this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2025
49 points (98.0% liked)

Fediverse

36317 readers
101 users here now

A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, KBin, etc).

If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to !moderators@lemmy.world!

Rules

Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
ruud@lemmy.world
Xylinna@lemmy.world
MrCenny@lemmy.world
TragicNotCute@lemmy.world
automodbeta@lemmy.world
woelkchen@lemmy.world
49
Should large Fediverse instances and Bluesky encourage, not require, users to opt-in to bridges that connect the Fediverse to Bluesky and other non-fedi social web platforms? (sh.itjust.works)
submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) by Twoafros@sh.itjust.works to c/fediverse@lemmy.world
15 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Bridges like Bridgy-Fed and others can connect Fediverse to interact with Bluesky from their Fediverse account. Bridges are an opt-in which I think its a great thing for privacy. But at the same time, I don't think the majority of Fediverse users who would be interested in using bridges know that they exist.

What I am suggesting is that large Fediverse instances (and Bluesky) encourage and make it easy to use brigdes by having an easy tool to turn on or turn off bridges.

An example situation could be when someone creates an account on mastadon.social, a small pop up shows ups explaining what bridges are in two-three sentences, and has a recommended bridge to use along with a drop down of other options to choose from, and ask it they would like to bridge or not like to bridge.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] kingofras@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

This person codes