I’m not misunderstanding it, it’s a fact of how federation between Lemmy and PieFed works, and it results in comments appearing on Lemmy that do not exist on PieFed. Given Rimu’s clear ideological stances and vocal support for building in censorship into PieFed itself, I think it’s pretty obvious why this is the case: PieFed developers don’t like that Lemmy has a lot of communists, and wish to make a space easier to shut out communists.
I’m not misunderstanding it, it’s a fact of how federation between Lemmy and PieFed works, and it results in comments appearing on Lemmy that do not exist on PieFed.
Correct, but you’re assigning some malicious intent to it - when it’s simply differences regarding how blocking should work.
Given Rimu’s clear ideological stances and vocal support for building in censorship into PieFed itself
What “ideological stances” would these be that relevant here? Anyone can be blocked. You could block me now and I couldn’t reply via Piefed. This specific decision has no relevance to anything here.
I think it’s pretty obvious why this is the case: PieFed developers don’t like that Lemmy has a lot of communists, and wish to make a space easier to shut out communists.
Except that anyone can be blocked. A communist could utilise the block function in the same way and stop the person from being able to reply.
Rimu baked-in default blocking of Lemmygrad and Hexbear, to me this is already proof of malicious intent. Rimu’s ideological stances are reflected in the code itself, including things like a social credit score system that makes it more difficult to see comments from “unsavory users.” I’m aware that anyone can use the block function, but when viewed with the context of how Rimu’s views impact the project and how it relates to the fediverse in general, it’s designed with creating an echo chamber in mind.
It all makes sense if you look at it from the point of view of Rimu developing a platform that suits their views and interests first and foremost. I don’t agree with it, but it’s logical and predictable with that frame of analysis.
That’s an automated check-system for new piefed instances that specifically ignores communities with specific names. That list has been trimmed down now purely to just insults and slurs. It really isn’t a major component of the system as said communities with those names can still be manually federated to it.
Rimu baked-in default blocking of Lemmygrad and Hexbear, to me this is already proof of malicious intent.
Easily turned-off - and is by multiple other instances, but yes, Rimu doesn’t like them.
Rimu’s ideological stances are reflected in the code itself, including things like a social credit score system that makes it more difficult to see comments from “unsavory users.”
Not sure what this has to do with any particular or specific allegation of anti-communism. This is mostly to catch trolls and spammers, and it works.
I’m aware that anyone can use the block function, but when viewed with the context of how Rimu’s views impact the project and how it relates to the fediverse in general, it’s designed with creating an echo chamber in mind.
I simply don’t follow that at all. It means more accurately that Rimu simply believes that a blocked user shouldn’t be able to be replied to by the person they blocked as that can be used to harass by some.
I don’t think it’s particularly outlandish to say that the facts that Rimu thinks it’s acceptable to build ideological bias into the code itself, and that PieFed specifically has tools designed to more cultivate an echo chamber, are likely connected with Rimu’s own political bias. PieFed makes censorship easier and more opaque, Lemmy makes it harder and more transparent. I’m not saying that there are no good reasons to use PieFed, but that at least acknowledging that it’s being developed primarily to specifically counter issues Rimu personally has with Lemmy, including politically, is pretty reasonable.
I don’t think it’s particularly outlandish to say that the facts that Rimu thinks it’s acceptable to build ideological bias into the code itself, and that PieFed specifically has tools designed to more cultivate an echo chamber, are likely connected with Rimu’s own political bias.
I don’t see how making it so people who block someone can’t be bothered by them directly again is illustrative of “ideological bias” in any political sense. No political persuasion has some inherent advantage from that function, and many websites utilise block tools in a similar way. The direct impact of that is that individuals have more control over who gets to reply to them in a comment thread, but that doesn’t specifically aid or harm whatever you claim Rimu’s goals are.
PieFed makes censorship easier and more opaque, Lemmy makes it harder and more transparent.
PieFed here could simply provide notifications for when you are blocked by someone if you want transparency.
