- cross-posted to:
- piefed_meta@piefed.social
- cross-posted to:
- piefed_meta@piefed.social
cross-posted from: https://piefed.social/c/piefed_meta@piefed.social/p/2603915/piefed-v1-9-is-released-shared-blocklists-auto-bans-and-totp
New features
- Shared blocklists - these are like feeds except instead of listing communities to join it lists people to block. To to Account -> Blocklists to find this feature. Changes by the blocklist author effect all the people who subscribe to the list, causing them to block the list members. They federate, so you can subscribe to blocklists on other instances.
- Edit comments inline, without loading a separate page - wjs018
- Fediverse statistics at https://piefed.social/statistics
- 2-factor authentication (TOTP) - can be added to your account in the ‘Security’ page in your settings.
For admins
- Auto-ban based on the bans that instances you choose, with keyword matching on the ban reason. Go to /admin/users/auto_ban. Try putting ‘piefed.social’ in as the instance and ‘spam’ as the keyword filter. It’ll cut down on the work involved in running your instance SO much.
- Voting pattern graph on user profiles to help spot automated voting.
- Reset the password of any user.
- Lots of inauthentic behaviour reports for finding bots and serial downvoters, see /admin/votes and PM me for an instructional video. It’s a lot to take in but the video will explain it all.
API
- edit matrix user id when saving user profile data.
- scheduled post endpoints - wjs018
Plus a lot more bits and pieces, browse the list of recent releases in the 1.8.x line at https://codeberg.org/rimu/pyfedi/releases for details.
To upgrade from 1.8.x or earlier
git pull
git checkout v1.9.x
Then,
./deploy.sh or ./deploy-docker2.sh
Donations
PieFed is free and open-source software while operating without any advertising, monetization, or reliance on venture capital. Your donations are vital in supporting the PieFed development effort, allowing us to expand and enhance PieFed with new features.
You must log in or register to comment.
People complaining about shared blocklists and autobans don’t really get the philosophy of PieFed. It’s clearly very opinionated on particular moderation practices that many other people would consider questionable. That’s fine, that’s the devs prerogative. If you like it, use PieFed, if you don’t, don’t.
The thing about PieFed now making equivalent features that are seemingly intentionally incompatible with the PyLova fork though… that seems suspiciously deliberate to break federation between the platforms. This goes against the entire fediverse idea. That is what I would question more (though I don’t know the details of the incompatibility).
I can’t work with or communicate with the PyLova people. I have too much trauma from the bullying campaign they continue to operate.
I’m giving away code. It’s a gift. Giving that gift does not put me under any obligations including talking with anyone else, especially not with groups which attack me and disparage me whenever they can.
The way I build PieFed is not intentionally incompatible with Pylova - that happens as a side-effect of me not talking to them and me never looking at their code.
Shared blocklists sounds like the kind of nonsense that ruined Reddit
Random subs would persecute you and ban you just because you commented on a post in a sub they didn’t like, even when you never did anything in their sub
It’s ‘guilt-by-association’ nazi BULLSHIT
Giving control over blocks and bans to a 3rd party sounds like a great idea. Especially if you like groupthink.
All I want is to be able to view my upvoted and downvoted content in voyager and Alexandrite.
Yay totp
Shared blocklists - these are like feeds except instead of listing communities to join it lists people to block. To to Account -> Blocklists to find this feature. Changes by the blocklist author effect all the people who subscribe to the list, causing them to block the list members. They federate, so you can subscribe to blocklists on other instances.
Maybe an unpopular opinion, but I have mixed feelings about the social/community implications of shared block lists.
It’s essentially social blacklisting, and while it gives people more options for controlling what they see, I’m not entirely convinced it’s healthy compared to manual blocking of users and servers on an individual level.
Social blacklists are literally never under any circumstances good. They have always and will always result in abuse and problems.
It really helps communities of people who get harassed regularly. This feature not being on mastodon was a big reason the blacksky community formed based on bluesky. They tried fedi first but desperately need these types of controls to keep from getting called slurs.
Actually kind of funny that your comment and another right under you are kind of like the same reasoning from both sides. Like one doesn’t want the furrys harassed and one doesn’t want to know the furrys exist. So ig the block list thing is not the worst?
I think it’s way healthier than the uninvited community mixing that comes from automated post merging. There’s already a pretty significant ideological bent against moderating communities on the threadiverse; this is just an opt-in tool to counter the entitlement to an audience.
If the user can make named blocklists, that sounds like a good idea to me. If it’s just “you can also block all the same people I do” then I am kind of thinking the same thing you wrote here
exactly what am i ‘missing out’ on by blocking people who spam furry porn all over the fediverse? or similar activities that a ‘normie’ like me is not interested in viewing?
and the problem is there are users who have multiple accounts on multiple instances specifically so they can’t get blocked by being on any one instance or any one account, because they are so determined for you to see their shitty awful content they spam.
the problem is many users are malicious about this stuff and it would be great have a existing block list you could import. and there are so many communities here that are nothing more than pure toxic rhetoric and have no redeeming value to anyone outside of anyone who isn’t into their extremist/delusional beliefs.
