@sam @Matt_Noyes @emi @hollie @django @dphiffer I got a report from Ryan that social.coop seems to have blocked Bridgy Fed and snarfed.org, looking into it, I don't think we decided to do this?
-
@flancian @Matt_Noyes @emi @hollie @django @dphiffer I can't even find the limit or report now (*sigh* mastodon search tools). Was it me that did the limit? I have a vague memory of the name so I'm assuming it was, but I can't find it. If so, my apologies because I'm assuming this was something for the next meeting that I then forgot about.
-
In #Flancia we'll meetreplied to Sam Whited last edited by [email protected]
@sam @Matt_Noyes @emi @hollie @django @dphiffer you did fine I think btw, and you did bring it up in the CWG meeting I'm pretty sure. Opening the Loomio thread made sense, it's just that I think the thread showed there's a split in the community. Full disclosure: I acknowledge I'm more pro-bridges than most in the instance probably, but I do think it's important not to block bridges from people who are trying to do cross posting right.
-
Sam Whitedreplied to In #Flancia we'll meet last edited by [email protected]
@flancian @Matt_Noyes @emi @hollie @django @dphiffer oh! Sorry, that loomio link went to some random post about bluesky (also *sigh* at how much I continue to hate loomio), but the second time it went to the correct place and I see that this is in fact the correct discussion. Refreshing my memory now.
-
@flancian @Matt_Noyes @emi @hollie @django @dphiffer ahhh yes, okay, I remember this now. Sorry, it's probably on me for not following up with a proper proposal.
So my thought is that we should see what has changed (if anything), and then update the community and hold a vote on whether to open it back up, limit, or suspend. In the mean time we should keep the limit IMO since that's what the community has voted to do for other bridges, so it seems like a sensible default.
-
In #Flancia we'll meetreplied to Sam Whited last edited by
-
Sam Whitedreplied to In #Flancia we'll meet last edited by
@flancian @Matt_Noyes @emi @hollie @django @dphiffer I think this is the threads vote:
Discussion: Support the Anti-Meta Fedi Pact
For some time, there have been rumors that Meta (Facebook) has plans to impose itself on the Fediverse. These rumors have recently been confirmed, with the news that Meta is developing a clone of Mastodon, referred to as "Project 92", "Barcelona", or "Threads", and that it has had a meeting with the administrators of several large Mastodon instances, possibly including Eugen Rochko, while silencing them with a non-disclosure agreement.Meta is an oligopoly that has aggressively sought to control social media, through absorption of other social media companies, and through policies of "embrace, extend, and extinguish", as with the RSS and XMPP protocols. Meta, through Facebook, is infamous for condoning the spread of far right ideology and of dangerous misinformation.There have been calls for pre-emptively blocking Meta's project. In particular, @[email protected], administrator of a small Mastodon instance, beach.city, has proposed the Anti-Meta Fedi Pact.https://fedipact.online/I see our best hope in collective resistance.Therefore, I would like us to discuss whether we should support this move, and if so, how best to do so. As a starting point for discussion, I suggest the following:
Social.Coop commits to blocking any Fediverse instances that Meta creates.
We, as a body, sign the Anti-Meta Fedi Pact.
We follow up by collectively drafting and issuing a public statement.
(As I have not been active in Social.Coop discussions, I hope that the way I am presenting this is appropriate, and I welcome constructive criticism.)Loomio (www.loomio.com)
There was also one for bluesky that I'm still looking for.
-
-
In #Flancia we'll meetreplied to Matt Noyes last edited by
@Matt_Noyes @sam @emi @hollie @django @dphiffer thanks, I think this is a reasonable way forward.
Having said that, please bear with me here It seems we blocked two domains based on vibes/rumors and now we are going to go through a full vote to unlimit them, so there's an asymmetry in process that's leaning conservative here. Just calling it out, it's fine if people want to be conservative (I don't in this case, but it's reasonable in some cases).
