Post #4357116

2026-08-03 14:39 UTC

@riverpunk@defcon.social @pixelschubsi@troet.cafe @giacomo @akareilly@hachyderm.io Two things: Bridges don't guarantee identity portability. That's important for anything that's a communication channel.Bridges come with privacy concerns. A bridge between service A and B means that the privacy is as weak as the lower privacy of A and B. That's also the case if A and B are federated instances of the same service, which is why federation is great for public channels (E.g. ActivityPub) and awkward for private ones (e.g. messenger protocols).

Replies (1)

@riverpunk@defcon.social 2026-08-03 15:10

@david_chisnall@infosec.exchange I agree with all of this. I guess really what I'm trying to say here is that bridges as a simple idea are probably where we should be leading when explaining the Social Web to people. Complexity arises down the road (mostly only if you're developing the thing or analyzing its technical merit), but "bridges" helps people get a rough gauge on the idea, and begin to ask more questions after that. I fear that starting with "protocols" and "federation" has the effect of scaring away everyone except the technically inclined. @pixelschubsi@troet.cafe @giacomo @akareilly@hachyderm.io

Open ##4358525