Comment

Comment on PieFed 1.4 is released - emoji, federated stackoverflow and AI content filters

We are talking past each other by now…

Well, sure. But it’s still less of an ‘exposure’ so to speak, than a vote federating out.

My point, in one sentence: it’s not up to the developers of a project building on ActivityPub to define policy regarding “exposure”.

ActivityPub is a protocol for public social networks. It’s not about private communications. Anyone looking for privacy should be told that and instructed to not post publicly.

It’s as simple as that. If the developers of PieFed do not understand the basic principle of “use the right tool for the job” and keep trying replicate anti-features from centralized websites (such as the fake-privacy that is provided by closed networks), then I will have no trust on their ability to design a good ActivityPub system.

You are in a vast minority. Most people are keen to see it go further and move subscribers too.

This is a good example of selection bias. You are getting most of your feedback from other PieFed users, who clearly are not aware of the implications of such implementation.

I said the lemmy-federate functions should instead be opt-in, and you still seemed to oppose it.

Yes, I am opposed to any functionality being added to the server when it can be solved at the client. Content discovered can be done by the client and using a separate service like Fediverser, fedidb, or anything else. It makes no sense to have this built-in into the ActivityPub server. It is one of the many examples where the piefed devs are adding a feature because they can without thinking whether they should.

source

Sort:hotnew top

Skavau@piefed.social ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

My point, in one sentence: it’s not up to the developers of a project building on ActivityPub to define policy regarding “exposure”.

As someone who actually opposed the initial implemention of Piefed’s voting being made non-public to non-instance admins (as much as possible) to other users, I completely disagree. Some people don’t like it and don’t want their votes to be easily accessible to the wider fediverse. The only way that can be implemented currently is by removing federation. Rimu serves that.

This is a good example of *selection bias*. You are getting *most* of your feedback from *other PieFed users*, who clearly are not aware of the implications of such implementation.

No, I’ve seen this opinion from others. It’s also a wider criticism of the viability of the fediverse long-term in that communities are only as long as their hosted instance. This does a lot to mitigate that.

Yes, I am opposed to any functionality being added to the server when it can be solved at the client. Content discovered can be done by the client and using a separate service like Fediverser, fedidb, or anything else. It makes no sense to have this built-in into the ActivityPub server. It is one of the many examples where the piefed devs are adding a feature because they can without thinking whether they should.

Can you tell me exactly what harm this does to the mythical ActivityPub, beyond an instance owner toggling it on in ignorance to their own detriment.

source
- rglullis@communick.news ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
  
  Some people don’t like it and don’t want their votes to be easily accessible to the wider fediverse.
  
  Then why restrict this logic to “like/dislike” activities, and not extend to any type of activity?
  
  It’s also a wider criticism of the viability of the fediverse long-term in that communities are only as long as their hosted instance. This does a lot to mitigate that.
  
  A mitigation is not a proper solution, even less so when it violates other principles in distributed systems.
  
  Can you tell me exactly what harm this does to the mythical ActivityPub.
  
  The harm itself will be for the instance admin later on. Still, the larger point is this solution is a work-around but does not bring any meaningful benefit for others in the Fediverse.
  
  To be honest, though: I don’t know what we are arguing about here. I’ve already said it: I am not here to gate-keep anything. If this the way that the PieFed developers want to do their thing, more power to them. But it’s like you expect me some kind of approval from me. You don’t need that. I may not like 90% of things that Rimu and others are doing, but they don’t owe me anything.
  
  source
  - Skavau@piefed.social ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
    
    Then why restrict this logic to “like/dislike” activities, and not extend to any type of activity?
    
    Some communities are also, or can be set to local only. What other activities do you have in mind?
    
    A mitigation is not a proper solution, even less so when it violates other principles in distributed systems.
    
    So far as I can see, that’s up to the collective fediverse population. You done a poll on this?
    
    The harm itself will be for the instance admin later on. Still, the larger point is this solution is a workaround that does not bring any meaningful benefit for others in the Fediverse.
    
    It’s not supposed to in this context. It’s for an instance admin who wants to populate the content of their own instance. Although it could be beneficial if it’s an instance for others that is not personal in scope and is supposed to be a wide-use instance.
    
    source
    rglullis@communick.news ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
    
    What other activities do you have in mind?
    
    Any and all of them? What is so special about as:like and as:dislike? There is nothing on ActivityPub preventing users to create posts or announce activities for a different target audience.
    
    You done a poll on this?
    
    This is tyranny of the majority. If one person is out there saying “I don’t want to have the data I’ve posted on server A to be presented as if I posted on server B”, then this person will be right to complain if they see their requests being respected.
    
    (And before someone comes up and points fingers at me saying that Fediverser was also copying user posts without their consent: it’s true that the bots were recreating the posts and comments, but they were publishing information on the Fediverse with “actor ids” from Reddit. There is a subtle, but important difference)
    
    Anyway, can we move on from this conversation, please? I am not going to change your mind about it and I don’t want to re-hash past discussions. I’m also not particularly interested in any of the current server-centric Fediverse projects, so you will have a hard time convincing me that anything being done on PieFed is worthy of praise.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments