For instances that already have a user base, admins should not make any significant decisions without the consent of their users. This goes against our values, and we will not permit an instance to use Bridgy Fed in this manner. We’ve had conversations on how to handle a situation like this, and we would block instances [3] from doing so. We strongly expect admins to be loud about bridging, especially during signup. 3/10
This is very encouraging to read from a project that initially did not understand why many would be opposed to an opt-out bridge to ATProto.
I actually still don’t understand why one would be in favor of federation but opposed to bridging. In esscence, bridging is just federation.
There is no principal problem with bridging to another open system, but Bluesky is not. This is no different from federating with Meta’s Threads, which most people on the Fediverse seem to be against as well.
I think bluesky has more goodwill than meta by a loooong shot, though we’ll see if it lasts as more attempts to monetize it are made
Unless I’m misunderstanding: One-way bridging.
That’s very different from Federation.
It’s two way bridging. The issue is that Bluesky users also must opt-in to having their posts be bridged to Mastodon (by following @ap.brid.gy).
My condolences to them.
Why?
Not a fan of BlueSky and their proprietary platform
Bluesky is open source.
The AT protocol is open, though
So is the rest of it lmao
Fcuk buesky