I’m not saying that the blocking censorship is evidence of political bias, but that the clear political bias elsewhere forces us to recontextualize why these other features exist for PieFed. You cannot simply judge each element in a vacuum, the sum total needs to be viewed, based on each part. I really don’t think it’s unreasonable to say that a person with a very vocally anti-communist agenda that is developing an alternative to the largest FOSS reddit alternative has that bias reflected in the code itself.
I’m not saying that the blocking censorship is evidence of political bias, but that the clear political bias elsewhere forces us to recontextualize why these other features exist for PieFed.
I don’t think you can take anything from the interpretation of blocking to whatever issues you have with other aspects of Piefeds design choices here.
I’m not misunderstanding it, it’s a fact of how federation between Lemmy and PieFed works, and it results in comments appearing on Lemmy that do not exist on PieFed. Given Rimu’s clear ideological stances and vocal support for building in censorship into PieFed itself, I think it’s pretty obvious why this is the case: PieFed developers don’t like that Lemmy has a lot of communists, and wish to make a space easier to shut out communists.
Correct, but you’re assigning some malicious intent to it - when it’s simply differences regarding how blocking should work.
What “ideological stances” would these be that relevant here? Anyone can be blocked. You could block me now and I couldn’t reply via Piefed. This specific decision has no relevance to anything here.
Except that anyone can be blocked. A communist could utilise the block function in the same way and stop the person from being able to reply.
Rimu baked-in default blocking of Lemmygrad and Hexbear, to me this is already proof of malicious intent. Rimu’s ideological stances are reflected in the code itself, including things like a social credit score system that makes it more difficult to see comments from “unsavory users.” I’m aware that anyone can use the block function, but when viewed with the context of how Rimu’s views impact the project and how it relates to the fediverse in general, it’s designed with creating an echo chamber in mind.
Oh yeah, I remember hearing about this. Even apart from instances some community names by default aren’t federated. It’s a really weird stance.
It all makes sense if you look at it from the point of view of Rimu developing a platform that suits their views and interests first and foremost. I don’t agree with it, but it’s logical and predictable with that frame of analysis.
That’s an automated check-system for new piefed instances that specifically ignores communities with specific names. That list has been trimmed down now purely to just insults and slurs. It really isn’t a major component of the system as said communities with those names can still be manually federated to it.
Easily turned-off - and is by multiple other instances, but yes, Rimu doesn’t like them.
Not sure what this has to do with any particular or specific allegation of anti-communism. This is mostly to catch trolls and spammers, and it works.
I simply don’t follow that at all. It means more accurately that Rimu simply believes that a blocked user shouldn’t be able to be replied to by the person they blocked as that can be used to harass by some.
I don’t think it’s particularly outlandish to say that the facts that Rimu thinks it’s acceptable to build ideological bias into the code itself, and that PieFed specifically has tools designed to more cultivate an echo chamber, are likely connected with Rimu’s own political bias. PieFed makes censorship easier and more opaque, Lemmy makes it harder and more transparent. I’m not saying that there are no good reasons to use PieFed, but that at least acknowledging that it’s being developed primarily to specifically counter issues Rimu personally has with Lemmy, including politically, is pretty reasonable.
I don’t see how making it so people who block someone can’t be bothered by them directly again is illustrative of “ideological bias” in any political sense. No political persuasion has some inherent advantage from that function, and many websites utilise block tools in a similar way. The direct impact of that is that individuals have more control over who gets to reply to them in a comment thread, but that doesn’t specifically aid or harm whatever you claim Rimu’s goals are.
PieFed here could simply provide notifications for when you are blocked by someone if you want transparency.
I’m not saying that the blocking censorship is evidence of political bias, but that the clear political bias elsewhere forces us to recontextualize why these other features exist for PieFed. You cannot simply judge each element in a vacuum, the sum total needs to be viewed, based on each part. I really don’t think it’s unreasonable to say that a person with a very vocally anti-communist agenda that is developing an alternative to the largest FOSS reddit alternative has that bias reflected in the code itself.
I don’t think you can take anything from the interpretation of blocking to whatever issues you have with other aspects of Piefeds design choices here.
I don’t think you can judge individual aspects of a broader project and pretend they are entirely distinct and unrelated.