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.

[–] airportline@lemmy.zip 11 points 1 month ago (3 children)

I actually still don't understand why one would be in favor of federation but opposed to bridging. In esscence, bridging is just federation.

[–] fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com 4 points 1 month ago

Ok, maybe found a new reason. I'm not sure how the binding arbitration would work going through a bridge.

Without the ability to participate on the Bluesky network without having to create an account with Bluesky (the company), users would have to subject themselves to Bluesky's terms of service, and could have their access to the Bluesky network unilaterally terminated by Bluesky (the company).

...

As things stand, Bluesky has very bad terms of service that every user who creates an account has to subject themselves to. In particular, Bluesky's ToS contain a "binding arbitration" waiver that forces users to surrender the right to sue Bluesky no matter how the company harms them.

Source: https://pluralistic.net/2025/08/15/dogs-breakfast/#by-clicking-this-you-agree-on-behalf-of-your-employer-to-release-me-from-all-obligations-and-waivers-arising-from-any-and-all-NON-NEGOTIATED-agreements

[–] poVoq@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

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

[–] fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Unless I'm misunderstanding: One-way bridging.

That's very different from Federation.

[–] airportline@lemmy.zip 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

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).

[–] thenexusofprivacy@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 month ago

Yep. Ryan (the only BridgyFed dev at the time) really did absorb the feedback and changed direction, and Anuj also gets the importance of consent.

[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 15 points 1 month ago (1 children)

My condolences to them.

[–] airportline@lemmy.zip 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Why?

[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 10 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Not a fan of BlueSky and their proprietary platform

[–] SmokeInFog@midwest.social 15 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

The AT protocol is open, though

[–] HappyFrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

It's not decentralized though. The way it's written requires you to host everything in bluesky along with everything on your own instance to be fully autonomous. That makes it impossible for normal people to host it.

[–] Blisterexe@lemmy.zip -4 points 1 month ago

So is the rest of it lmao

[–] irelephant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 month ago

Bluesky is open source.

[–] A_Chilean_Cyborg@feddit.cl 7 points 1 month ago

Seeing these comments, is true what they say, people want these spaces to be their nerdy little corners, instead of technology made to actually defy big tech LMAO.