Yeah. That’s one thing I think Piefed is really doing right. They’re trying to make it so that normal people will have a fairly pleasant normal-person experience.

I think Lemmy’s core developers including explicit acceptance for toxic online behavior, and some of the original core instances openly celebrating and modeling it, really may ruin the platform for the long term. And yes, you and dubvee are completely right as far as the lack of action in any respect by a lot of people who run the instances to do all that much of substance about the people who seem to want to ruin the experience on those instances.

That’s why I say it is bullying.

He does post trainwreck statuses sometimes, or miss self-imposed deadlines, or something. That’s very very different from “incompetent for implementing badly something easy or toxic for federating ignoring what the federation requires” but it gives people a grain of truth to fall back on when the total bullshit they’re accusing him of gets called out.

Some for JordanLund, same for FlyingSquid. People are imperfect. It’s okay. If your habit is to use people’s imperfections as a reason to make wild accusations at them that have no basis in reality and double down on the legitimate criticisms and pick at them, and generally just be shitty to them, then there is a perfect word for that activity.

Ha, all good. Glad it worked out, let me know anything else I can do.

Done.

Also, I can see the posts on lemm.ee. I think you might have a user setting configured to not show you bot posts. What’s it say under Settings -> Show Bot Accounts?

Yeah, the whole thing of “if #public is in to and the user is in cc, it means one thing, but if it’s the other way around, it means something different” just reeks of “IDK I just wanted to hack it up and move on and IDGAF how platforms other than Mastodon are going to wind up handling it.” Which is fine… as long as your users universally understand that that’s your level of care towards honoring non-public visibility settings they’re setting on their posts.

Yes. That is 100% my feeling.

Happy to be of service.

But there is a not insignificant portion of folks on here that are here because they were banned or warned on mainstream platforms because they couldn’t regulate themselves and still aren’t regulating themselves.

What?

Plenty of people on mainstream platforms are obnoxious. Twitter and Reddit in particular are hives of villainy that make anything available on Fedi platforms look childish. Why do you think people are here because they were ejected from mainstream platforms?

Dansup doesn’t exactly follow best practices in his development which I think causes a lot of strife

What?

Can you elaborate?

Dansup is a developer who made Pixelfed and Loops.

Depending on who you ask, he either fucked up Pixelfed in a way that exposed Mastodon users’ private posts, or else Mastodon implemented private posts poorly and he got caught in the crossfire. I’m firmly in the second camp, so much so that I think it’s misleading to describe it in that both-sides type of way, but regardless, that is the lay of the land of the drama.

Yeah, I alluded to that when I said I’m probably guilty of it sometimes.

A reasonable person could say that I tend to bully the mods when I disagree with something they’ve done. I do think that when you sign up to control people’s experience and delete messages you don’t agree with, you’re signing up to have your decisions criticized. Reasonably or not. It’s absurd to say that no one is allowed to get upset or air their grievances when the moderators apply moderation in a way that they don’t like, because the end state of that setup is Reddit. But in fairness you are not wrong, sometimes I take it too far, and I think I should cool it at least a little with getting embittered about people moderating me in ways I don’t like.

Also, just for the record I’ve never had any issue on any level with you specifically. My whole anger at one of your moderators posting electoral propaganda and then banning people who disagreed with it, was that I thought he was hijacking his way into the slrpnk good graces for his own agenda, not that that was the intent behind the whole instance or anything. I’ve started being snarky towards the instance as a whole since the slrpnk admin team for some reason came out swinging hard to defend him on that, and then also gave out some further deletions and bans afterwards that I thought were equally silly, but it was more because I felt like you were supposed to be one of the good instances that supported people being able to have the conversations they wanted to have, and move the whole network in a good direction. I definitely wasn’t happy about it or looking for that embittered interaction.

(For context for anyone who’s confused, here are some instances of what might be called bullying that I’ve done previously. The second one in particular sort of makes me cringe to post here, because it’s exactly the kind of sour grapes innuendo that I’m complaining about when people aim it at Dansup.)

• https://ponder.cat/post/554966
• https://ponder.cat/post/2069460/2353558
• https://ponder.cat/post/2125183/2430037
• https://ponder.cat/post/1330233/1550126?sort=Old
• https://ponder.cat/post/2013432/2287980

You actually could do this kind of thing with AP. It’s designed to give a key pair to every user to use for signing all their activities, so so the some careful redesign, you might be able to do something like have the browser authenticating the user’s identity in a way that the server isn’t able to do, or even messages being sent encrypted in a way that the server can’t read.

