anarchiddy
@anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- Comment on Piefed admin settings that allow to enable or disable content filters (they are disabled by default, see body for details) 6 days ago:
Have Lemmy mods approached Rimu at all?
He chose to fork his own code rather than work with them - I think the better question is why he hasnt vetted his changes with the existing codebase better, or why he cant be bothered.
- Comment on Piefed admin settings that allow to enable or disable content filters (they are disabled by default, see body for details) 6 days ago:
It is what it is. Mbin also existed before Piefed.
Mbin isn’t nearly as egregious as piefed in the way they introduce breaking changes to the network.
You’re assuming some hand has been offered that has been slapped away by Rimu
I’m not assuming anything, it’s been stated repeatedly. Rimu could implement his preferred features in ways that don’t degrade the health of the network but chooses not to.
you know as well as I do three instances of note are heavy defederated (hilariouschaos being the third incase you were wondering)
I’m not sure what relevance that has, but you can count those instances on a hand missing two fingers (i’d note that dbzer0 does not defederate from 2 of the three that I assume you’re referring to, nor would I advocate for it). It would be interesting for someone to map out just how much of the fediverse is effectively being defederated for piefed servers with large user block lists - i imagine it’s quite a large chunk, especially when the most popular users to block are the ones producing the most activity. The larger those servers grow, the bigger those holes will become.
- Comment on Piefed admin settings that allow to enable or disable content filters (they are disabled by default, see body for details) 6 days ago:
If a hypothetical lemmy-alternative existed, regardless of why, it could still cause disruption in all kinds of ways if there’s a fundamental design contradiction ethos
Which is why it’s important for users to reject attempts at splitting the network into different codebases in the firstplace.
That piefed and many of its users reject working with lemmy devs on principle over political grievance doesn’t change or justify the fact that they are destroying the democratic nature of the federated network they’re taking advantage of.
This doesn’t bother me that much primarily because defederation differences can cause this anyway
Which is why defederation is a last resort and usually requires some democratic discussion as an instance. Same with instance-banning users - that ability is limited to admins, which means users can hold them accountable if there’s abuse. It’s a reason why i consider users who go out of their way to foment division against other instances or users over petty disagreements are caustic and unwelcome, but are at least still working within a decentralized and democratic framework. When any user has the ability to create the same kind of holes in the network, all accountability vanishes and it starts to look like swiss-cheese.
- Comment on Piefed admin settings that allow to enable or disable content filters (they are disabled by default, see body for details) 6 days ago:
How could Piefed make this disparity of blocking philosophy mesh with Lemmys here?
Without forcing every server to adopt the same blocking system universally? It can’t. What it’s doing now is functionally no different than if they hid replies on the user front end for users blocking others outside the home instance, except instead of doing this non-destructively (and preserving data pairety across instances), they’ve decided to blow huge holes in the federation service that are no longer mirrored on the other instances.
If the piefed method of handling blocking is to make it impossible for all users in every instance incapable of replying to a user who has blocked them, then every server would need to adopt the same method universally. Piefed has every right to hide content from their users that their users have chosen to block, but doing so by rejecting that content for the whole server while the rest of the network carries on ends up creating shadow forums on every instance.
rimu may still have made his own reddit clone or someone else may have - which would handle things very differently
That would be preferable to the ‘embrace, extend, extinguish’ path that they are currently on.
- Comment on Piefed admin settings that allow to enable or disable content filters (they are disabled by default, see body for details) 6 days ago:
It doesn’t. On Piefed […] But Lemmy obviously doesn’t work like that.
Yes, that’s exactly what i’m pointing to. Rather than implementing this in a way that’s non-destructive and transparent, they’ve created an asymmetry by dropping comments entirely. They could render comments based on block-checks and not create this problem, but instead they chose to say ‘fuck the lemmy instances’ and create hundreds of holes in the federated activity out of seemingly nothing but spite.
What do you mean “made clear”? Has Piefed refused help or support from other developers?
Not “other developers” generally, “the other developers”. I’m speaking specifically of the already existing lemmy codebase. Piefed was created as an alternative to lemmy - at least in part - because of disagreements over the developer’s political views. It wasn’t because lemmy was poorly written, it was because a couple of developers decided they wanted to fork the project into their own that they could manage independently from lemmy.
- Comment on Piefed admin settings that allow to enable or disable content filters (they are disabled by default, see body for details) 6 days ago:
Yea, see this is what I mean by ‘petty vindictive development’.
None of this speaks well of the project and risks undermining the entire federated network.
