I don't just deny genocides, I deny literally everything that doesn't have evidence to support it. Claiming that anyone who needs evidence to believe things is a "fascist" or a "simp for authoritarian regimes" is beyond absurd. Especially when the main proponent of the claim you're demanding I accept blindly, without evidence, is itself an authoritarian regime!

Like I said, he's really just concerned with playing to a crowd that I'm not part of, so yeah.

You can’t leave: Adrian Zenz and Radio Free Asia need your help to keep the faith.

Amusing that you literally link to me providing evidence multiple times.

Exactly what I'm talking about. You know that most people won't read through the conversations to know you're lying.

Sorry that you don’t like it when it’s pointed out that you’re an Uyghur Genocide denier.

Pretty rich coming from an Italian Genocide denier.

touching grass

All I'm saying is that, regardless of the reasons, too much internet can create brainworms, bad politics, and toxicity. I've yet to hear of any physical or mental ailment that makes it impossible to log off.

As for the rest of your comment, I’ll be explicit in saying that I won’t engage with it. I have read the linked comments, their context, other comments linked in that context and frankly, I don’t think that will be a fruitful conversation for either of us. I hope you can respect that choice not to have it.

Sure. You asked, I answered. I mostly linked them because I don't believe in saying anything negative about a person without providing evidence.

Lemmy, whose devs are arguably questionable with worrysome personal politics and philosophy but who do not bake said philosophy into their software.

But as OpenStars pointed out, the Lemmy devs did just such a thing in a much more egregious (hard-coded) way previously. The slur filter is now optional after considerable time and outcry.

Piefed's vote restriction is an option that admins of any instance can fiddle with, or, effectively, disable entirely. Like the slur filter currently in Lemmy, and thus less forced than the slur filter as it was initially rolled out on Lemmy. The issue, for me, is that I made a home on Piefed.social, specifically, and now it's... not home for me.

If you don't care about what admins do on their own instance, this shouldn't bother you. I care - both in the abstract and insofar as it affects me, and so am... winding down my participation.

For a Lemmy.world example, I was discussing medieval siege warfare (either I or someone else was quoting a primary source, I think?) when I found out that either 'fags' or 'removeds' was censored.

Had no clue before that.

Essentially, nearly every slur either has other usages (I'm reminded of overzealous word filters censoring niggardly and sremoved, or 'a chink in the armor') or may still be relevant in the context of quotation (calling someone 'cunty' is being Australian, probably; calling someone 'chink' is being racist; knowing which 5-letter profanity starting with 'c' was used may be relevant in forming an opinion on someone's behavior).

Slurs should get the ban hammer, not an autocensor; and bans should be handed out by people who can judge context.

The main problem with the slur filter is that it does neither consider context, nor considers delimiters. For example, when someone were to say the word for the purple fruit used to make wine, they're not intending to use a word for the non-consensual sexual violation, yet the algorithm can't see the difference when it detects the UTF-8 sequence 0x72 0x61 0x70 0x65, doing a hard-replace with the substring "removed" regardless of the context. Tom Scott once made a video about this phenomenon: it's called String("The Sc" + "unthorpe problem").

Also, as you can see through this reply of mine, filters are pointless when there's a plethora of ways to say the same thing without saying the actual word. Naive filters (e.g. RegExp-based match and replace) will just curb those who aren't creative and/or knowledgeable enough, while affecting the experience for everyone who aren't intending to do slurs, leading them to start using coded language and, thus, making it even harder to detect slurs as the slurers will eventually learn, through the non-slurers, that they can express the same thing without triggering the filter, until we get to a point in which the entire platform pivots to AI moderation, and even then there's so many ways to express the thing without the LLM detecting, it's called "steganography" and curbing this requires technical approaches known to be a Hard NP problem in computer science.

[email protected]

I recommended piefed.social just because it's the flagship piefed instance. What I really love is the software. Namely the on boarding where piefed asks you of topics one might be interested in, subscribe to those topics and their comms, upfront saying one can block certain terms and the user capability to make multicomms. Because what I struggled with the last 2 times trying Lemmy is the content, of the lack of "helping hand" and tips to control a new user's experience having All firehose of content. My third time I tried again starting with Lemmy, then mbin asi read around, then right around the birth of this account, piefed showed up. Instantly clicked, and I stayed.

So probably other piefed based instance, but I've yet to decide which one. I'm leaning towards piefed.zip just because they block the least instances I've seen. But that will be for my own next home, not necessarily for all strangers that I might recommend

Edit: also it must be some degree of irony someone is accusing others of vote manipulation, yet their own comms only allow upvotes. Hmm

Man, I literally hit the cap before it was even announced. I went to the Matrix channel, confused as hell, and got told it was intentional.

The cap is 240 votes. I almost hit the cap just upvoting most of the comments here yesterday. If I participated in any real discussions outside of my own comms, I would almost certainly hit the daily cap on that given day.

The issue was not abuse, and Rimu didn't say it was abuse in that sense. The issue was always that Rimu doesn't think that a small minority should be more active in participating on here than the majority.

I don't see how. Unless you mean people rationing their votes are less likely to scroll as far down?

But yeah this place is going to be desolate without pugjesus, and I wonder how many more people are gonna leave once users rationing votes results in content receiving less engagement.

Overall, just a terrible decision in my opinion

The point isn't about how many users are likely to hit the daily limit, the point is how having a daily limit might cause people to start rationing their votes. Instead of doling them out however they see fit, they might start thinking "hmm, but is this worth spending a vote on?"

