The fact that they are implemented in a code level is scary. Even though I disagree with the political views of the Lemmy Devs, the controversial views aren’t reflected in the product they coded, whereas in pie.fed it’s hard coded. Like, why not let instance admins configure those moderation things? Last I read about it there were some filters hard coded in the code that not even admins were able to change if they didn’t change the code itself.
If the default can be changed now, cool. It’s still pretty scary that it’s an opt out feature that had to be changed from forced to opt out though. Again, as much I disagree with the political views of Lemmy Devs, those views didn’t leak into the code of their product. How they moderate ml and such is another thing, I am talking about the code itself.
Please read Lessig’s Code, and Other Laws of Cyberspace. There is no system code that doesn’t implement rules, and no rules that aren’t impacted by its creators’ biases. What matters is intent. It’s clear, the devs of PieFed by implementing anti-Nazi mod tools do not intend to ban people who were born in 1988 or otherwise. You use an edge case to argue a rare injustice trumps the obvious good of tossing neonazis off their platform.
If we can have fewer nazis at the price of a slight inconvenience for users who were born in 1988 and for some reason want to have their birth year in their user name…
Yeah, I’ll take fewer nazis, please.
I’m fine others may disagree, but let’s at least be honest what we talk about when we talk about “controversial moderation”.
Which computer software is ever not implemented on a “code level”?
The lead developer recently started a thread in the Piefed meta community specifically to open for people to ask questions about these things. In full:
I have received word that there are people combing through the PieFed code looking for anything that might be harmful. This is excellent and can only make PieFed better and less harmful.
We appreciate their interest in PieFed and look forward to answering any questions and showing people around the code. Please join us at https://chat.piefed.social/ or https://matrix.to/#/#piefed-developers:matrix.org.
There’s no need to listen to rumors and amateur speculation when we’re right here and happy to help. Come on in, the water’s fine!
Nobody in the thread managed to come up with an even remotely critical question. I’m not in the chat so I’m not sure if there were any interesting discussions there, but it’s safe to say it’s hard to find the weird conspiracies floating around reflected in the actual development.
If you have an issue, ask in [email protected]. If the community agrees your concern is valid I can guarantee you it’ll be addressed.
There’s also the question of what exactly would constitute controversial moderation. If we could hard code out fascists, stalinists, and misogynists, I would be entirely in favour. There’s no need to supply these people with tools for their nonsense. My only issue with it is that it’s not realistic without generating false positives. I don’t speak for Piefed here though, just my personal opinion.
The fact that they are implemented in a code level is scary. Even though I disagree with the political views of the Lemmy Devs, the controversial views aren’t reflected in the product they coded, whereas in pie.fed it’s hard coded. Like, why not let instance admins configure those moderation things? Last I read about it there were some filters hard coded in the code that not even admins were able to change if they didn’t change the code itself.
If the default can be changed now, cool. It’s still pretty scary that it’s an opt out feature that had to be changed from forced to opt out though. Again, as much I disagree with the political views of Lemmy Devs, those views didn’t leak into the code of their product. How they moderate ml and such is another thing, I am talking about the code itself.
Please read Lessig’s Code, and Other Laws of Cyberspace. There is no system code that doesn’t implement rules, and no rules that aren’t impacted by its creators’ biases. What matters is intent. It’s clear, the devs of PieFed by implementing anti-Nazi mod tools do not intend to ban people who were born in 1988 or otherwise. You use an edge case to argue a rare injustice trumps the obvious good of tossing neonazis off their platform.
If we can have fewer nazis at the price of a slight inconvenience for users who were born in 1988 and for some reason want to have their birth year in their user name…
Yeah, I’ll take fewer nazis, please.
I’m fine others may disagree, but let’s at least be honest what we talk about when we talk about “controversial moderation”.
Again, what exactly are you talking about?
Which computer software is ever not implemented on a “code level”?
The lead developer recently started a thread in the Piefed meta community specifically to open for people to ask questions about these things. In full:
Nobody in the thread managed to come up with an even remotely critical question. I’m not in the chat so I’m not sure if there were any interesting discussions there, but it’s safe to say it’s hard to find the weird conspiracies floating around reflected in the actual development.
If you have an issue, ask in [email protected]. If the community agrees your concern is valid I can guarantee you it’ll be addressed.
There’s also the question of what exactly would constitute controversial moderation. If we could hard code out fascists, stalinists, and misogynists, I would be entirely in favour. There’s no need to supply these people with tools for their nonsense. My only issue with it is that it’s not realistic without generating false positives. I don’t speak for Piefed here though, just my personal opinion.