Going out on a limb, but the for profit corporation being able to suck up your posts is probably what has many upset. I personally would block such a service as I don't see these for-profit corporations as part of the fediverse, but as leeches out to Extend, Embrace, Extinguish.

[–] drmoose@lemmy.world 34 points 9 months ago (1 children)

but open data is an objectively good thing. This means anyone can suck up the data and build something instead of just Meta and X and people who pay millions of dollars to access that. Let everyone suck!

[–] TimLovesTech@badatbeing.social -2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Open yes, but Bluesky is not open, they are after free content to make the corporate investors a return at all costs. If a non-profit wants to use my server to add content to their platform, I have no issue with that. But a for-profit can pay me for content if they want it, I don't work for them or use their platform.

[–] drmoose@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

Open data as in publicly accessible without a login gate. Bluesky though does have this stupid login wall option but it can be bypassed very easily so it's still open.

I do agree with you about how Bluesky is still a for-profit American corporation and nothing free or selfless ever came from one so it shouldn't be trusted implicitly.

[–] dsemy@lemm.ee 28 points 9 months ago (1 children)

This argument makes no sense. Everything you post is already public.

[–] TimLovesTech@badatbeing.social 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The same argument could be used for copyright itself, and why we have non-commercial licenses for things. Just because you are giving something away as free (as in beer), doesn't mean that some for-profit should be able to just use it to drive up their user base and make the corp more money. I think content creators, or at the very least in the fediverse - server owners, should be able to limit what corporations can suck up to further corporate profits at the expense of the fediverse.

If you want to run a server and donate your resources to make a for-profit corp money, that is your right, but to tell everyone that they should have no control of their content is unacceptable to me.

[–] dsemy@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

You can't stop them from sucking up your data as long as your posts are public.

Even if it was made illegal, how would you even know they're doing it? It's not like these companies are afraid of breaking the law, they'll just get a small fine if they get caught anyway.

Mainstream social media sites and apps collect an extreme amount of data for the companies running them. For this reason, you are already far better off using alternative like Lemmy or Mastodon. But don't be delusional, you can't expect privacy when you make public posts.

I don't disagree that it would be a good thing if you could limit what these corps can suck up, it just doesn't really seem possible.

[–] TimLovesTech@badatbeing.social 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I don't think the argument is even about privacy, but giving away someone else's (or in this case potentially a whole network of people's content), and admins resources in order to drive some corporate profits they aren't even getting a share of. If someone needs to chat with someone on Bluesky that bad then they should just make an account, not undermine a whole network so they can be lazy.

[–] dsemy@lemm.ee 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Following that logic, if someone on Lemmy needs to chat with someone on Mastodon that bad they should just make an account.

Calling someone lazy for building and running a service which bridges between different protocols is both dumb and rude.

[–] TimLovesTech@badatbeing.social 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Mastodon is part of the fediverse though, and is open and a nonprofit. Bluesky is neither of those things, and that is why it's different.

And giving the resources from a free and open network to a for-profit corporation is both dumb and rude IMHO.

[–] dsemy@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Do some research before you make incorrect claims.

AT (the protocol used by Bluesky) is an open protocol with an open reference implementation.

AT supports federation (and with this bridge could be made part of the fediverse).

Bluesky itself is also open, and while the company is for-profit that doesn't change anything for people running their own Bluesky servers.

I'll say it again - you're not giving them anything they aren't already able to (legally) acquire.

[–] wise_pancake@lemmy.ca 19 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I can absolutely understand that sentiment, but that's not quite how the bridge works.

I've chosen to put my content on mastodon, and my friend prefers bluesky. The bridge just shares content across so now we can interact.

I think that's better than mastodon and bluesky each cutting off their bosses to spite their own faces. Fragmenting the between is why X didn't die a much deserved death after Elon Musk bought it.

[–] drmoose@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Tbh X is not the real enemy here imo. The bigger danger is losing the open protocol battle to something proprietary and both Meta and Bluesky are very shady with their intentions.

[–] Carighan@lemmy.world 11 points 9 months ago

Tbh X is not the real enemy here imo.

Eh, X and Musk are always the enemy. I get what you're saying, but ultimately it's important to keep in mind that the underlying impetus is still Musk being a far-right bigot that has bought X to explicitly make it a haven for fascists, bigots and haters.

[–] wise_pancake@lemmy.ca 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I kind of agree, Meta's take of pulling content but no contributing back is clearly bad for the platform, but I don't see Bluesky as being shady, though I haven't followed what they do.

I thought the whole point of federation was the open standard allows anyone to be on the same standing as the larger corporations, so from that perspective I think it only works if you also allow large companies to participate.

[–] drmoose@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Bluesky is a for-profit company. There's zero precedence of a for-profit developing an open protocol AFAIK. I'd love to be proven wrong but I'm not optimistic to say the least.

[–] wise_pancake@lemmy.ca 4 points 9 months ago

I'm sure there are, a lot of the internet developed that way.

TBH I don't know much about Bluesky, except that it's a Twitter one with it's own federation protocol, and I don't get what the value of any project adopting their protocol over activity pub is.

[–] gnuplusmatt@reddthat.com 18 points 9 months ago (1 children)

profit corporation being able to suck up your posts

anyone can spin up a server and federate, anyone can suck up your data, corporations, governments or unknowns

[–] TimLovesTech@badatbeing.social 1 points 9 months ago

Yes, but consuming data and using someone else's data for profit are 2 different things. Don't believe me, start reposting a large news websites data verbatim with AdSense on it and see how quickly the cease and desist comes.

[–] Carighan@lemmy.world 16 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

If we're allowed to - and happily do - copy over content from for-profit websites with bots, it feels a bit weird to then get angry about that happening in reverse, no?

Plus, oh no, interoperability. We get to just interact with people instead of everyone sitting in their respective walled gardens.

[–] lambalicious@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 9 months ago

If we’re allowed to - and happily do - copy over content from for-profit websites with bots, it feels a bit weird to then get angry about that happening in reverse, no?

Not at all. It's a matter of asynchronous power play.

We can do the former as a fight against power, but we have to fight for it. When they do it to us, it's "just business" and we have no defense.

[–] FaceDeer@kbin.social 13 points 9 months ago

Plenty of for-profit companies use open protocols and don't harm them in the slightest.

Almost any website you visit, for example.

[–] 0x1C3B00DA@fedia.io 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

for profit corporation being able to suck up your posts is probably what has many upset

They can already do that without a bridge. And it doesn't "suck up your posts". It works just like any other instance. They have to search for you and follow you. Then they receive posts going forward, but they won't get historical posts.

I personally would block such a service

Good! You can do that and that is a perfectly reasonable solution. That's part of what has ppl upset on the other side of this argument. All of this arguing and vitriol is happening over a service that you can block like any other fediverse actor.

[–] TimLovesTech@badatbeing.social 1 points 9 months ago

What has people upset is that the "service" is opt-out instead of opt-in, and one someone else is making for server admins without warning. If this person wanted to run a server and give their own content to the corporate overlords that is their choice, but making something to give others content away without their consent doesn't sit well with a lot of people.