- Comment on Piefed admin settings that allow to enable or disable content filters (they are disabled by default, see body for details) 6 days ago:
The Piefed system of blocking is more aligned with how most other sites do blocking
I don’t know any other site that allows blocked users to reply to the blocking user but deletes the reply on the backend server for everyone on it.
But regardless - that decision was made unilaterally by piefed and corrupts the federation of the rest of the network. Huge holes of mis-matched comment threads are being created everywhere because piefed chose to implement a destructive blocking system rather than a front-end filter, or by working with the other implementations on a solution that doesn’t misalign data across the network.
I understand that you agree with how piefed restricts certain content - my point is that the way piefed has implemented those features corrupts the integrity of the entire network. They’ve made it clear that they have no interest in collaborating with the other developers, even if it means creating incompatibilities between the integrations to the point of functional defederation.
“Move fast and break stuff” isn’t something anyone should be aspiring to.
- Comment on Piefed admin settings that allow to enable or disable content filters (they are disabled by default, see body for details) 6 days ago:
I’m not collaborating with a developer who has it out for the platform I’m working to improve. If he wants to fix the shit he broke, he can.
- Comment on Piefed admin settings that allow to enable or disable content filters (they are disabled by default, see body for details) 6 days ago:
That’s admin and community dependent - an admin or community can take that reputation metric and use it to automate moderation. There is/was an entire community whose whole gimmick was auto-banning users from every instance for activity across the entire federated network. But beyond that, piefed already drops content instance-wide for as little as a single user blocking another.
if parent_comment.author.has_blocked_user(user.id) or parent_comment.author.has_blocked_instance(user.instance_id): log_incoming_ap(id, APLOG_CREATE, APLOG_FAILURE, saved_json, ‘Parent comment author blocked replier’) return NoneThe codebase is riddled with shit like this.
- Comment on Piefed admin settings that allow to enable or disable content filters (they are disabled by default, see body for details) 6 days ago:
I mean, I disagree, but that’s my own preference.
Ranking/sorting/filtering systems should always be up-front and user-configurable, and their implementation should be instance-agnostic. Hiding it in the code is definitely the worst part of this, but far from the only problem.
- Comment on Piefed admin settings that allow to enable or disable content filters (they are disabled by default, see body for details) 6 days ago:
Is there any indication to users interacting with those instances that their content is being limited by metrics that may or may not be visible to them, and by rules that may or may not be documented anywhere but the piefed codebase?
These are wildly hostile features to anyone not using piefed, and it’s feeling a bit like that’s the point.
- Comment on Piefed admin settings that allow to enable or disable content filters (they are disabled by default, see body for details) 6 days ago:
There’s nothing in the code that I can see that indicates that any of the penalties are undone by turning off the filter - but that’s kind of the point. They’ve introduced a new metric that thumbs the scale of content visibility that’s hard-coded and inscrutable to everyone but those with knowledge of the codebase, and that makes the entire project and the devs who made those choices un-trustable.
Is there a version of their reputation system that’s less objectionable? Sure. But it would need to be exceedingly transparent with clear documentation on how to configure, alter, and revert if there’s a mistake made. But there’s nothing here that indicates the devs of piefed are willing or capable of transparency or even just clear documentation.
- Comment on Piefed admin settings that allow to enable or disable content filters (they are disabled by default, see body for details) 6 days ago:
This is like hiding changes in a 500 page TOS - is everyone who is impacted by this code going to know to look at this thread any time a new way of fucking with user reputation calcs is introduced?
Absolutely not.
- Comment on Piefed admin settings that allow to enable or disable content filters (they are disabled by default, see body for details) 6 days ago:
That isn’t true - the comment filters also dock users reputation points, and without any notification to users that it’s happening.
None of this is presented to users - that’s the definition of opaque. They’ve shoehorned these features into their code without any notice to other users or instance admins, and have provided no way of notifying anyone of what is happening on the backside that might effect how content is handled or federated.
All of this irreparably injures the reputation of not just the piefed implementation but of the broader fediverse.
- Comment on Piefed admin settings that allow to enable or disable content filters (they are disabled by default, see body for details) 1 week ago:
It’s one thing to empower admins with mod tools, it’s another to establish reputation ratings based on opaque rules, hide them behind fake error messages, and then enforce them using destructive workarounds that cause nothing but confusion.
Go ahead, be restrictive with who can participate on your server - that’s perfectly fine. But be transparent about how your moderation tools work and don’t hide punitive ranking systems in your codebase.
It certainly makes it seem like the devs have an axe to grind, and don’t care how their careless decisions effect the rest of the network.
