PieFed Meta

4771 readers

150 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

47 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

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

That was a bad implementation that was doomed at the start to fail. Technical feasability should have been considered from the start, not only much later after it pissed off half the Fediverse community. Heck, now we all are in agreement that when Lemmy mods are preemptively mass-banning people who have never even so much as heard of the instances involved, much less the brand-new (or rather planned to be started) communities with zero posts in them, that this counts as "spam" at best - contaminating the modlog - and at worst even a form of "attack"? Well, the anonymized voting situation was very similar, in reverse, was it not? Breaking the standardized norms, making it look like bot swarms attempting to manipulate votes, and even if PieFed instances were not doing the former, allowing such would also have opened the door to ACTUAL bot swarms that really WERE trying to unduly influence voting, would it not?

Making real change is hard, and will take more than an idea followed up with just a few lines of code.

[–] socsa@piefed.social 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Frankly, none of those things are my problem. Voting agents provided a layer of protection for real users from corporate and authoritarian data mining, as well as overzealous moderation. Bot accounts could already easily pull of the same thing by automating multiple user agents, so removing that tool for real users did nothing to stop that. The outrage over the idea was complete, 100% FUD, and was an early sign of Lemmy admins fundamentally misunderstanding the problem. There was literally zero evidence presented that the feature ever assisted in any bot or troll attacks, only that it annoyed admins who wanted to power trip, actually demonstrating that it worked as intended.

[–] OpenStars@discuss.online 2 points 1 day ago

Voting agents provided a layer of protection

Not anymore they don't. Building things that last requires consensus and buy-in from all the parties involved.

We don't want to be incels who upon being told "no", only continue to push forward harder.