Slop.

771 readers

567 users here now

For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.

Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.

Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.

Rule 3: No sectarianism.

Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome

Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.

Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.

Rule 7: Do not individually target federated instances' admins or moderators.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

VILenin@hexbear.net

MiraculousMM@hexbear.net

Hestia@hexbear.net

oscardejarjayes@hexbear.net

Diva@lemmy.ml

Diva@hexbear.net

mathemachristian@hexbear.net

PieFed vs Lemmy. What say you? (lemmy.world)

submitted 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) by LemmySlopSkimmer@hexbear.net to c/slop@hexbear.net

188 comments fedilink hide all child comments

So, it seems like PieFed is becoming a real alternative to lemmy.

What are the differences between these two? From a tech perspective, and also morality/ethics, if you want. Any differences in vision for these services?

Say whatever is on your mind. I want to know.

On which one should we put our weight?

PieFed all the way. It’s developing at lightning speed, while Lemmy lags behind as the transphobic genocide denying devs beg for donations with in built donation begging banners on all Lemmy instances front pages. Instances are apparently scared to defed from .ml for fear the devs wont support them with help.

Rimu has made some interesting choices, such as blocking 196 from default federating posts until a user subs first or a dislike for meme subs. But when spoken to has been receptive and removed such things or made them optional for admins.

Ethically and feature wise PieFed is in the lead, its not perfect but its open to change and receptive to ideas

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] edie@lemmy.encryptionin.space 9 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Which AFAICT incorrect as it is right now. Unless I somehow managed to create a bug where I can reply from one piefed account to another which has the first blocked.

ⓘ This user is suspected of being a cat. Please report any suspicious behavior.

[–] RedWizard@hexbear.net 9 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

You haven't created a bug, and you have it correct. If a Piefed user blocks a remote Piefed user, and that remote Piefed user attempts to reply to them in the UI this is what happens:

UI shows reply button regardless of block status (no template check)
Local routes check in_reply_to.author.has_blocked_user(current_user.id); fails if block known locally.
User blocks are not federated by PieFed, so local instance often unaware
If block unknown locally, reply is created and federated
Remote instance (where block exists) rejects reply via create_post_reply check, may send Delete activity back
Creates "ghost reply" scenario: appears locally but not on remote instance

Piefed has no means of federating blocks. In fact, they have some TODOs to actually implement federated blocks:

No sending code: app/user/routes.py:811 has a TODO comment # federate block with placeholder ellipsis, and app/post/routes.py:1384 has a similar TODO.
Only moderation bans are federated: app/shared/tasks/blocks.py:ban_person sends Block activities exclusively for site/community bans, not user‑to‑user blocks.
Incoming blocks are handled: app/activitypub/routes.py:1520‑1526 processes incoming Mastodon‑style blocks (without a target field) and creates local UserBlock records, but there is no corresponding outgoing federation.

So as it stands now, Lemmy and PieFed experience the exact same thing. I guess Piefed users just don't notice.