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 8 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 8 months ago* (last edited 8 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.