Skip to main content


If you run a bridge which shares my posts with other social networks and sites, you agree to pay me £1000* for each instance of each post that you bridge.

I’ve made it opt-out - just configure your system not to bridge my posts.

It’s fine to have paying me as the default, you see, as you can opt out if you wish.

Edit: I’ve had some feedback, and I’ll be considering supporting different ways for you to pay me.

* £975 if you put #MyFriendBillyHasATwoFootWilly in your profile.

This entry was edited (2 months ago)
in reply to Neil Brown

genuine question -- isn't the whole point of federation to have your posts shared across networks?
This entry was edited (2 months ago)
Unknown parent

Tattooed Mummy
I'll work on a poem
in reply to Neil Brown

shares my posts with other social networks and sites

Friendica nodes are protocol versatile and in effect act as bridges.

If a node admin has enabled multiple protocols, than by default users quoting share your posts may distribute them across a range of networks that use federated and unfederated protocols.

@Neil Brown

in reply to Neil Brown

I guess collecting the money will be significantly more expensive than 1000 pounds in terms of time & effort.

You should probably raise prices...

Unknown parent

Andy H3

@Neil Brown
Happy days! 🎉

I must have run up quite a bill 😲, sharing some of your posts with my contacts across the Friendica and diaspora* networks.

Unknown parent

Martin Seeger
If I had known that Mr Snuggles deserves a cut too, I would recommend to change it at least one order of magnitude upwards ...
in reply to Neil Brown

whilst I totally appreciate the point you are making…

I have to ponder legality, or more to the point the extent to which copyright law is rather ill equipped for a lot of things these days…

A post will be “copied” a lot, and that is the intent of “publishing” using this protocol.

But there is no reason, I assume, one cannot put conditions of doing so, and even charges, much like an EULA, even if “usually free”.

But copyright law is badly suited for digital age.

Neil Brown reshared this.

in reply to Neil Brown

Do you announce all your de-fed decisions like this? What is the objective difference between a bridge and any other federated server (e.g. a Misskey instance) that grabs your toot and makes it available to another audience?
in reply to Neil Brown

We haven't heard anything from people running Matrix servers yet!
Unknown parent

Strypey

> I haven't defederated with anyone today

Great news. But I'm also curious about the answer to @alyn's question;

> What is the objective difference between a bridge and any other federated server (e.g. a Misskey instance) that grabs your toot and makes it available to another audience?

Maybe this is your point, and you're referencing drama elsewhere in the verse. If so, link(s) for context please?

@Alyn
in reply to Neil Brown

Don't want your posts to be shared, don't send them out into the system.
in reply to Alper Çuğun-Gscheidel

It should be possible to selectively block certain nodes.

Many nodes are blocking *threads.net which means that they will neither accepts posts from this network nor push own posts over there.

@Alper Çuğun-Gscheidel @Neil Brown

in reply to Neil Brown

did you just adapt DMCA takedown trolling for the fediverse?

Neil Brown reshared this.

in reply to Neil Brown

With other social networks... the question is would the Fediverse count as the "same" social network and therefore except from this...
in reply to Neil Brown

I don't see why a centralised gatekeeper.. why not something admins can install on their own server or not. Then it's down to local policies to deal with. The way they did it becomes a single point of failure.

I'm not against following things on bluesky and reciprocating by having them follow me but I'm leery of that depending on a single instance being up that could start charging once people depend on it.. and nobody has the right to make that choice for others.

in reply to Neil Brown

By reading this you agree to pay EUR 10000 to me, effective immediately. You can opt out freely unless you have read any parts of this message.

@algernon

Neil Brown reshared this.

in reply to grin

@grin @algernon
Ticket case!
(Civil law jurisdictions also have analogous provisions on prior notice of conditions required to obtain consensus in idem)
in reply to HighlandLawyer

@HighlandLawyer
Some "if you open this you agree" types of agreements make it impossible to get know the exact subject of the contract before the agreement. Funny stuff.

I haven't even considered real legal aspects of neither this nor the original, it would be a rather lengthy discussion of "why not".

@neil @algernon

Unknown parent

Strypey

> It's a play on the Sony rootkit meme from years ago

I got the general gist. What I was and am still unclear on is whether you're in favour of bridging, and satirising its opponents, or making a statement against bridging.

@alyn

@Alyn
in reply to Neil Brown

you're very reasonable to accept money instead of "you agree to send me your CEOs head on a silver platter"
Unknown parent

HighlandLawyer
@grin @algernon Ah, law student memories of the era where (a) software contained unacceptable terms & conditions inside its shrinkwrap box, and (b) shops refused to accept returns of software if the shrinkwrap seal was broken...