I totally understand having a world view like this but it’s the rampant censorship of any opposing view point on this instance that made me reconsider my monthly donation to the development of Lemmy and move it to piefed instead.
PieFed is worse when it comes to censorship, though, as a platform. There’s all sorts of tools for “reputation,” replies from blocked users outright aren’t sent for anyone to see, and more. Lemmy as a platform is less susceptible to censorship outright and is more transparent about removed content.
You’re misunderstanding the blocked user issue. If every instance was Piefed, you simply wouldn’t be able to reply to anyone who has blocked you. “Reply” is essentially faded out. The difference is that Lemmy doesn’t implement the block function in the same way, so Piefed just throws out replies by blocked users to the person who has blocked them coming from Lemmy.
Is that the best way to handle blocked users, who have indicated they no longer wish to contact you? I don’t know. I can imagine it changing - but in my experience there’s no good way of handling it that won’t upset someone.
I’m not misunderstanding it, it’s a fact of how federation between Lemmy and PieFed works, and it results in comments appearing on Lemmy that do not exist on PieFed. Given Rimu’s clear ideological stances and vocal support for building in censorship into PieFed itself, I think it’s pretty obvious why this is the case: PieFed developers don’t like that Lemmy has a lot of communists, and wish to make a space easier to shut out communists.
I’m not misunderstanding it, it’s a fact of how federation between Lemmy and PieFed works, and it results in comments appearing on Lemmy that do not exist on PieFed.
Correct, but you’re assigning some malicious intent to it - when it’s simply differences regarding how blocking should work.
Given Rimu’s clear ideological stances and vocal support for building in censorship into PieFed itself
What “ideological stances” would these be that relevant here? Anyone can be blocked. You could block me now and I couldn’t reply via Piefed. This specific decision has no relevance to anything here.
I think it’s pretty obvious why this is the case: PieFed developers don’t like that Lemmy has a lot of communists, and wish to make a space easier to shut out communists.
Except that anyone can be blocked. A communist could utilise the block function in the same way and stop the person from being able to reply.
Rimu baked-in default blocking of Lemmygrad and Hexbear, to me this is already proof of malicious intent. Rimu’s ideological stances are reflected in the code itself, including things like a social credit score system that makes it more difficult to see comments from “unsavory users.” I’m aware that anyone can use the block function, but when viewed with the context of how Rimu’s views impact the project and how it relates to the fediverse in general, it’s designed with creating an echo chamber in mind.
It all makes sense if you look at it from the point of view of Rimu developing a platform that suits their views and interests first and foremost. I don’t agree with it, but it’s logical and predictable with that frame of analysis.
That’s an automated check-system for new piefed instances that specifically ignores communities with specific names. That list has been trimmed down now purely to just insults and slurs. It really isn’t a major component of the system as said communities with those names can still be manually federated to it.
Rimu baked-in default blocking of Lemmygrad and Hexbear, to me this is already proof of malicious intent.
Easily turned-off - and is by multiple other instances, but yes, Rimu doesn’t like them.
Rimu’s ideological stances are reflected in the code itself, including things like a social credit score system that makes it more difficult to see comments from “unsavory users.”
Not sure what this has to do with any particular or specific allegation of anti-communism. This is mostly to catch trolls and spammers, and it works.
I’m aware that anyone can use the block function, but when viewed with the context of how Rimu’s views impact the project and how it relates to the fediverse in general, it’s designed with creating an echo chamber in mind.
I simply don’t follow that at all. It means more accurately that Rimu simply believes that a blocked user shouldn’t be able to be replied to by the person they blocked as that can be used to harass by some.
I don’t think it’s particularly outlandish to say that the facts that Rimu thinks it’s acceptable to build ideological bias into the code itself, and that PieFed specifically has tools designed to more cultivate an echo chamber, are likely connected with Rimu’s own political bias. PieFed makes censorship easier and more opaque, Lemmy makes it harder and more transparent. I’m not saying that there are no good reasons to use PieFed, but that at least acknowledging that it’s being developed primarily to specifically counter issues Rimu personally has with Lemmy, including politically, is pretty reasonable.
I don’t think it’s particularly outlandish to say that the facts that Rimu thinks it’s acceptable to build ideological bias into the code itself, and that PieFed specifically has tools designed to more cultivate an echo chamber, are likely connected with Rimu’s own political bias.
I don’t see how making it so people who block someone can’t be bothered by them directly again is illustrative of “ideological bias” in any political sense. No political persuasion has some inherent advantage from that function, and many websites utilise block tools in a similar way. The direct impact of that is that individuals have more control over who gets to reply to them in a comment thread, but that doesn’t specifically aid or harm whatever you claim Rimu’s goals are.
