The fact these filters exist in the first place are not a good sign. When Microsoft introduces new shitware that is “disabled by default” people are skeptical that it might not be disabled for long, but when a fediverse dev does it to block content they personally don’t like it’s fine? This goes against the entire concept of the fediverse imho. Just block people you don’t like yourself
I’ve removed code I didn’t want in mine. (A feature I later re enabled).
If I want to add code, I do so. Or I remove code.
Microsoft is closed, and they are leveraging tons of cash to manipulate. Try turning off updates on a windows 11 machine… Is it just a toggle? What if Microsoft removes the option or requires… oh wait closed source and they already did.
All piefed has been doing is giving options.
Blame admins if you like but be honest about your intentions instead of this campism.
Masto and other fedi services give options of blanket blocks or filters, so arguing entire concept of fedi is nonsense.
It goes against your concept of the Fediverse. You are just as much trying to force your personal preference on others with this argument of slippery slope of Microsoft nonsense.
I think it is great if different instances have different profiles that cater to different audience instead of everything just being the same with different domain names. If it is all the same it may as well be a single instance and the entire point of federating is lost.
It took 2 days for a PR to go though on piefed. It was a great experience.
Reading the code is VERY easy, even compared to other projects. I was able to get it up and running in about 30 mins with very little knowledge of the project. The “filters” are all optional on the admin side and instances can and have modified them to suit their needs.
Congrats @[email protected] ! Your project has gained “controversy”, the main way you can tell its getting successful 😁.
I specifically chose my instance by what content they did and didn’t choose to block. I turned away from several otherwise appealing instances because they didn’t block some of the content I would’ve wanted them to. I know I can do it myself, and I do when I need to, but I want an instance that aligns with my interests enough that I don’t have to worry about blocking every problematic group as they pop up. If something changes and the instance ends up blocking things I wouldn’t want blocked, I move to another instance. It’s as easy as moving to another seat on the bus - barely an inconvenience.
The fact these filters exist in the first place are not a good sign. When Microsoft introduces new shitware that is “disabled by default” people are skeptical that it might not be disabled for long, but when a fediverse dev does it to block content they personally don’t like it’s fine? This goes against the entire concept of the fediverse imho. Just block people you don’t like yourself
it’s Python. It’s foss.
I’ve removed code I didn’t want in mine. (A feature I later re enabled).
If I want to add code, I do so. Or I remove code.
Microsoft is closed, and they are leveraging tons of cash to manipulate. Try turning off updates on a windows 11 machine… Is it just a toggle? What if Microsoft removes the option or requires… oh wait closed source and they already did.
All piefed has been doing is giving options.
Blame admins if you like but be honest about your intentions instead of this campism.
Masto and other fedi services give options of blanket blocks or filters, so arguing entire concept of fedi is nonsense.
It goes against your concept of the Fediverse. You are just as much trying to force your personal preference on others with this argument of slippery slope of Microsoft nonsense.
I think it is great if different instances have different profiles that cater to different audience instead of everything just being the same with different domain names. If it is all the same it may as well be a single instance and the entire point of federating is lost.
Microsoft does not operate on a federated model.
The Piefed devs have no way to change the configuration of other instances.
if only there was a way for devs to distribute changes to the software they made
If you believe that the Piefed devs would get away with overriding the configuration of other instances with an update, that’s not realistic.
Most of the Piefed users (myself included) would leave immediately.
What our experience is is the opposite: the Piefed dev team is always receptive to feedback, and improves the software based on this constantly.
It took 2 days for a PR to go though on piefed. It was a great experience.
Reading the code is VERY easy, even compared to other projects. I was able to get it up and running in about 30 mins with very little knowledge of the project. The “filters” are all optional on the admin side and instances can and have modified them to suit their needs.
Congrats @[email protected] ! Your project has gained “controversy”, the main way you can tell its getting successful 😁.
I specifically chose my instance by what content they did and didn’t choose to block. I turned away from several otherwise appealing instances because they didn’t block some of the content I would’ve wanted them to. I know I can do it myself, and I do when I need to, but I want an instance that aligns with my interests enough that I don’t have to worry about blocking every problematic group as they pop up. If something changes and the instance ends up blocking things I wouldn’t want blocked, I move to another instance. It’s as easy as moving to another seat on the bus - barely an inconvenience.