https://codeberg.org/rimu/pyfedi/src/commit/b168820a089ff6e835059f0d806f81b612987a79/app/models.py#L3513

A few people in the other thread assumed that it was required to fork the code to disable those filters. That’s not the case, the filters can be configured, and are off by default.

To hide the reputation system, here’s a line of CSS that admins can add in the admin area to hide it for every user

https://piefed.social/c/piefed_css/p/1722358/hide-red-triangle-warnings-on-accounts-with-bad-reputation

That CSS line can also be used by any user wanting to hide the score at the user level.

  • OpenStars@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    16 hours ago

    Okay so you have some good points, especially towards the beginning, but just so we are on the same page: are you aware that moderation reports do not federate? Or rather, that they do in PieFed but not in Lemmy. Things are rarely so black and white, good and evil, healthy or not. (I forget, will Lemmy 1.0 add this capability? Anyway PieFed already has it.)

    introducing arbitrary metrics that can be used to limit the visibility of expression

    Investigate just a tiny bit into the moderation practices going on at lemmy.ml.

    not just on the local instance but across many

    That one is harder to investigate but there too - Lemmy devs (who also are the same ones moderating lemmy.ml, and yes monetary funds donated towards “Lemmy development” absolutely go to that, rather than code changes, with no way to opt out of that, unless you donate to Nutomic directly, which brings up… shall we say other issues relating to limitations on free expressions, particularly for trans people) in the last year added a hard-coded instance name that can provide a list of which communities it wanted to suggest to new instances as being popular, essentially giving that instance veto power. ONE instance, controlling all new instances, unless the admin does additional work to discover those shadow-banned rejections and add them manually.

    Take one guess which instance was chosen to have that veto power? Yeah, lemmy.ml, surprise. Tbf, this has since been walked back, and while the instance names are still hard-coded, the new instance admin now has multiple options that they can select from (so the selection of any particular one of those is not, anymore). I am not sure how transparently this is presented to them.

    Things get better with time and even more with attention. The PieFed devs are extremely receptive to feedback. The Lemmy devs… well, they are at least somewhat receptive - tbf Rust is a difficult language and that seems to constrain how much they are willing to do in any given timeframe (unless there is some other reason that requests go for years and years and years without being done?). Lemmy is just older, and also it receives funding (except again, it is exceedingly difficult to ensure that such funding actually goes towards code development), so then in that light, PieFed’s development is SUPREMELY impressive. Yes more work will need to be done with it still.

    Let’s get busy and make the Threadiverse healthier - all of us, together!?:-)

    • anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      16 hours ago

      Yea, see this is what I mean by ‘petty vindictive development’.

      None of this speaks well of the project and risks undermining the entire federated network.