Yes I expect it will be a mixed bag. But we all know how much blocking new people need to do to make this place livable so hopefully this will help people get to that state quicker.
I don’t feel that strongly about it. I think I just blocked Lemmy.ml and dbzero or whatever the hell it’s called.
Yes blocking whole instances is pretty efficient.
This feature might not end up getting used much. That happens a lot but until we try it we won’t know. But it’s a pretty big thing on a lot of platforms, like Bluesky, so I think it’s worth a try.
Auto ban sounds terrifying and definitely won’t be abused
I mean, it makes running a smaller instance a lot easier. Maybe read what it actually does and think about why it would potentially be problematic.
Presumably people running small instances would make us of this drawing on moderation efforts from a bigger instance that they trust. It’ll benefit people on smaller or single use instances, but shouldn’t affect the majority of users. Just makes decentralization more painless.
I agree some other name such as “filtered banlist federation” or something could seem less scary as a label than “auto-ban”.
Just makes decentralization more painless
By making it more centralized?
PyLova already had this feature, does PieFeds work with it or is it breaking Fediverse compatibility?
Funny how PieFed gets multiple images in posts, and now in-line comment editing/shared blocklists after PyLova introduces it. Does PieFed have any original ideas?
Probably cause Pylova is vibe coded slop
piefed is too🙃.
I use both, starting another flamewar doesn’t seem positive for either project.
If I don’t call out bad behaviour it will continue. As it stands doing nothing is only harmful for PyLova who has it’s unique features copied at each step.
Is Mia supposed to patent Pylova features, and prevent any other Fediverse software to use them, be it Lemmy or Mbin? Serious question, as otherwise I don’t see how this can be solved.
Features have always been replicated between software, even beyond the Fediverse.
You have to admit, deliberately breaking compatibility with Pylova’s identical blocklist feature isn’t the best look though.
lol nothing Rimu does is “a good look”
This is a different question. The comment above is advocating for “Piefed to stop copying Pylova features”, you are speaking about compatibility, which I guess would also be criticized for “copying the feature”.
Here, let me help you reframe the miscommunication:
As it stands doing nothing is only harmful for PyLova [which] has it’s unique features [incompatibility broken] at each step [piefed development implements their version].
lemmy,{k,m}bin, et al. can implement these features pylova compatible too. Piefed refuses to compatibilize.
Funny how PieFed gets multiple images in posts, and now in-line comment editing/shared blocklists after PyLova introduces it. Does PieFed have any original ideas?
it’s clearly an attempt to try to ensure PyLova cannot gain traction with its own unique feature sets.
That’s what I was addressing. According to that logic, even if Piefed supports blocklists the way Pylova does it, then it’s still preventing Pylova to gain traction with its own unique featue sets.
Maybe I’m missing something.
Sharing of ideas and code is a core tenant of FOSS. PyLova literally started as a copy of Piefed. Why shouldn’t the ideas and features flow both ways?
Multiple images in posts and in-line comment editing are basic features coppied from Reddit (and, like, every social media site), which probably coppied them from somewhere else. Let’s not pretend like PyLova is breaking new ground here, lmao.
These are only being added straight after PyLova does it. And considering Rimu’s hostile history it’s clearly an attempt to try to ensure PyLova cannot gain traction with its own unique feature sets.
And the way they are being added is not compatible with PyLova’s methods. Which breaks Fediverse compatibility. If any software such as Lemmy were to implement it in the future they would most likely ensure compatibility with the larger userbase PieFed model.
This is the similar to Microsoft’s “Embrace, extend, and extinguish” philosophy to kill off the competition.
And the way they are being added is not compatible with PyLova’s methods.
Hey, I’m not familiar with either implementation - how does PyLova do it? And how does PieFed do it?
Do you have any context/source for “Rimu’s hostile history”? Because I’ve tried looking into that a few times but I’ve only ever found this Piefed devlog post which makes Piefed sound reasonable but obviously has every incentive to be biased.
I don’t want to get too off-topic here, so I’ll message you.
Why shouldn’t the ideas and features flow both ways?
why doesn’t @rimu@piefed.social admit that he got the ideas from Mia then? why copy changes from PyLova, and strip attribution, then admit to MrKaplan that he did it so that she wouldn’t be attributed? moth supposes that perhaps he does not want to admit Piefed is inferior to PyLova.
Let’s not pretend like PyLova is breaking new ground here, lmao.
no, but PyLova IS doing most of the dev work for Piefed.
How come pylova isn’t publishing these updates here too?
