There are some disabled by default, filters built into piefed. That the main Dev uses on their instance. It’s not really even remotely the same thing or as controversial. But it’s the closest thing piefed has and gets brought up regularly because of it.
Zangoose@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Honestly I would consider hardcoded shadowbanning just as bad.
Just because I’m closer to agreeing with the PieFed dev’s opinions a little bit more doesn’t mean that I’d support shadow banning someone because the trivially-evaded checks caught a false positive in the crossfire. Piefed’s auto moderation/social scoring is pretty much textbook definition security-by-obscurity. The second anyone knows how it works, it’s useless. It will pretty much exclusively catch people who just wanted to post a harmless meme or something.
At least (for now) Dessalines isn’t hardcoding his tankie beliefs into Lemmy’s source code.
Blaze@piefed.zip 16 hours ago
Piefed doesn’t shadowban:
https://lemmy.zip/post/58102975/24342240
Zangoose@lemmy.world 6 hours ago
Thanks for clarifying, I guess I misremembered the shadowbanning part. I think I was mixing together the fact that reputation isn’t really transparent (users’ reputation can change by even attempting to upload an image that gets flagged, and the vague error means they’ll probably try multiple times without realizing they’re being moderated) and the fact the communities can autoban any user whose global reputation is low enough.
I still think the security-by-obscurity approach to moderation is inherently flawed though, and I hate to imagine how the dev approaches actual account security if that’s their approach to moderation.
Blaze@piefed.zip 5 hours ago
The code is open source. Nothing is obscured. The main objective is to identify trolls and toxic users who won’t bother looking at the code.
It’s not a silver bullet, it’s just supposed to grab the low hanging fruit, but it’s fine for me