-
Sam Whitedreplied to In #Flancia we'll meet last edited by
@flancian @Matt_Noyes @emi @hollie @django @dphiffer I don't think it was vibes/rumors, it was based on his own blog post about it and what the community has voted on in the past for similar situations.
Either way though, I feel like we should be at least a bit conservative with anything that makes it easy for corporate social media to vacuum up our users posts personally (though maybe we should also be quicker with a followup on loomio; sorry!)
-
-
In #Flancia we'll meetreplied to django last edited by
@django @emi @hollie @dphiffer @sam @Matt_Noyes no need to be sorry Sam, thank you for opening the question and advancing the conversation! Now we can take next steps as a group and yes, now I also remember there was a controversial post.
You're right Django, it is indeed likely a valuable opportunity.
-
In #Flancia we'll meetreplied to django last edited by
@django @hollie @Matt_Noyes @emi @dphiffer @sam done! I tried putting my complaint in a more constructive format and started a poll:
The Bluesky Bridge
Hi all,As you may be aware a new bridge with the bluesky network is being deployed that allows two-way federation.I have temporarily taken the liberty of limiting the bridge pending community discussion. This is not my decision to make, and I recognize that, but I thought it was broadly the same as federating with Threads and, though I strongly disagree with the decision not to suspend Threads, the community chose to Limit it so I took the same action here so that follows from the bridge would at least need to be approved first.The gist of the matter is that this is different from most bridges in that it doesn't just allow you to read the posts of eg. Twitter users, but more like Threads it allows you full two-way communication with them. It also allows Jack Dorsey to vacuum up all of your public posts and sell them for sentiment analysis or train AIs on them or whatever. If someone from Bluesky follows you, your (opt-in on the mastodon side) full text search preferences are no longer respected. Also, the author has a terms of service that he claims you are accepting by using the bridge (this is almost certainly not legal in any jurisdiction, but I'm not a lawyer), etc.The author of the bridge has written a blog post [1] where he gives the game away somewhat: "If bridges were opt-in, and I could only follow 4% of people on other networks, they would be drastically less useful." in other words, he doesn't care about your consent.I strongly think we should fully suspend this bridge, but also acknowledge that it's exactly the same as Threads and this community didn't want to suspend there, so I'd like to follow up and ask separately for us to discuss what to do with this bridge. I'll follow up with a full proposal and vote later on depending on the results of this discussion. Thanks.If you'd like to block it yourself for your own personal account you can block the domains
brid.gy, and
snarfed.org.
You can also add #nobridge to your profile and the author says they're respecting that as an opt-out flag (but suspending both domains above is probably the better option).[1]: https://snarfed.org/2024-01-21_moderate-people-not-codeLoomio (www.loomio.com)
Made it ranked choice to try that out although maybe it wasn't the most efficient for this kind of process. I thought of changing it after writing it but I was pretty sure Loomio would nuke all the text so I thought: YOLO Also, people can think about how they would rank their own proposal versus the ones that came pollster-defined?
-
Matt Noyesreplied to In #Flancia we'll meet last edited by
-
-
@sam @Matt_Noyes @flancian @django @hollie @emi I think the limit also prevents social.coop members from discovering bridged bsky accounts, or at least I haven't figured out how to do it yet. I tried searching for myself on bsky (@[email protected]) and it didn't find anything.
-
@dphiffer @Matt_Noyes @flancian @django @hollie @emi interesting, in theory it *should* allow you to find yourself if you put it in directly like that. Maybe the bridge uses some sort of escaping so the username is slightly different or something? If not and it does completely block you from finding it, that's something that we should make sure to update in the poll.
-
-
-
@Matt_Noyes @sam @flancian @django @hollie @emi I think that's my theory: we would be able to find these bridged accounts if the limit weren't in place. Here's another example of an active/popular account that doesn't appear in searches: @[email protected]
-
@dphiffer @Matt_Noyes @flancian @django @hollie @emi actually, is that the right domain? I thought the bidirectional link was fedi.brid.gy or something like that? That bluesky one might only be for people who have signed up to cross post between two accounts (as opposed to the other which lets you follow without having an account on the other side)