Overall, that can have a chilling effect on voting in general, lowering engagement and reducing the motivation to post (if you only get a handful of upvotes on each post, it might feel "dead" and seem to have no point. It's encouraging to see several dozen users like your post). And that can expand to a chilling effect on posting.

Also, if someone has a disability or is recovering from illness or surgery then they're more likely to spend more time on here, meaning they're more likely to reach the vote quota. This disproportionally impacts them.

Sure, 240 a day is high, but it's not unreasonable for a human to reach, and it's nowhere near "obvious bot" territory.

Based on the charts rimu shared, there are so few users who actually reach "obvious bot" territory that it's impossible for them to not highlight themselves, and they should be easy enough to handle on a case-by-case basis. We're talking less than 10 accounts. Admins can look at each one to examine their activity, and if they're a bot they can remove the account.

There's no reason to limit people's votes.

i guess it's an anti-botting measure where they can't distinguish a power user from an automated system?

youtube still has a limit on upvotes, i am pretty sure it's 5000. once you have 5k they remove your oldest ones.

Lemmy.ml famously limits your ability to upvote, comment, or post, and bans accounts that they hate, all while lying about the reasons why (the rules make no mention about saying anything critical about Russia, China, or North Korea, though it’s exceedingly obvious what is going on there).

Dumb mod actions != Baked into the code of software, that you have to remove.

I know shouldn't expect much from someone who has continuously been proven wrong and kept spreading misinformation because learning facts is hard.

But Jesus Christ, the actions of moderatiors being stupid for Russia/China because they think it's revolutionary as they jerk off all day, is not the same as the software being opiniated because he dev doesn't know what he's doing.

Oh yes for sure - beauty is most definitely in the eye of the beholder. Some people might prefer to spin up an instance and remove all votes from it, preferring to browse solely by community and/or All (related: some might disable only downvotes but retain upvotes). Other people might prefer to disable even comments, preferring to use the Threadiverse as an RSS reader, link aggregator, without any of the pesky social interaction - that's not what I personally want but if someone wants that... then fine, go for it?

"Quieter" there was a modifier for the previous word "affect" - i.e., how the downstream effects would impact the person being replied to there, not a value judgement but an explanation of noticeable changes.

I'm perfectly fine with an instance admin tuning their personal instance however they choose - e.g. blocking the major posters in memes and news communities, if they want a lower internet bill and to sort through content how they wish.

That said, this change in the PieFed software was VERY unexpected, not announced almost at all, not transparent at all, and rolled out by default to impact all upgrades to the v1.7 codebase. PieFed.social is NOT someone's personal instance - it is the very flagship instance of the entire PieFed subset of the Threadiverse. So some level of prior expectations are to be expected to come into play in regards to what settings it will choose to use - especially if those are subject to change with little to no notice, and with such major impacts upon the people who have chosen to use it?

PugJesus has donated an IMMENSE amount of time to enhance the Threadiverse, and now not only him but many of us are losing hope in not only PieFed but in this entire Threadiverse experiment overall.

This is quite impactful!

Unironically, it might take such a mindset to see the world, ask "what if it were THIS way instead?", and then go out and MAKE that change happen.

Dessalines had it, and we all benefitted from him making the Threadiverse, even though his ideology would like nothing more than to see every single person living in a Western civilization to (literally) die. Still, kudos for not simply rolling over and taking it up the ass from Reddit, and instead making something better. Or that one day will become better - even if exceedingly slowly.

And Rimu as well: it takes guts to ignore what people say to simply "accept the status quo", and be the change we'd like to see in the world. That said, I don't agree with every decision made there by far, and I fear that this authoritarian mindset is going to get the project killed off. Like, it's good to stick to your guns when you KNOW that you are CORRECT, but to do it just on a whim... yeah it hits entirely differently then.

There was also Ernst of Kbin, but it basically died off already. Yes Mbin exists but with participant numbers that make it a tiny footnote in the description of the Threadiverse more than a major player.

It is, at present, instance-specific, or at least, opt-out by admins. My issue is that I don't have the morale to migrate all my comms to another Piefed instance. I'm done. The instability in the Fediverse has done me in. I'm not stable enough myself to deal with it.

It's probably true that the Threadiverse is run mostly by power users, but that's not a flaw that should be addressed with technical limitations. It's just a matter of general inactivity.

I set up my Epic Games community years ago, but it has attracted less than a handful posters. MeanwhileOnGrad gets a lot of engagement but many posts are from cm, and most are probably from just a few users, while goat was the only moderator until becoming inactive recently. Again, just a matter of the Threadiverse barely growing (as evidence by the total MAU number being the same as 3 years ago) and consisting mainly of lurkers rather than something to pin on the ones who are actually active.

There's no question that PugJesus is not a bot, so if the limit hinders them, I'd have no reason to doubt that or want to tell them to just use the platform differently. If we are to talk disparity, people from Hexbear and the like tend to use alts, so they're the ones to benefit from the change.

Or, it would be fine to discard people's votes in the sense of a new scoring algorithm that discounts them. That would be opt-in to a new feature that those of us who don't want it could simply ignore.

But to arbitrarily simply THROW VOTES AWAY? Damn that's unfriendly. Especially when the culture on the Threadiverse has been absolutely begging for activity since before the Rexodus even, while now all of a sudden in less than a week that virtue turned sour and actively became a vice?

Tbf there may be stuff that I am unaware of - like a coordinated campaign to make Russia look good at Ukraine's expense? THAT I think most people could agree with deserves shutting down. But upvotes of cat pictures? LET THE CAT-VOTES COMMENCE! i.e. a signal, conveying that...