PieFed makes censorship easier and more opaque, Lemmy makes it harder and more transparent.
PieFed here could simply provide notifications for when you are blocked by someone if you want transparency.
No, if you are blocked by someone on Reddit - you can’t see their profile or responses. All responses by them become [unavailable] and you can’t reply.
Shadowbanning is when you can keep replying but no-one can see it and you don’t know that you’re banned.
As I said initially, if every instance was Piefed - you wouldn’t be able to reply in the first place to someone who has blocked you. Whilst that interpretation of blocking could be disagreeable, it’s not what I consider ‘shadowbanning’ as you’re being directly blocked from interacting.
Dunno man, I‘ve got the double red triangle exclamation mark for „very low reputation“. Certainly it „warns“ unsuspecting people and I had already at least one commenter, that mistrusted my commentary just for that. Cool. Cool, cool.
Don‘t have an account — do I also have an attitude, it doesn‘t show any publically?
Either way, branding users like that, intransparently, by machine logic, I certainly am not convinced.
There’s a bunch that goes into the reputation score, it’s a combination of upvotes/downvotes as well as other factors. PieFed also has a stronger slur filter, where instead of replacing with removed, it outright doesn’t accept the comment if you type the phrase.
All in all PieFed is built specifically to cultivate echo chambers in ways that go beyond what Lemmy limits itself to, by design.
It does give a warning system for heavily downvoted people, the majority of whom are genuinely just trolls. I can’t tell you how useful it is to isolate trolls and spammers at an admin level.
Well at very high downvote rates, you simply can’t downvote anymore. It’s a mitigation against downvote trolling. There is also a hidden reputation score for instance admins which logs how much you also get downvoted.
Why am I forced to have certain voting patterns in order to be accepted as a trustworthy community member? That‘s arbitrarily authoritarian in order to subdue deviant behaviour without good reason or explanation before engaging in said community, which ux design displays up- and downvoting in the same manner? I‘m not being warned of such consequences for this arbitrary branding rule. Is excessive upvoting branded, as well? If so, in which way? If not, why not? It‘s dumb, that‘s what I‘m getting at.
I totally understand having a world view like this but it’s the rampant censorship of any opposing view point on this instance that made me reconsider my monthly donation to the development of Lemmy and move it to piefed instead.
PieFed is worse when it comes to censorship, though, as a platform. There’s all sorts of tools for “reputation,” replies from blocked users outright aren’t sent for anyone to see, and more. Lemmy as a platform is less susceptible to censorship outright and is more transparent about removed content.
You’re misunderstanding the blocked user issue. If every instance was Piefed, you simply wouldn’t be able to reply to anyone who has blocked you. “Reply” is essentially faded out. The difference is that Lemmy doesn’t implement the block function in the same way, so Piefed just throws out replies by blocked users to the person who has blocked them coming from Lemmy.
Is that the best way to handle blocked users, who have indicated they no longer wish to contact you? I don’t know. I can imagine it changing - but in my experience there’s no good way of handling it that won’t upset someone.
I’m not misunderstanding it, it’s a fact of how federation between Lemmy and PieFed works, and it results in comments appearing on Lemmy that do not exist on PieFed. Given Rimu’s clear ideological stances and vocal support for building in censorship into PieFed itself, I think it’s pretty obvious why this is the case: PieFed developers don’t like that Lemmy has a lot of communists, and wish to make a space easier to shut out communists.
Correct, but you’re assigning some malicious intent to it - when it’s simply differences regarding how blocking should work.
What “ideological stances” would these be that relevant here? Anyone can be blocked. You could block me now and I couldn’t reply via Piefed. This specific decision has no relevance to anything here.
Except that anyone can be blocked. A communist could utilise the block function in the same way and stop the person from being able to reply.
Rimu baked-in default blocking of Lemmygrad and Hexbear, to me this is already proof of malicious intent. Rimu’s ideological stances are reflected in the code itself, including things like a social credit score system that makes it more difficult to see comments from “unsavory users.” I’m aware that anyone can use the block function, but when viewed with the context of how Rimu’s views impact the project and how it relates to the fediverse in general, it’s designed with creating an echo chamber in mind.
Oh yeah, I remember hearing about this. Even apart from instances some community names by default aren’t federated. It’s a really weird stance.
It all makes sense if you look at it from the point of view of Rimu developing a platform that suits their views and interests first and foremost. I don’t agree with it, but it’s logical and predictable with that frame of analysis.
That’s an automated check-system for new piefed instances that specifically ignores communities with specific names. That list has been trimmed down now purely to just insults and slurs. It really isn’t a major component of the system as said communities with those names can still be manually federated to it.
