Do you think the only reason a software owner developing a social-media type site might have to stop people from being able to reply to those who blocked them is to censor communists?
No, and I’ve never made that point, only that it’s a significant portion of how Rimu designs PieFed. Never the only or even the most important, but important enough to have an impact, as proven with censoring Hexbear and Lemmygrad by default.
Your claim that his desire to censor communists plays a “significant portion” here in decisions he has made for the platform is completely and utterly baseless in the first place. The only thing you can point to, so far as I can see - at a platform level, is him censoring Hexbear and Lemmygrad as part of the default packaged federation block.
I can also point to the fact that PieFed has lots of more tools for censorship, in a way that more effectively silences minority opinions, which communism absolutely is on PieFed as most of us are on Lemmy.
Sure., that’s one of them, along with making blocking hexbear and lemmygrad blocked by default so unsuspecting new admins aren’t exposed to leftists, blocking the ability to reply entitely for blocked accounts, etc. Are you trying to convince me to like these features?
Doesn’t actually censor. The purpose of this is to identify potential troll accounts as yes, despite some more long-term users potentially getting hit with this for interacting in caustic debate communities a lot - 9/10 of people who get this tag are spammers, trolls etc.
blocking the ability to reply entitely for blocked accounts, etc. Are you trying to convince me to like these features?
This isn’t to do with trying to censor any political viewpoint though, and derives from not wanting users to receive repeated unwanted contact publicly from a user they’ve blocked.
It’s my understanding that social credit outright limits your ability to post, comment, vote, etc.
This isn’t to do with trying to censor any political viewpoint though, and derives from not wanting users to receive repeated unwanted contact publicly from a user they’ve blocked.
I understand, but it’s more unreasonable to suggest that the anti-communist views of Rimu played absolutely no part in deciding to make this a feature, intentionally or not. This opens up blocking to abuse, where one can abuse someone by blocking them and then smearing said user (as Open Stars does with their PieFed account and constantly smearing me as a sea-lion troll).
It’s my understanding that social credit outright limits your ability to post, comment, vote, etc.
No, that’s if you heavily downvote. That’s your //attitude// - not your reputation. Heavy downvoters can lose the ability to downvote (not comment).
I understand, but it’s more unreasonable to suggest that the anti-communist views of Rimu played absolutely no part in deciding to make this a feature, intentionally or not
Sorry, nope. This just flatout does not follow at all. I see no reason why it would have had any relevance to this particular function whatsoever.
This opens up blocking to abuse, where one can abuse someone by blocking them and then smearing said user (as Open Stars does with their PieFed account and constantly smearing me as a sea-lion troll).
Yes, it can cause that. Of course it also goes both ways - without blocking working like that, a blocked user could just follow the person who has blocked them around on-site and continually pester them without them knowing. There is no good way to implement blocking that doesn’t have some level of disagreement from people.
Thanks for adding information on the social credit score, though I still don’t like it.
Sorry, nope. This just flatout does not follow at all. I see no reason why it would have had any relevance to this particular function whatsoever.
Humans do not simply lose all bias when developing things, creative outputs are a reflection of our views and ways of thinking, intentionally or not.
Yes, it can cause that. Of course it also goes both ways - without blocking working like that, a blocked user could just follow the person who has blocked them around on-site and continually pester them without them knowing. There is no good way to implement blocking that doesn’t have some level of disagreement from people.
It’s better for blocked users to be able to clear their name and mods/admins take action if necessary than it is to entirely shut out interraction, if the end result from the user is the same. There’s no pestering if they can’t see it.
No, and I’ve never made that point, only that it’s a significant portion of how Rimu designs PieFed. Never the only or even the most important, but important enough to have an impact, as proven with censoring Hexbear and Lemmygrad by default.
Your claim that his desire to censor communists plays a “significant portion” here in decisions he has made for the platform is completely and utterly baseless in the first place. The only thing you can point to, so far as I can see - at a platform level, is him censoring Hexbear and Lemmygrad as part of the default packaged federation block.
I can also point to the fact that PieFed has lots of more tools for censorship, in a way that more effectively silences minority opinions, which communism absolutely is on PieFed as most of us are on Lemmy.
What censorship tools are these? Are you going to refer to the reputation issue again?
Sure., that’s one of them, along with making blocking hexbear and lemmygrad blocked by default so unsuspecting new admins aren’t exposed to leftists, blocking the ability to reply entitely for blocked accounts, etc. Are you trying to convince me to like these features?
Doesn’t actually censor. The purpose of this is to identify potential troll accounts as yes, despite some more long-term users potentially getting hit with this for interacting in caustic debate communities a lot - 9/10 of people who get this tag are spammers, trolls etc.
This isn’t to do with trying to censor any political viewpoint though, and derives from not wanting users to receive repeated unwanted contact publicly from a user they’ve blocked.
It’s my understanding that social credit outright limits your ability to post, comment, vote, etc.
I understand, but it’s more unreasonable to suggest that the anti-communist views of Rimu played absolutely no part in deciding to make this a feature, intentionally or not. This opens up blocking to abuse, where one can abuse someone by blocking them and then smearing said user (as Open Stars does with their PieFed account and constantly smearing me as a sea-lion troll).
No, that’s if you heavily downvote. That’s your //attitude// - not your reputation. Heavy downvoters can lose the ability to downvote (not comment).
Sorry, nope. This just flatout does not follow at all. I see no reason why it would have had any relevance to this particular function whatsoever.
Yes, it can cause that. Of course it also goes both ways - without blocking working like that, a blocked user could just follow the person who has blocked them around on-site and continually pester them without them knowing. There is no good way to implement blocking that doesn’t have some level of disagreement from people.
Thanks for adding information on the social credit score, though I still don’t like it.
Humans do not simply lose all bias when developing things, creative outputs are a reflection of our views and ways of thinking, intentionally or not.
It’s better for blocked users to be able to clear their name and mods/admins take action if necessary than it is to entirely shut out interraction, if the end result from the user is the same. There’s no pestering if they can’t see it.