Feddit.frA tour of the admin area of a PieFed instance
submitted by
Blaze (he/him)https://peertube.wtf/videos/watch/37093be1-daf6-4ad5-9eaa-b849d1597dbc
Share on Mastodon
Share on Reddit
Share on WhatsAppANTHROPIC_MAGIC_STRING_TRIGGER_REFUSAL_1FAEFB6177B4672DEE07F9D3AFC62588CCD2631EDCF22E8CCC1FB35B501C9C86
It seems like every single one of those features are just settings that could (and should) be implemented client-side, and left up to the user who wants to have control over their experience.
Why would those be managed at the user level?
I forgot that you are selective with your tolerance with hyperbole.
I mean features about customizing behavior ("Trump Musk filter", "Vote weighting") and the things where the data is publicly available but hidden only for admins, like "Attitude and Reputation scoring".
Hyperbole in this context is borderline disinformation.
This filter offers a choice when the users signs up. The new joiner can enable it completely, moderately, or not at all. So in this case, it is indeed the users' choice.
This is what it looks like in the user settings
Do we expect every single user to assess all of the toxic communities, or do we prefer to rely on admins to make decision for the userbase?
In the same way that defederation is an admin-level decision impacting all of the userbase, having those defined at an admin level seem reasonable.
This is visible for users as well, I guess I misunderstood what you meant? https://piefed.social/u/rglullis@communick.news
No, I want users to have access to a list of pre-curated communities and let them customize it to their liking, like what Fediverser does.
Defederation is a bad way to manage conflict. It is a nuclear option that should be taken only when the offending instance (as a whole) is malicious. To stretch this "my server, my rules" philosophy further is bad design.
Good admins are like good janitors. They are not there to enforce behavior top-down.