this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2026
138 points (96.6% liked)

Fediverse

43613 readers
109 users here now

A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, Mbin, etc).

If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to !moderators@lemmy.world!

Rules

Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration)

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/72685299

I discovered this after upgrading our instance yesterday, which also upgraded all frontends to their latest versions as well. After I did, our Tesseract frontend stopped working and I noticed immediately as it's been my primary for a while. Initially I thought it was an API version mismatch, but no, it was much worse.

Someone pointed out that the developer of the frontend added an explicit hidden and unmodifiably blacklist which includes any and all instances to the left of Kissinger. There's a commit which also explains their specious reasoning about our instance specifically, as it seems we've been on their shit list for a bit longer than that.

This instance and its admin staff encourages identity politics, groupthink, mob mentality, and extremist solutions to societal problems. Users who advocate violence are not moderated so long as the admins agree with the target. Caution and critical thinking are advised when interacting with this instance or its users.

When you use tesseract to connect to one blacklisted such instance , you just get a message informing you that Tesseract is "incompatible with that instance" which leads one to think of a technical issue, like an API mismatch, rather than the dev being an opinionated coward.

Isn't it funny how all the software developed by turbolibs, like Piefed and Tesseract, end up with hidden control mechanisms from developers who think they know better than everyone else? That they don't just think they deserve to tell you what you should think, but they should manipulate you to think it? Isn't it funny how libs go on about how bad it is to support lemmy due to the ideology of the devs behind it, and yet lemmy has 0 opinions as a software? It does make one think...

Anyway, I forked - it as one does - and disabled the blacklist, but since this is a massively ideologically compromised software, I'll doubt I'll keep this frontend up after Lemmy 1.0. I think we'll bring up mlmym again now that someone's maintaining it again.

all 35 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] QuentinCallaghan@sopuli.xyz 38 points 1 month ago

A frontend should be a frontend. The decisions of what to blacklist should be up to the frontend's user. Stupid decision.

[–] Zak@lemmy.world 31 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Opt-in denylists with pre-populated categories would be a reasonable feature. A frontend author trying to trick users into thinking there's a technical issue with servers the author doesn't like is presumptuous and disrespectful of the user.

People did similar stuff with Mastodon clients when the far-right microblog service Gab migrated its backend to a Mastodon fork and I didn't like that either.

[–] DarkSirrush@piefed.ca 5 points 1 month ago

Piefed also did this shit, so annoying.

[–] audaxdreik@pawb.social 30 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Boo! Add pawb.social, furries deserve to be there, too! (complimentary)

[–] Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz 21 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Honestly the fact that yall didn't make the cut seems insulting.

[–] chosensilence@pawb.social 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

w-what? wait. what is this?? haha i am confused... is this good or bad?

[–] Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Pawb wasn't blacklisted, you personally were cool enough to make the list.

[–] chosensilence@pawb.social 2 points 2 weeks ago

oh hell yeah. i’m glad i made that person so irritated.

[–] magnetosphere@fedia.io 24 points 1 month ago

Sleazy and dishonest, yet unsurprising. Thanks for letting people know!

[–] EpeeGnome@feddit.online 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Wait, what hidden control mechanisms are baked into Piefed?

[–] Canyon201@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

Every account on PieFed has a Social Credit Score, aka your Reputation. If your account has less than 100 reputation and is newly created, you are not considered “trustworthy” and there are limitations placed on what your account can do.

[–] poVoq@slrpnk.net 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

As long as Lemmy doesn't support password-less and revokable logins, no one should be using alternative web frontends hosted by someone other than their trusted server admin. And as this issue clearly shows, when an admin hosts it themselves the dev can't hide it and it is easy to circumvent.

[–] luca@sironi.xyz 6 points 1 month ago

@Canyon201

I don't know the software and the instance, but keeping a blacklist in an open source software is beyond stupidity

[–] VitoRobles@lemmy.today 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

For a list of the users this cucklefuck blacklisted, here it is.

https://copyparty.adrian.place/u/?doc=policy.json

Little snowflake couldn't even include me. What a bitch.

[–] TragicNotCute@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Please be respectful.