PieFed 1.6 is released - pronouns, private communities, quote posts and much more

[grail@multiverse.soulism.net]

New users can only do 3 posts in their first 24h, to reduce floods of posts by that guy who keeps deleting his accounts and making new ones

Alts Georg is an outlier and should not be included in the average alts per users figure

Auto-delete of replies on remote instances when reply author has been blocked by parent content author

I don't really understand this. So if I block Timmy@instance.net and then he replies to My posts on piefed.social, piefed.social will delete his comments? But instance.net won't?

[grail@multiverse.soulism.net]

This will be really useful for the soulist credit card number sharing group! /funny

[grail@multiverse.soulism.net]

Back when I was involved in sapphic partner abuse drama on Twitter, you could block someone but still reply to their posts, so you could put DARVO under all of their posts and they wouldn't be able to see it or respond to it or report it.

So NO THANK YOU to being able to block someone and hide your posts from them. Abusers would abuse it so bad.

[wjs018@piefed.social]

The pinned posts still obey some of the visibility rules of any other post. So, in this case, piefed.ca has Popular as the default sort on the instance. That means that the community that is home to those posts must have the Posts can be popular box checked in the admin settings for that community:

I can't confirm that this is the issue, but I was able to confirm with a dev instance that local-pinned posts do show up for anonymous users using the popular sort when that box is checked and don't when it is unchecked.

[1fuji2taka3nasubi@piefed.zip]

DNS is not trustworthy enough, you’ll probably need something like a public / private key pair for each server to verify each other.

[otter@lemmy.ca]

It could be, where would I find that setting? I didn't see it in the community settings.

I do see the "popular" column is ticked on admin/communities for those communities, but I don't see a page that has something like your screenshot

[borisentiu@piefed.social]

Thank you so much for your great work!

[zombie@feddit.uk]

I don't understand what the purpose of the plain http is, can anybody explain to me please?

[skavau@piefed.social]

I don’t really understand this. So if I block Timmy@instance.net and then he replies to My posts on piefed.social, piefed.social will delete his comments? But instance.net won’t?

No. It means future comments by the blocked user would be deleted. This only matters when coming from Lemmy instances as on Piefed, a user being blocked disables that user from responding.

[quokka@quokk.au]

I don't know how you do, so much so often. Thank you for everything Rimu and other PieFed dev's who names I haven't memorised!

[grail@multiverse.soulism.net]

I still don't understand

[skavau@piefed.social]

It means that if you were to block a user replying to you from a Lemmy instance, any further replies they make to you in any thread would be automatically thrown out by Piefed.

[julian@activitypub.space]

@skavau@piefed.social said in PieFed 1.6 is released - pronouns, private communities, quote posts and much more:
> any further replies they make to you in any thread would be automatically thrown out by Piefed.

Padme: "for just you, right?"

Anakin:

[grail@multiverse.soulism.net]

Oh, so if Timmy is a Lemmy user and blocks Me, and I reply to Timmy's posts on piefed.social, piefed.social deletes My comments?

[skavau@piefed.social]

Yes, and for other piefed instances. It is due to underlying differences in how rimu interprets how blocking should work vs. Lemmy

[walden@wetshav.ing]

At least in our case we're divided about 50/50 between Lemmy and PieFed. I could force people to PieFed by deleting Lemmy, but that wouldn't be nice 😀

Private federation would be incredible but I've already heard you say it would be a large amount of work, so I'm not holding my breath!

[grail@multiverse.soulism.net]

That's awesome! That means Piefed users can't follow a person around putting the same reply under all their posts. I wrote about that problem on My blog!

[hubertmanne@piefed.social]

I don't have enough background to understand what putting darvo would mean under posts but since its reportable I would assume its bad. I don't see how they could do this though because by blocking someone they would not be able to see their post or replies to put a reply under.

[grail@multiverse.soulism.net]

DARVO stands for Deny, Attack, Reverse/Redirect Victim and Offender.

For example let's say your newest kitten isn't turning out to be as pliable as you'd hoped, and they're getting close to realising that your treatment of them has been less than consensual. If they tell the community, you're in trouble. But if you simply lie to everyone and say they pressured you into sex, and tell everyone not to listen to their side of the story, your reputation is safe and you'll get lots of sympathy. First to speak is usually believed. And if kitten tries to tell the truth, you can simply accuse them of DARVO. The sapphic community doesn't tend to verify claims of abuse in any way, so this stuff is rampant.

And on Twitter, there's a button you can press to view posts by someone you blocked. It won't show up in your feed, but you can go to their profile. If they haven't blocked you, you can spray your DARVO all over the place and they won't even notice.

I don't know if they patched that out since then, but it doesn't matter. You can unblock someone for five minutes, say your harassment, and then block them again. The only technical solution is to put time limits on reblocking someone after your unblock them. But a lot of people don't wanna do that, and I understand why.

[tundra_lifeform@piefed.social]

Fuck me, I've been on Piefed for literally 5 minutes and let me tell you, it's so relieving knowing that I can write (this comment included) without being traced right down to the marrow in my bones. Coming next month I'll start to donate, excellent work, guys