- Comment on Piefed admin settings that allow to enable or disable content filters (they are disabled by default, see body for details) 1 week ago:
It’s as if someone saw a federated social media codebase that enabled the free movement of users and expression online and though, “someone should fix that”.
It isnt that the codebase ‘forces’ moderation decisions - it’s that it’s undoing the work done in the lemmy codebase to flatten moderation across instances and make them transparent, and introducing arbitrary metrics that can be used to limit the visibility of expression not just on the local instance but across many
You’re free to use whatever software on your server you like, but IMO these ‘filters’ are petty, low-effort workarounds to features in the lemmy codebase that are what make it truely democraticand decentralized, and they degrade the health of the entire federated network by extension.
- Comment on Inside ICE’s Tool to Monitor Phones in Entire Neighborhoods 4 weeks ago:
Pretty sure someone was able to pose as PI and get paid access a while ago.
Darkness Diaries had an episode on it
- Comment on Inside ICE’s Tool to Monitor Phones in Entire Neighborhoods 4 weeks ago:
Important to note that it isnt just ads. Any app on your phone with location permission can share it, including some OEM aps qnd bloatware depending on the phone.
If you dont want to be seen, dont take your phone. About the only reasonable way to be sure your data isnt being collected is to not create the data in the first place.
Stay safe out there.
- Comment on 3D Printed Origami 4 weeks ago:
I’m geeking out about this - time to get weirdly into origami
- Comment on Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 loses Game of the Year from the Indie Game Awards 1 month ago:
“They lied” implies intent to deceive.
- Comment on Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 loses Game of the Year from the Indie Game Awards 1 month ago:
I’m still not arguing against their disqualification, I’m saying people need to lay off the sauce - it’s not hard to imagine how this could have been accidental and not malicious.
We don’t need to torch an effigy every time a studio mentions AI in an interview.
- Comment on Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 loses Game of the Year from the Indie Game Awards 1 month ago:
Still, there’s a lot of room there for some grace. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to strip them of the award, but the level of outrage I’m seeing in this thread and elsewhere isn’t proportionate to the offense.
People really need to chill with this.
- Comment on Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 loses Game of the Year from the Indie Game Awards 1 month ago:
People keep saying the problem ‘wasnt that they used AI placeholder assets, it’s that they lied on the disclosure’, but boy does that still seem like a reach
When you have dozens of people working on a huge creative project, it would take an almost omniscient creative director to know where every asset in every scene came from with certainty. It isn’t hard to imagine a designer somewhere on the team sneaking an AI asset into a pre-release build and forgetting about it. The fact that it was later disclosed suggests that whoever was applying for the award wasn’t aware of that asset being used and then replaced at the time of submission.
I dont mind having some awards dedicated to genAI-free works, but people really need to stop getting their pitchforks out at every mention, otherwise they risk turning into a lynch mob. This doesnt sound like an intentional omission to me.
- Comment on Finally, Common Ground... 1 month ago:
China has many more socialized services and their income level is far less indicative of overall quality of life
It has honestly been a long time since I heard someone in the west suggest the chinese economy is struggling at all - i thought maybe something meaningful had happened in the last week or something that changed that picture
- Comment on Capitalism isn't the problem, THIS is the problem, and I've watched it roll over us for 40 years. [3 min. video] 1 month ago:
“Capitalism isn’t the problem, THIS is”
* points to the main thing capitalism does *
- Comment on Hi, I am TotallyNotForeignNational and only have the best interests of america in mind. You can trust me because this is reddit, not xitter, and I say good things about the American president. 2 months ago:
Oh my god they’re actually doing the south park bit
- Comment on US | Survivors on ‘narco boat’ targeted by Trump order were blown apart after Hegseth verbal command to ‘kill everybody’: Report 2 months ago:
identical morally
I think you are reading a different comment.
- Comment on Valve Addresses Steam Machine Anti-Cheat Concerns, Says It's Working Towards Support 2 months ago:
I consider it to be a function of when I grew up with video games and how my family restricted them broadly, but I have honestly never understood the appeal of competitive online games that require intense anti-cheat controls.
I grew up playing largely single player games, and the few online games I payed were limited to ones I played in private lobbies with friends i knew.
Any game that requires this level of policing for competitive play is an instant turn off for me. I realize I’m in the minority here, but I have no problem with a console that doesn’t support kernel level anticheat- to the contrary i find it to be a huge advantage
- Comment on Governor Newsom signs bills to further strengthen California’s leadership in protecting children online 2 months ago:
Why do people keep sharing this as if it’s an achievement?
Newsom and his tech donors can go get fucked.
- Comment on Nice try 4 months ago:
IMO this shitpost id bordering on parody, but dont let me be a killjoy
