Post An0npwrPuUXbc660WG by Qazm@tiggi.es
 (DIR) More posts by Qazm@tiggi.es
 (DIR) Post #AmyoLibK4dYKL3nUUy by wjmaggos@liberal.city
       2024-10-14T00:10:11Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       I know #BridgyFed exists but can't #bluesky roll out something more official and promote it? AFAIK many fewer users per capita are federating than over at #threads. I don't think they really want to be friends with us. Please prove me wrong @jay.bsky.team. #SocialWeb
       
 (DIR) Post #AmzSnHrT54QVgM38fg by bnewbold@social.coop
       2024-10-14T07:43:19Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @wjmaggos this is a pretty interesting request!one of the big critiques of bsky/atproto is that it is too centralized / single-org. the bridge(s) being independent is nice in some ways, right?I haven't done formal estimates, but my understanding is that AP is resource intensive at scale. it would be pretty hard (compute/servers) to do all the inbox/outbox for, say, millions of accounts on AP side.
       
 (DIR) Post #An0npu44IzsWwSzZK4 by bnewbold@social.coop
       2024-10-14T07:50:33Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @wjmaggos from a policy perspective (not official guidance), I think bsky would probably be fine having a bridge being opt-out vs opt-in, if responsibly done (as bridgy fed has been in general).fedidb says about 36k AT -> AP accounts. our relay says about 25k AP -> AT accounts.I'd be curious about total threads federation numbers.
       
 (DIR) Post #An0npvHZmGHGieJs12 by bnewbold@social.coop
       2024-10-14T07:53:20Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @wjmaggos we got put on a number of AP-side instance blocklists before bridgy fed even existed, and the bridge has been controversial on many instances (including mine!). overall, kind of a spicy situation to wade in to aggressively.we certainly support and encourage bridges, and interop and collaboration generally!
       
 (DIR) Post #An0npwMZl9s44RfNRo by bnewbold@social.coop
       2024-10-14T08:03:23Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @wjmaggos to respond to your earlier request to have it be more obvious to opt-in in the bluesky-developed app: I think i'd probably encourage the bridge to just be opt-out on the AT side? we generally want to encourage projects like the bridge to be opt-out; having an opt-in flow in-app sets an implicit norm and expectation
       
 (DIR) Post #An0npwrPuUXbc660WG by Qazm@tiggi.es
       2024-10-14T22:55:19Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @bnewbold @wjmaggos If I remember correctly, part of the reason Bridgy Fed isn't opt-out on Bluesky currently are concerns about performance/throughput of the bridge itself (not of the protocols).
       
 (DIR) Post #An0npxcv3sXRzQJwYq by wjmaggos@liberal.city
       2024-10-14T23:13:47Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @Qazm @bnewbold opt-in was primarily a compromise with the "safety first" culture that dominates fedi (even tho we've always been opt-out). it wasn't about performance at all. I think it's mostly the same with threads but more due to corporate PR concerns. people don't think of the web as open anymore sadly.bluesky should bear the cost, not the #bridgyfed developer. they could also do a much better job than the rest of us with promotion cause they still are so centralized.