@BlackAzizAnansi I've heard if you put #NoBridge in your profile that will disengage the functionality but it seems very, "send this to 10 people or bad luck for life. " Would love to know if there's any legitimacy

@rwg @jdp23 I appreciate this piece on consent as I try to get a grip on what I should do about invitations to bridge to bluesky. One thing I'm confused about (and hope someone can help me with) is that Bridgy Fed is referred to as "opt-in" now. Not completely, right? If I bridge to BSky and boost a toot from someone that didn't consent, isn't that toot visible on BSky by default? Or do they get some kind of consent request every time this happens? Until they add #nobridge to their profile?

@CaribenxMarciaX you're welcome. I've added #nobridge to my profile. But the point is: I shouldn't have to. Goddess damn techbros

@CaribenxMarciaX #nobridge and #blueskybridge

@snarfed.org please consider adding #noBlueskyBridge as a valid keyword to opt-out since people might opt in some bridges and not others: #noBridge is about opting out ALL bridges which is not what one may want.

@jerry I haven't seen anyone else bring this up explicitly, so I guess I gotta speak my mind. In my eyes, the biggest issue is the unofficial nature of bridging. If I don't want to talk to bluesky, and I block bluesky, nothing happens. I have to block the bridge.

But a bridge can be created trivially now that the software has been created. So I could block both the bridge and bluesky and another bridge could open bluesky back up. So even if I clearly don't consent to interacting with a third party, an opt out bridge still violates my consent by default.

When blocking is the officially supplied method to withdraw consent, any method which bypasses blocking is unacceptable, and could even be considered malicious. If bluesky supported activitypub themselves, I'd have no issue, as I could use the tools built into activity pub to withdraw consent.

As for the #nobridge profile, this is unacceptable for several reasons.
1: profiles tend to have character limits, limiting the accessibility of this method.
2: standardization: if a bridge can require any arbitrary tag, arbitrarily many bridges leads to ridiculous profiles (which would be likely, as one might want to block a bridge only to specific third parties). Imagine a year from now when everyone's profile contains #nofacebookbridge #noredditbridge #nobirdbridge #nodiscordbridge #nomiscellaneousbridge #noetceterabridge
Culminating in 3: as stated earlier, we have an official, built in way to handle this issue already and that's blocking and activitypub. Where blocklists go where they're supposed to be and keeping track of this mess is easy and supported

If a site wants to interact with the fediverse, it should use activitypub, as it contains all the tools necessary for doing so in the manner in which everyone who created a federated account intended for their content to be used.

@mastodonmigration I left Twitter and have no interest in participating in Ryan Barretts #Bluesky.
The fact that only OPT-OUT is supposed to be possible here disappoints me deeply - especially because the #nobridge hint in my profile obviously doesn't guarantee that it will be followed!
Reminds me of an organ donation rule, according to which you are automatically an organ donor if you don't explicitly object.
But I don't want to donate anything to bluesky, neither my toots nor my organs!

@jerry I've just added #nobridge to my profile as I understand that will do the trick.
Reference:
https://mastodon.online/@mastodonmigration/111921365604965429

@mastodonmigration @snarfed.org @snarfed Thanks. Done (#nobridge in profile).

@snarfed.org @activitypubblueskybridge @fedidevs @fediversenews i like the #nobridge in the account description, but I think you also should respect the #nobot. I don't want to finish with 3000000 hashtags in my description

@homegrown #nobridge

@mastodonmigration

The options suck and there is no reason to trust that #nobridge will be honored.