David CarrollJun 9, 2023
in a weird way i think the existence of Bluesky suddenly made Mastodon better I can’t explain it and now it might be time for Mastodon to make Bluesky better; pre-cross-federated social is gonna be a ride; and then cross-federation; whooosh
Show threadMastodon MigrationJun 9, 2023

@profcarroll Bridging content to Bluesky without consent violates users copyright to their content because Bluesky extracts a broad license to all content posted on their platform and transfered over their protocol. Bridge builders do not have the right to grant these wholesale licenses, so any such bridge is illegal. Just because you can technically do something does not make it legal or ethical.

#DataProtection

Show threadMastodon MigrationJun 9, 2023

@profcarroll Such bridges also violate Bluesky ToS which requires the poster to assert they have the legal right to post the content, since they don't.

#DataProtection

Show threadRyan BarrettJun 9, 2023
(Note the critical difference between federation and cross-posting here. If you cross-post something from network A to network B, whether manual or automated via bridge, you need to explicitly create an account on B and post to it. With federation – bridged or otherwise – someone on B can see your posts on A directly, without anyone ever explicitly posting them to B.)
Mastodon Migration (@[email protected])

@[email protected] Such bridges also violate Bluesky ToS which requires the poster to assert they have the legal right to post the content, since they don't. #DataProtection

Mastodon
Show threadMastodon MigrationJun 9, 2023
@snarfed.org Right, if you give consent that is fine. You are authorizing the license. The problem is with a bridge that scoops up everything without consent or authorization from the content owner and moves it to someplace that extracts a license from the content owner.
Show threadRyan BarrettJun 9, 2023
Understood. I guess I’m still struggling to see the difference between federating to a fediverse instance you don’t authorize or consent to vs a non-fediverse instance you don’t authorize/consent to. (Other than pure technical protocol, of course.)

Eg, you may be right that _most_ fedi instances don’t have ToSes, and most people are ok with their content getting federated to them, but it only takes one "bad" instance, regardless of protocol.

Mastodon Migration (@[email protected])

@[email protected] Right, if you give consent that is fine. You are authorizing the license. The problem is with a bridge that scoops up everything without consent or authorization from the content owner and moves it to someplace that extracts a license from the content owner.

Mastodon
Show threadMastodon MigrationJun 9, 2023
@snarfed.org Because you do authorize the your instance to display content on other Fediverse servers by virtue if the Privacy Policy. What you don't agree to is having someone pick up your content and license it to some corporate entity permitting them to monetize your content.
Show threadMastodon Migration
@snarfed.org Let's try this a different way. What if Bluesky announced they had developed and were opening a bridge to all Twitter content and implicitly now had a license to everything posted on Twitter by virtue of the fact it was now on their platform. You see how absurd that would be. Functionally no different however what is being discussed here bridging Fediverse content.
Jun 9, 2023 at 2:41pmWeb