this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2026
13 points (63.3% liked)

PieFed Meta

4771 readers
7 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
 

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
[โ€“] IcedRaktajino@startrek.website 8 points 2 days 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.

[โ€“] JohnnyEnzyme@piefed.social -5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

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