @moira @quillmatiq @anewsocial The difference now is the difference between opt-in and opt-out. When there's an automatic opt-in, you're (pretty much by definition) pulling in users (especially NEW users) who may not fully understand the ramifications of the situation and what they're posting. I would submit that there are other issues too that come into play as the system moves from fully opt-in -- including potential conflicts between Mastodon and BS terms of service and content policies.

There is a parallel here to what happened when Google disastrously tried to integrate YT comments with G+ threads. I was working inside G during part of that period and it was quite the train wreck because the expectations of users in the two services were very much different.

@lauren@mastodon.laurenweinstein.org @mastodonmigration@mastodon.online @moira@mastodon.murkworks.net @quillmatiq@mastodon.social @anewsocial@mastodon.social Are we doing the opt-in vs opt-out again?
The debate was stupid the first time, and it's even stupider now.

@DavidBHimself @mastodonmigration @moira @quillmatiq @anewsocial I didn't see it the first time, but I've in general never seen an opt-in/opt-out debate that seemed "stupid" for any significant platform.

@lauren @DavidBHimself @mastodonmigration @quillmatiq @anewsocial It wasn't stupid if you care about consent and/or online harassment, and we convinced them that the bridge should be opt-in, not opt-out. By changing from opt-out to opt-in, it gained general social acceptance it did not previously have.

_This_ discussion is less about opt-in and opt-out at the personal level but at an instance-level scope - a new feature they're adding - and they've clarified some of their intent here in ways that have made the situation start calming down some already. You can go check out Mastodon Migration's updates on it if you like.

@moira@mastodon.murkworks.net @lauren@mastodon.laurenweinstein.org @mastodonmigration@mastodon.online @quillmatiq@mastodon.social @anewsocial@mastodon.social

"It wasn't stupid if you care about consent and/or online harassment"

It's stupid in a Fediverse and open web context. Why a bridge to another platform should be opt-in (making it very difficult to become useful) when all other kind of federation is opt-out, be it between various Mastodon instances or other Fediverse platforms? I'm not on Mastodon, I'm on Firefish and yet you can see my posts and you can see mine, despite not "opting in." How is it for your consent? And if you harass me or I harass you, there is this wonderful block button that exists. Why is it any different with Bluesky or anything else?

"and we convinced them that the bridge should be opt-in, not opt-out."

You didn't convince them, you bullied them. Hence the sour taste in my mouth, even more so when people use the "online harassement" argument.

@DavidBHimself @mastodonmigration @lauren @quillmatiq @anewsocial Bullying? You didn't even know I was involved. My conversations were polite and productive. I _helped them gain acceptance_ this way, you ass.

But there are serious issues of moderation granularity between BlueSky and Fedi, wherein you _can_ have effective instance-based defederation here, vs. bridged BlueSky, where you _can't_.

That's an actual _functional_ difference involving _granularity of moderation_. That _matters_.

Are you dealing with an instance that allows shit like anti-trans activists? Here? No problem! There? Wuh-oh, can't just defederate from the nazi bar and keep the rest. WHAT DO?!

It's a _structural risk issue_. Which is why it needs to be opt-in.

Yeah ,totally agree. And, after the discussion last year, @snarfed.org wound up agreeing that it needed to be opt-in -- as @quillmatiq was just saying at DWeb Seattle a couple of nights ago, it got to a good place in the end. So it's really frustrating that the anti-consent people want to keep relitigating it.

@moira @DavidBHimself @mastodonmigration @lauren @anewsocial