Comment on What features are missing from piefed, or, why aren't we reccommending piefed instead of lemmy?
rglullis@communick.news 1 day ago
Personally, because I think all server-centric AP software is broken and I want to see a client-first application to browse the social web/
Piefed goes in the opposite direction, giving more power to the server admins and strongly advocates social engineering / “nudge theory” in its design. Much like Mastodon, it seems to be strongly opinionated about how people should behave and it kinda gives me an icky feeling about its culture.
[PieFed] seems to be strongly opinionated about how people should behave and it kinda gives me an icky feeling about its culture
Yea, I get this same feeling. It’s not that I mind that culture or being mindful of how people behave and such - I just don’t think that is the domain of the software to decide. Individual instances can decide that for themselves, but the software shouldn’t influence that kind of thing, I feel.
If only activitypub c2s didn’t suck.
ActivityPub C2S is not the the solution. It still requires a server and it still keeps the admins in control of everything.
ActivityPods seems to be going in the right direction, though…
Blaze@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
It may be a bit opiniated, but it’s nice to see a different approach from Lemmy devs who don’t see the need for any additional moderation tool.
I brought up mod mail during the AMA, it has been considered too complex to implement. A moderation panel with an overview of the mod queue would be nice too, but not a priority.
I’m not saying Piefed is perfect, but at least they prioritize that aspect.
nutomic@lemmy.ml 20 hours ago
We are working on new moderation features all the time, for example 1.0 will correctly federate instance bans which is quite complicated to get right. There will also be a plugin system which allows for much more flexible mod tools. Its just that our time is very limited for all the work that needs to be done on a project with over 50k active users.
Blaze@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 hours ago
This comment was not supposed to be a huge critique of Lemmy, more like a comparison.
Everybody is aware that you do what you can with the resources you have.
nutomic@lemmy.ml 17 hours ago
Fair enough, its just a bit strange that this particular critique comes up regularly.
rglullis@communick.news 1 day ago
“moderation duties” and “regular participants” in a forum system have such different use cases, it makes no sense to try to make it work with the software itself.
It would be better/faster/easier to simply build a separate tool that can be useful for moderators, instead of trying to shoehorn it in the existing API. But I don’t really think that this is something that really bothers people enough, given that last time I asked if I could get 20 people interested to sponsor the development of the moderation tool, and to this day only one person showed up.
Blaze@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
Piefed built in on their software without a separate tool
rglullis@communick.news 1 day ago
And by doing so, it makes it available only for moderators with accounts on piefed. What is the current TAM? 20 people?
A separate tool could connect to any server federating “Report” activities. What is the current TAM? Any moderator of a group, no matter if their account is on Lemmy/PieFed/PixelFed/Misskey/Mastodon…