Gregory's Server@homegrown @lisamelton @mastodonmigration But there are thousands and thousands of domains federating with ActivityPub right now. Your contention is that, when users sign up on any given ActivityPub instance, theyβre doing so because they know they wonβt be federating with Bluesky ever?
|
7 comments
 @homegrown @lisamelton @mastodonmigration Thatβs fine. I donβt agree with running a Bluesky bridge, either, because Bluesky consciously chose not to use ActivityPub and to remain separate from the Fediverse, but I donβt understand why running the bridge would pose legal challenges, since the whole point of these protocols is to federate.  @ramsey @lisamelton @mastodonmigration Because it's not the network they signed up for an account on? I am not a lawyer so I cannot comment on legal challenges, I'm just very curious to know if bridging to a network you didn't sign up on with an opt-out system is legal. @homegrown @lisamelton @mastodonmigration Iβm not a lawyer, either, but I would be willing to bet it would be very difficult to argue that in court, since the openness of the protocol means anyone can build an application on it. The βnetworkβ is opaque to users. I have no qualifications on this so I can't really comment on what would happen.  @ramsey @homegrown @lisamelton @mastodonmigration However, Bluesky lead developers were cool with the idea of bridging from the start, Ben, I specifically pressed them on that. So they were always ok with it but didnβt have bandwidth to do themselves. @tchambers @homegrown @lisamelton @mastodonmigration So, why didnβt they use ActivityPub themselves? |
@ramsey @lisamelton @mastodonmigration
Bluesky isn't using ActivityPub. If it was, there wouldn't be any need for a bridge.
If they start using it, I'll be posting advising the blocking of its domain (or at least ones connected to Dorsey if they ever actually decentralise), the same way I've been calling for threads.net to be blocked.