Easily turned-off - and is by multiple other instances, but yes, Rimu doesn’t like them.
Not sure what this has to do with any particular or specific allegation of anti-communism. This is mostly to catch trolls and spammers, and it works.
I simply don’t follow that at all. It means more accurately that Rimu simply believes that a blocked user shouldn’t be able to be replied to by the person they blocked as that can be used to harass by some.
I don’t think it’s particularly outlandish to say that the facts that Rimu thinks it’s acceptable to build ideological bias into the code itself, and that PieFed specifically has tools designed to more cultivate an echo chamber, are likely connected with Rimu’s own political bias. PieFed makes censorship easier and more opaque, Lemmy makes it harder and more transparent. I’m not saying that there are no good reasons to use PieFed, but that at least acknowledging that it’s being developed primarily to specifically counter issues Rimu personally has with Lemmy, including politically, is pretty reasonable.
I don’t see how making it so people who block someone can’t be bothered by them directly again is illustrative of “ideological bias” in any political sense. No political persuasion has some inherent advantage from that function, and many websites utilise block tools in a similar way. The direct impact of that is that individuals have more control over who gets to reply to them in a comment thread, but that doesn’t specifically aid or harm whatever you claim Rimu’s goals are.
PieFed here could simply provide notifications for when you are blocked by someone if you want transparency.
As long as you can reply to replies of people who blocked you, I think it’s fine. Reddit’s approach is absolutely insane.
*Which is not what piefed does
Reddit goes further and does the [unavailable] thing.
That’s not further, it shows you that someone tried to reply. PieFed doesn’t even show that.
No, if you are blocked by someone on Reddit - you can’t see their profile or responses. All responses by them become [unavailable] and you can’t reply.
Ah, gotcha, misunderstood. It’s been a while since I used Reddit. Still, you’re effectively shadowbanned either way on PieFed, but not on Lemmy.
Shadowbanning is when you can keep replying but no-one can see it and you don’t know that you’re banned.
As I said initially, if every instance was Piefed - you wouldn’t be able to reply in the first place to someone who has blocked you. Whilst that interpretation of blocking could be disagreeable, it’s not what I consider ‘shadowbanning’ as you’re being directly blocked from interacting.
I’m talking about your instance.
It literally has a list of words that dessalines doesn’t like and are replaced with removed.
Yea, it has a slur filter. I’m okay with that, and it’s preferable to PieFed’s thoughtcrime style censorship with literal social credit scores.
Are you taking about the attitude where I’m currently sitting at 92% even though I don’t ever say the popular thing?
I don’t even know how it works but why is mine there?
Dunno man, I‘ve got the double red triangle exclamation mark for „very low reputation“. Certainly it „warns“ unsuspecting people and I had already at least one commenter, that mistrusted my commentary just for that. Cool. Cool, cool.
Don‘t have an account — do I also have an attitude, it doesn‘t show any publically?
Either way, branding users like that, intransparently, by machine logic, I certainly am not convinced.
There’s a bunch that goes into the reputation score, it’s a combination of upvotes/downvotes as well as other factors. PieFed also has a stronger slur filter, where instead of replacing with removed, it outright doesn’t accept the comment if you type the phrase.
All in all PieFed is built specifically to cultivate echo chambers in ways that go beyond what Lemmy limits itself to, by design.
I’ve never have a comment that hasn’t been posted so can you show me some code to prove what you’re saying?
Here’s a snippet from the code regarding blocking comments if a phrase is set to blocked. Credit to @[email protected] for finding this.
Are any phrases set to blocked by default?
Attitude is just how much you upvote vs. how much you downvote.
But why?
So how’s that a social credit score?
It’s the one that auto hides or warns others on piefed just like reddit is doing.
It does give a warning system for heavily downvoted people, the majority of whom are genuinely just trolls. I can’t tell you how useful it is to isolate trolls and spammers at an admin level.
Well at very high downvote rates, you simply can’t downvote anymore. It’s a mitigation against downvote trolling. There is also a hidden reputation score for instance admins which logs how much you also get downvoted.
Why am I forced to have certain voting patterns in order to be accepted as a trustworthy community member? That‘s arbitrarily authoritarian in order to subdue deviant behaviour without good reason or explanation before engaging in said community, which ux design displays up- and downvoting in the same manner? I‘m not being warned of such consequences for this arbitrary branding rule. Is excessive upvoting branded, as well? If so, in which way? If not, why not? It‘s dumb, that‘s what I‘m getting at.
Wait the user downvoting gets blocked or the user constantly downvoted? If downvotes are such an issue then disabling them would be better right?