PieFed Meta

4772 readers

55 users here now

Discuss PieFed project direction, provide feedback, ask questions, suggest improvements, and engage in conversations related to the platform organization, policies, features, and community dynamics.

Wiki

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

rimu@piefed.social

Okay, maybe I'm missing something? But it seems like the recent backlash upon our dev trying out caps upon our votes is just... WTF!? (piefed.social)

submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by JohnnyEnzyme@piefed.social to c/piefed_meta@piefed.social

48 comments fedilink hide all child comments

IIRC, PF-dev Rimu recently explained exactly why he was trialing such limits in a recent software update post. I.e., to create a more efficient internal & external software / HW backbone, for us users, AFAIK. Based on network / host / server loads etc, as I read the updates.

But yeah... the amount of recent negative reaction so far upon that seems... weirdly outsized?
(like, WTF?)

Like-- who the heck comes here exhausted upon corporate social media, and expects a free, open-source community of devs not to tinker with the road-posts and such..?

Pardon my puzzlement here, but I'm a happy PF contributor, and love @PugJesus@piefed.social. Both the dev here and PJ are friends of a sort, and some people I will always try to support.

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

[–] JohnnyEnzyme@piefed.social 0 points 1 day ago (2 children)

would be better spent identifying the small percentage of accounts that may be abusing the system / manipulating votes

Fuck me if I know, mate, but my takeaway was that such was the plan..?

[–] IcedRaktajino@startrek.website 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That's supposedly part of the justification for the quota, but it hasn't been shown or proven those top 3% or whatever are engaging in any malicious behavior. And it brings me back to "why not just investigate that 3% and deal with them individually? Or make reporting/tools to examine the behavior of those "problematic" 3% of users?

I've been outside working in the heat, so the best comparison I can come up with at the moment is how ISPs use the top 3% of power users to justify data caps for everyone.

*3% used as a "low percentage of users" since I don't remember the exact numbers from the explanation post about this.

[–] JohnnyEnzyme@piefed.social -5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Mate, what "Iced Raktajino" level of anything possibly matches that level of hostile insecurity..?

[–] OpenStars@discuss.online 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

PugJesus already shared with you a link from Rimu - https://piefed.social/comment/12082419 - showing that Rimu knows precisely who those people are. They aren't bots, they are humans who contribute to the Threadiverse in the form of votes.

If they are acting nefariously... then I would not know, bc we are not told who they are. But in theory, if they were, then yeah, just ban them? Or honey pot them I guess?

[–] JohnnyEnzyme@piefed.social 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

What exactly are you trying to say..?

[–] OpenStars@discuss.online 3 points 1 day ago

You said that it was already the plan to go about:

identifying the small percentage of accounts that may be abusing the system

I was pointing to a post showing that such had already been done, and the results of an analysis of such. There really is a lot of information about this subject, if you want to read about it - the link I sent, authored by Rimu himself - is a great place to start.