Good conversation everyone! Thanks for the support. I'm all for instances and networks making their own decisions on bridge opt-in vs opt-out too.
There's another angle here though: who should make these kinds of decisions on the tools' side, eg for Bridgy Fed itself? And beyond that, if we want to consider defaulting them more toward the opt-out, "big fedi" direction – pardon the metaphor, thanks Evan! – that starts to shift them away from fun useful side projects and more toward core social web infrastructure.
To do that right, they need real structure, organization, and governance. That's at the core of my discomfort so far with considering opt-out. We definitely could put real, grown-up structure in place around Bridgy Fed to turn it into sustainable infrastructure and support that kind of decision. But we (I) haven't yet.
I need to write this up more thoroughly; I'll do that soon. Thanks again for the thoughts so far.
Agreed: as today’s Fediverse schisms into “Big Fedi” and consent-focused/opt-in regions, I think it’s really critical for Big Fedi folks to think about the structural and governance perspectives. In The Social Web Foundation and the elephant in the federated room I talked about why a multi-polar @socialwebfdn could potentially play a very valuable role here (although not if they have a hostile attitude towards anybody who doesn’t kiss the ActivityPub ring, I should probably update the post to highlight that). But SWF’s certainly not the only key player here, so very much looking forward to your thoughts!
And while I’ve got everybody on the line here, it’s also worth bringing up a couple topics that I never hear any Big Fedi supporters talk about.
What are cis guys who are advocating for a “Big Fedi” (or companies run by guys advocating for “Big Fedi”) doing to ensure that it’s safe for queer people, trans and non-binary people, women — and other marginalized groups? How much funding is going to safety-related organizations or projects that address current safety issues? The ideas in 9 things the Social Web Foundation could do to prioritize safety (if they decide they want to) are relevant for everybody, not just SWF!
Why do you think a primarily opt-out approach to fedi will be bigger? Opt-in is enormously popular — polls in Washington state showed 75%+ support for opt-in consumer privacy legislation. Within fedi, the firestorms in response to various opt-out projects have come primarily from queer people, trans and non-binary people, women, and other marginalized groups … but since that’s the majority of society (and all the moreso if you take allies into account), why not take an approach that centers their preference?
(I realize, and appreciate, that everybody on this thread also sees the value of opt-in approaches. Still, when I look at where your time — and the resources you infuence and/or control — are actually going, it’s to people, projects, and organizations that primarily focus on opt-out)
@snarfed.org
@tchambers @mackuba @markdarb @mmasnick
@mike @hallenbeck @evan @jaz @chrismessina @bnewbold
Agreed: as today’s Fediverse schisms into “Big Fedi” and consent-focused/opt-in regions, I think it’s really critical for Big Fedi folks to think about the structural and governance perspectives. In The Social Web Foundation and the elephant in the federated room I talked about why a multi-polar @socialwebfdn could potentially play a very valuable role here (although not if they have a hostile attitude towards anybody who doesn’t kiss the ActivityPub ring, I should probably update the post to highlight that). But SWF’s certainly not the only key player here, so very much looking forward to your thoughts!
And while I’ve got everybody on the line here, it’s also worth bringing up a couple topics that I never hear any Big Fedi supporters talk about.
What are cis guys who are advocating for a “Big Fedi” (or companies run by guys advocating for “Big Fedi”) doing to ensure that it’s safe for queer people, trans and non-binary people, women — and other marginalized groups? How much funding is going to safety-related organizations or projects that address current safety issues? The ideas in 9 things the Social Web Foundation could do to prioritize safety (if they decide they want to) are relevant for everybody, not just SWF!
Why do you think a primarily opt-out approach to fedi will be bigger? Opt-in is enormously popular — polls in Washington state showed 75%+ support for opt-in consumer privacy legislation. Within fedi, the firestorms in response to various opt-out projects have come primarily from queer people, trans and non-binary people, women, and other marginalized groups … but since that’s the majority of society (and all the moreso if you take allies into account), why not take an approach that centers their preference?
(I realize, and appreciate, that everybody on this thread also sees the value of opt-in approaches. Still, when I look at where your time — and the resources you infuence and/or control — are actually going, it’s to people, projects, and organizations that primarily focus on opt-out)
@snarfed.org
@tchambers @mackuba @markdarb @mmasnick
@mike @hallenbeck @evan @jaz @chrismessina @bnewbold
#fediverse #ActivityPub #lgbtq
#activitypub
#fediverse
#lgbtq
@snarfed.org seems to me that as we inch further along the path to a robust decentralised ecosystem, platform developers need to accept that potential users of their systems have varying needs and desires.
Platforms could take on the role of educating new members at onboarding as part of their platform’s core new account workflow.
There is no single correct answer, but here’s a three-part decision each platform could implement at onboarding to help move the space forward:
1/
@tchambers @mackuba @markdarb @mmasnick @mike @hallenbeck @evan @thenexusofprivacy @jaz @chrismessina @bnewbold
Wrote this up: https://snarfed.org/2024-11-01_53932