Flatworm7591

Unruffled [they/them] @lemmy.dbzer0.com 3w ago

We’re included in what the lead developer describes as “bottom of the barrel” “people rejected by civil society.”

That's fucked up. And he's the self-appointed "nice" [secret]police? Yikes.

1

Unruffled [they/them] @lemmy.dbzer0.com 3w ago

Yeah, I didn't know I had it in me! Death to Zionism. Such violence.

Unruffled [they/them] @lemmy.dbzer0.com 1mo ago

Yeah, I think repost bots are fine for certain use cases, but they should 100% be identified as bots, and not pretend to be a human account.

Unruffled [they/them] @lemmy.dbzer0.com 1mo ago

Most probably x.com is the closest fit, though why anyone would choose that platform is beyond me. For clarity, are you a free speech libertarian or an anarchist?

15

Unruffled [they/them] @lemmy.dbzer0.com 3mo ago

But "some control over modlog visibility" is inevitably going to be abused to protect problematic mods and admins. A right of reply, or a context field added to the modlog record would be a better approach, where subsequent actions can be listed and clarified. It's also kind of amazing he just went ahead with these changes without broad consultation with piefed users or admins, or with the wider fediverse, since it effectively break normal federation.

15

Unruffled [they/them] @lemmy.dbzer0.com 3mo ago

If we go down to the core of the issue, there’s a fundamental disagreement between some instances on a niche use case: can the modlog be used for permanent slander, without giving people the option to reply?

To be fair, that is more a function of the modlog technical design in Lemmy, where ban reasons cannot be changed after the fact and federated out. It is not technically possible to provide a "right of reply" or to remove the comment from the modlog in either piefed or lemmy.

What we did do is talk to the folks who banned Rimu and MrKaplan, asked them not to do it again, and reversed the bans. And the admin who was involved also stepped down from his admin role. That's about as much as could be reasonably expected to happen, given the technical limitations. And afaik Rimu never asked to be unbanned, that was simply an act of good faith on our part.

And despite all the effort we put in to smooth things over, Rimu has consistently refused to engage in good faith with any of our admins over this, instead spreading intentional falsehoods and drama-farming over multiple posts.

These recent changes to PieFed were simply a blatant extension of his kneejerk response to the whole situation. Instead of building useful functionality like a right of reply such as we have in fediseer, his approach is just to shadow ban our instance and break proper federation of mod logs for all PieFed instances.

These actions are not designed to protect users, they are designed to protect the fragile-egos of power tripping admins who will seemingly go to any lengths to censor criticism of their actions, whether those criticisms are legitimate or not. It's childish behavior, and demonstrates Rimu has little commitment to the wider fediverse and the principles of transparency under which it operates.

Unruffled [they/them] @lemmy.dbzer0.com 3mo ago

!direct_donations@anarchist.nexus

1

Unruffled [they/them] @lemmy.dbzer0.com 3mo ago

Hi there, could you please provide me with a link to the comment, or to the modlog entry, so I can check it out?

Edit: you might want to send it via DM.

Unruffled [they/them] @lemmy.dbzer0.com 3mo ago

In which I stated there was no automated ban process, no less. That is perfectly consistent with what I have said all along, and exactly the opposite of what you later claimed was going on. Honestly, this just makes things look worse in terms of your public accusations.