decided to show some support for the bridge
image.png

@Pawlicker The Higgs1 guy that made the RSA signature request left a thumbs-up reaction, wonder if he's an elaborate troll.

@mint @Pawlicker we can ask them directly @foxxy

@i @Pawlicker @mint Sorry if I barged in on your issue uninvited, I can remove the thumbs up if you'd like. I'm just genuinely concerned for the safety of all my friends on the fediverse.

@foxxy @i @mint There's a lot of artists I want to follow who are on BSky but not Fedi....

@Pawlicker @i @mint Likewise u.u... But If BlueSky implemented the ActivityPub spec like whichever server software(s) we're currently using, we'd be able to see all the cool arts and interact with the artists. We'd also be able to de-facto block and moderate other BlueSky users and control, in part, what content of ours they get to see. Bridgy-fed does not do this. BlueSky 100% is technically able implement AP but chooses not to, so they can invent this nonsense drama, and prevent us seeing art.

https://www.w3.org/TR/activitypub/#block-activity-outbox

The Block activity is used to indicate that the posting actor does not want another actor (defined in the object property) to be able to interact with objects posted by the actor posting the Block activity.

In the ActivityPub spec itself, it bears no meaning of access control; it’s purely just to ignore notifications and objects (such as replies) from that actor, as there is no rational way to accomplish limiting access to public posts from specific actors.

Anything sensitive that requires access control should not be posted publicly on social media to begin with. This isn’t a software design issue, it’s a human behavioral issue.

I routinely [privately] warn people about oversharing, such as when I stumble across someone posting a photo that gives away the exact location of where they live, or where they work, and most of the time it’s shrugged off as a non-issue, because they assume they have tangible threats in the present, but never consider the future.

Then of course, they could always end up in some controversy much later on, over something completely innocuous, and face some tangible threats/risk, but yet put the blame on everyone else for their reckless posting behaviors (“omg doxxing!”). Blocking people they perceive as a threat solves nothing.

@arcanicanis @i @mint @foxxy To add to that, at least one instance software explicitly has a feature where you can reject deletes, and many of them either openly or subtly use this on the entire network.
https://docs-develop.pleroma.social/backend/configuration/mrf/

And then on top of that, many fedi instance stacks do not "clear" old cached media, so a deleted post can sometimes be seen with the old media intact on one of these instances.

That's not getting into stuff like boardreader scraping one fedi instance a while back and that same instance owner getting clueless FBI agent emails about content hosted on other instances (some instance user made a post that got the user banned on another instance threatening a certain rich American oligarch who runs a company that rhymes with Crack Rock).

@Pawlicker @i @mint @foxxy @arcanicanis the internet would be much nicer if everyone remembered that once you post something online, it's online, and cannot be purged. I once said "think before you post" but it got called victim blaming 🤷‍♂️

@gorplop @Pawlicker @i @mint @foxxy @arcanicanis That's not entirely true. That assumes that at least one person/server has a backup or screenshot of whatever you post. It's why there is an internet media section of the Lost Media Wiki.

But yes, people should think before they post.

https://lostmediawiki.com/Category:Lost_internet_media