Bridgy Fed, a bridge between the Fediverse and other protocols such as BlueSky, is using an opt-out model and that raises a lot of discussion : fediverse

[–] [email protected] 47 points 8 months ago (3 children)

I don't get the problem. It's just syncing public information back and forth. I mean, the information is fully public for anyone to access. If you mind who accesses it, you shouldn't make it public.

[+] [email protected] -6 points 8 months ago (4 children)

Does that mean every TV show broadcast over the air, every song on the radio, and every book in a public library is now "free" to pirate on the Internet because they were made publicly available? There's a reason that social media companies include clauses in their EULA that posting content gives them (and only them unless otherwise noted) the right to reproduce that content.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (5 children)

It does indeed outside of the united IP holders of america.

In the free world, you can record any tv or radio program that is freely available for your personal consumption.

Welcome to the actual land of the free.

Edit: answering another comment of yours. You can absolutely repost the twitter, reddit and whatnot post of anyone. It is paywalled stuff that you are not allowed to share.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (2 children)

How is reposting content to another social media platform with over a million users "personal consumption"?

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] [email protected] 9 points 8 months ago (1 children)

False equivalence.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Okay, well try this one:

Take any media publicly uploaded by a major artist on X and repost it to YouTube unaltered. You should be able to defend any copyright strikes because of your "publicly available" argument, right?

Allowing public broadcast once doesn't void the rights of the creator to control when and where that content gets broadcast again.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Copyright has fair use provisions, and one could argue that a bridge that lets you public content on a different network is no different than providing a VCR-to-DVD service.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Well, go ahead and take a music video your favorite artist posted publicly on X and upload it to YouTube unaltered and see how far fair use gets you with the defense that the content was publicly available. 🤷

[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago (2 children)

That's is not the right analogy. No one is making the bridge and saying "I can take the content from person A on Lemmy and sell it on Bluesky". they are just saying "Here is a copy of what Person A posted on Lemmy".

In terms of copyright, why is it okay from someone on a different Mastodon server to relay content from a Lemmy server and even redistribute it (through, e.g, RSS readers), but it's not okay for a bridge to redistribute it to a Bluesky server?

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 12 points 8 months ago (7 children)

In ActivityPub, you have the freedom to defederate.

This bridge doesn't allow you to do so, I can understand why people have issues with it.

load more comments (7 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 30 points 8 months ago (7 children)

Should federation between servers be opt-in?

Should Mastodon-compatible clients have posts private-by-default on the UI?

This argument against bridges is beyond stupid. If you are posting on a public network, it's more than reasonable to work with the expectation that your content will be visible outside of original channel.

load more comments (7 replies)

[+] [email protected] -17 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Reading through that thread, it highlights why I object to blue-sky stuff being posted in Fediverse areas like they're one in the same and have the same values. The fact that someone is stealing content to prop up blue-sky is egregious. That this is being defended is baffling.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Calling it "stealing content" is loaded terminology. You're posting content on an open protocol whose very purpose is to broadcast it far and wide.

[+] [email protected] -7 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I'm posting on a protocol whose purpose is to post content to other platforms that use the same protocol.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Your posts are awfully public, given that goal. I mean, anybody can freely access them and use programs to copy them for any use they desire.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 8 months ago (7 children)

Isn't this the same logic used to justify using our posts to train large language models?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago (8 children)

No. There is a difference in context and intent.

Bottom line is, if people are concerned of having their conversation and content distributed out of their intended audiences, we'll all have to move to a fully encrypted network, where every message can only be decoded by the intended recipients. Getting upset because other people are not agreeing to your expectations of privacy is pointless.

load more comments (8 replies)

load more comments (6 replies)

[–] [email protected] 16 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Yeah, I'd argue that using such loaded terminology to imply incorrect things is the real moral violation here

[–] [email protected] 55 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Unless there's some actual technical reason why this a bad idea, I don't buy the "ethical" hand-wringing here. It sounds like just another case of not liking specific social media companies and wanting the defaults to conform to those personal dislikes.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

It's exactly this. Bluesky has its problems but there is a massive overreaction from the fediverse crowd that it makes it hard for me to sympathise with them even if I agree on the principle.

EDIT: JSYK, the Bridgy Fed developer is working towards making the bridge opt-in! https://tech.lgbt/@ShadowJonathan/111925391727699558

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

EDIT: JSYK, the Bridgy Fed developer is working towards making the bridge opt-in!

Thank you for this!

[–] [email protected] 23 points 8 months ago (5 children)

is working towards making the bridge opt-in

That kinda sucks. We need more openly accessible information without everyone erecting their little walled gardens. :'(

load more comments (5 replies)

Fediverse

Rules