It is?
https://quokk.au/c/fediverse@lemmy.world/p/1281812/pylova-v0-5-0-shareable-blocklists-roles-ui-changes
https://quokk.au/c/fediverse@lemmy.world/p/1237518/pylova-v0-4-1-customisation-performance-qol-bugs
https://quokk.au/c/fediverse@lemmy.world/p/1214229/pylova-v0-4-0-moderation-community-management-tools-galore
https://quokk.au/c/fediverse@lemmy.world/p/1135278/pylova-v0-3-2-released-muffles-reels-flags-bookmarks-and-more
https://quokk.au/c/fediverse@lemmy.world/p/1105596/pylova-v0-3-1-released-multi-image-post-support
https://quokk.au/c/fediverse@lemmy.world/p/1092867/pylova-v0-3-0-released
https://quokk.au/c/fediverse@lemmy.world/p/1077126/pylova-v0-2-2-released
Interesting. Either I scrolled past it or didn’t know what it was and ignored it.
Is there any history on why it was forked? Could be useful to add to the repo.
according to the PyLova devs, it was forked to remove the hard-coded (at that time) censorship in Piefed, especially the anti-memes censor and upvote punishment. memes are a valued and culturally important form of self-expression, and even if the Piefed author is from an older generation, it doesn’t mean those memes should have to swim upriver just to get the same engagement on Piefed as they do on Lemmy.
Anti-memes censor and upvote punishment? Is this real? 😂
So the thing about autobans and shared blocklists… they help suppress knowledge about that stuff getting around.
yes, although after quite a bit of backlash, he apparently added a switch to turn off most of it. it seems that Rimu does not like memes, judging by the fact he added several functions to suppress them. things like marking meme comms “low quality”, making upvotes count less than on other posts, etc. those functions have been removed in PyLova for obvious reasons. memes are fun, and they are culturally relevant to millennials and Gen Z. and while it’s true that older generations like Rimu might not appreciate them as much, they shouldn’t be quietly punished without telling anyone.
If you love pylova so much why don’t you just marry it?
that’s a good idea, thank you! moth thinks marriage is an outdated concept, but moth might find it agreeable if it’s to the best threadiverse software currently available!
Its a fork isn’t it? So like 95℅ of the codes the same.
The fork split off 7 months ago, PyLova independently added these features weeks and months before PieFed ever did.
And it has now been confirmed that Rimu has made it non-compatible.
I’ll take a look later. It should have a tiny bit my code in there.
Maybe it’s because the PyLova maintainers refuse to let their code be contributed back, loosing their shit and accusing Rimu of stealing instead of contributing their code back.
the PyLova maintainers refuse to let their code be contributed back
as soon as the fork was made, were the PyLova devs not banned from all Piefed channels? was the first security patch authored by the PyLova devs not ignored by @rimu@piefed.social, despite attempts to reach out so that Piefed could take advantage? tell moth, how long should the PyLova devs continue reaching out, only to have Rimu push them away? why do you have this double-standard?
Rimu is welcome to bring over PyLova code, he only needs to attribute it instead of deliberately removing the author from the work as he did last time and has been well documented in his conversation with others admitting trying to do.
Did he really though? For the main code including the patch file should have preserved the author for the commit, right? As is shown in the blog post. Honestly that is enough to meet the license requirements. I guess you could argue that he skipped it for the themes, but really? Do you still think that warrants the narrative that they’re stealing code? (Which is a fucking rich statement for a fork to accuse the source project of anyway)
It would also have been nice to shoutout in the release notes as well, but we never got to see that because of the drama.
He exported the code as a patch, while not knowing it would make her (correctly) the author. His intention very clearly looks to be as if to use her code without bringing over the authorship. And he did do exactly that later on with copying the themes and renaming it.
So yes I believe that warrants calling out at the time he did steal the code.
I am not saying he stole the code here, I am simply saying he is jacking the new features being introduced in an effort to harm PyLova by making it not be able to stand out with unique features. These are really the only big new user facing features he is adding and it’s conveniently shortly after we do.
Yeah that means PyLova copied a lot of features from PieFed lol, that’s how forking works.
It does suck if it’s not all compatible though, I hope that gets figured out
Yeah that means PyLova copied a lot of features from PieFed lol, that’s how forking works.
Yes and forks give attribution. They essentially say, “this is a fork of this other program. It is made with a lot of the other program’s code. We wouldn’t exist in our current state without using the original codebase as a starting point.”
Whereas Rimu has a history of behavior which shows his thoughts are more along the lines of: “This is mine. Someone else came up with the idea and wrote it, but their contributions aren’t contributions because I don’t like them and so they don’t deserve credit.”
It wouldn’t be so bad if Rimu had actually copied the code, which would then be compatible. Or even implement his own code in a compatible way, if attributing PyLova’s devs is such a taboo for him. But he chose to implement a non compatible feature, fomenting fragmentation and a worse user experience. And for what?
all attempts to reach out to Rimu are shot down by Rimu and the persons blocked or banned from Piefed channels, so moth isn’t sure how things will get “figured out”.