In practice, the server keeps the user’s private keys, and moving away from that model would be difficult. But you could in theory redesign it away from that.

you’re casting Dansup as a victim

Correct. The original blog post wasn’t really all that bullying, I just thought it was mistaken about the security issues involved. The subsequent comments (“incompetent” “toxic” “quite problematic” “funding funding funding” and so on) were what I would describe as bullying. And, it fits a pattern where people take some issue (often one like this where he didn’t even theoretically do anything wrong) and use it as a jumping-off point to start the personal attacks.

Dan’s up, Dan’s down, Dan’s a victim, Dan’s throwing a fit online and then deleting the tweets. As you cite in OP, some people attribute all sorts of unrelated evil to him. Most of all, my impression is Dansup has as a hard time separating from his role as main developer on Pixelfed, Loops, etc, as online commenters has separating his work from (perceived) personal faults.

What?

Why should he separate from his role as main developer? This makes no sense. “Sure those people got personally insulting with Dan for no reason at all, but you have to remember, he’s the main developer of these projects and he won’t separate from them. So it’s complicated.” What?

Agreed. It’s not completely their fault. But also, they’ve run further than they needed to with the “I’m in charge of what protocol I’m going to speak to other instances running my own software” than they needed to. Case in point, this exact issue with “private” posts. A lot of things had to be fleshed out more so than they are in the AP spec. This feature needed to be handled more carefully than that.

Correct. And as I tangentially mentioned, even if you do think this needs to be kept secret, then the blog author would still be wrong, because this blog post is doing is doing way more “harm” by publicizing the issue than any amount of commit notes ever could.

But yes, trying to keep this secret like a 0-day is completely the backwards model for how to handle it.

Completely agree.

It is fine if you want to add privacy to a federated platform. If you wanted to, you would need to think through how to do it (probably it would involve either adding something specific and very carefully laid-out to the ActivityPub spec, or just doing like Lemmy does and switching to a whole other protocol like Matrix and warning the users that anything over ActivityPub is not private). Neither of those is what Mastodon did, but now they’re going around telling users they can have private posts, which is why I think they’re ultimately at fault in the situation that kicked off this whole shebang.

Yeah. I do think communicating over the internet even with people you disagree with is possible to do, and it can be super productive. Can be. It just takes conscious effort to do so, I guess not much different from when you can talk them out face-to-face.

Yeah, but offering something that claims to be private, but isn’t, is actually much worse than refusing to offer something that’s private. Even if people want the private feature.

Truly private posts just are going to require something that isn’t ActivityPub, because ActivityPub just isn’t designed to give assurances about what’s going to happen to an activity that you are sending off to some other server. Or, the other option would be to go through the whole process of adding it into the spec in a thought through fashion instead of just hacking it in and moving on. Although, I do kind of get why Mastodon doesn’t want to go through that snail’s pace process for every single protocol change they would need to be able to make things work.

“Doesn’t scale because the containers are set up wrong” is different from “unmaintainable code” though. What of the code was bad? I’ve looked at a bunch of fedi projects and Pixelfed didn’t strike me as either particularly good or particularly bad.

As for the last, I don’t have any examples

?

I mean, that is sort of what I expected. Mastodon doesn’t publicize Wordpress. Lemmy doesn’t publicize mbin. They all, mostly, mention a little bit of the context that they can interoperate with other federated services, but it doesn’t strike me as weird or malicious that someone would write a project and then promote that project. That sounds normal.

Actually, both Mastodon and Lemmy chose to implement sort of their own versions of ActivityPub, and that actually does strike me as selfish behavior. It means that mostly they are their own independent platforms that run “on top of” ActivityPub instead of enabling full interoperation with the other stuff. Doing it that way was hard to avoid, because the design of ActivityPub to me isn’t great, but this situation is actually a perfect example of that: Mastodon implemented a new feature in a way that would break (in a really jarring privacy-violating-to-some-extent way) until everyone else copied their implementation exactly. I’m not aware of Pixelfed doing anything like that. Mastodon and Lemmy can both get away with presenting themselves as “the fediverse” and forcing everyone else into copying one implementation or the other if they want things to actually work, and they both show very little interest in making it easy. If you want to pick out sins of various fedi projects to start to point out that are disrespecting the other projects in the space, something like that is where I would start.

Oop. She is not. Fixed.

What parts of the codebase did you look at and not like how they were implemented?

Why is it a problem if he makes server software and then publicizes it? Like can you show a couple of examples of authors of some other software who are giving credit to the hundreds - thousands of other people, and how they are giving credit? What are they doing differently than Dansup?

Yeah. There are a lot of subtle cues that keep things in check, that let people express frustration or disagreement with each other and it still be okay and kept in a balanced fashion, when it’s happening in person. In typing that all goes out the window. It takes conscious effort to be able to remember the social aspect and not just get carried away with your typing and decide the other person is horrible and you need to attack (or just take something without the right context and think they’re going on the attack when they’re not.) Like I say, I’m guilty of treating it pretty carelessly sometimes too.