I have so far seen no compelling arguments for why a bridge is fundamentally different from any other instance, and instance federation is opt-out by design.
If an instance is too big, block it. If it’s too unmoderated, block it. If you don’t approve of its implementation, block it. If you don’t like it, block it.
It’s pretty core to how the Fediverse works.
No one opted-in to interact with abyssdomain.expert.
Also, harassment-enforced consent is a poor substitute for actual security and privacy controls.
Even if you don’t care about how it impacts its targets, it doesn’t work on anyone operating fully in bad faith.
This is the only place I know where it’s acceptable to tell users they have protections that are not actually enforceable. If a company did it we would call it false sense of security.
@filippo "harassment-enforced consent", if that's what we're calling "setting boundaries" now, is the only option we have here *because* there are no effective technical controls, and it is not clear that there *can* be effective controls against bad actors with sufficient bags of money.
If that is something you take issue with, and justifiedly so, I would suggest spending that energy on finding and proposing technical protections, rather than lamenting the fact that people set boundaries
@filippo And to be clear, boundaries that people set do not actually *need* to satisfy technical or logical requirements of correctness or consistency to be valid in the first place