5
On the Lemmy.ml posting warning
(piefed.social)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 Apr 2024
5 points (100.0% liked)
PieFed Meta
170 readers
5 users here now
Discuss PieFed project direction, provide feedback, ask questions, suggest improvements, and engage in conversations related to the platform organization, policies, features, and community dynamics.
Wiki
founded 10 months ago
MODERATORS
Yeah.
Often people will not be aware of the rules a community has (they don't read the sidebar or are on mobile where there sidebar is hard to find) OR, as in the case of worldnews@lemmy.ml, the rules are written deceptively and there are many unwritten rules. Having an additional message that is front and center above the 'compose a comment' input field is an attempt to deal with that.
We need alternatives to defederation which is too extreme and total. Mastodon has muting and silencing, for example. I'd like to figure out whatever the threadiverse equivalent of that is - some way to allow access to those who want it while steering naive users away from places where they're going to have a bad time.
I agree as well. Fediseer supports censures and hesitations towards instances. You could ingest those and allow piefed to report how they see others and how other see them
Great idea.
I've been trying to get into fediseer but piefed does not provide the necessary API to let me claim my instance. I think that's what it is - I get an error message "There was an api error: Only admins of that piefed are allowed to claim it. ". Do you have any docs I can look at which might help me know what endpoints I need to make?
Fediseer tries to understand the api of each software and then looks for the admins of the site to pm. Do you have an api endpoint which lists the admin usernames?
Yes, I have tried to copy Lemmy's /api/v3/site endpoint because I saw a lot of requests to it in the server logs.
https://piefed.social/api/v3/site
Actually I can see a few differences that need tidying up... 'name' is not correct and 'displayName' is missing, for example.
I've fixed up the name and display_name parts of the JSON, incase that endpoint is the one you're after.
An idea that has been spinning in my head a bit is to allow people to subscribe to different levels of moderation. Basically allowing users to choose a "curated", "moderate", or "liberal" experience.
Curated: Whitelist of servers rather than blacklist. Well-moderated instances only.
Moderate: Blacklist rather than whitelist, but blocking annoying instances like Lemmygrad and Hexbear. Aiming at a wide yet enjoyable experience.
Liberal: Blacklist, but only blocking instances that allow (or are incapable of handling) content that goes against the content policy.
It's probably more difficult to implement than what it's worth. What I like about it however is that it would make the whole process of content curation much more transparent. Right now it's often not so clear to people signing up to an instance what kind of moderation policy they will be signing up for. At least this would allow the user some agency even after sign-up.