You could host your own instance (of PieFed, Mbin, Lemmy, Mastodon, Pixelfed, Loops, etc.) and then you’d simply be sending the user-agent info to yourself.

This issue is discussed a bit in the linked post.

The situation is a bit similar to that for NSFW: if all content is not perfectly labeled, then is the tag worthwhile to exist at all?

And mods will abuse the system regardless - e.g. look at how often Lemmy.ml removes posts citing “rule 1”, despite that rule never anywhere anyway in any language stating that you are not allowed to criticize (or not support strongly enough?) Russia, China, or North Korea (or perhaps soon adding the USA and Israel?). Regardless of platform - Reddit, Lemmy, PieFed, Mbin, nodeBB, Mastodon, Pixelfed, Loops, etc. - mods are gonna mod regardless, and some will be better at that task than others.

Though it is still useful to have “rules”, and use them in communities, even if they aren’t properly implemented in all situations. The alternative being 4chan where anything and everything goes - not everyone is looking for that?

I guarantee you that Lemmy has for multiple years already abused non-AI content in a far worse manner: see e.g. the (non-AI) moderation tool santabot. Even so, Lemmy does not abolish the ability to post things, or to vote on it. i.e. the worst excesses of a thing do not preclude good uses for it. Knowledge that Santabot exists may encourage you to stop participating in the entire Threadiverse, but it does not need to? Systemically, the Threadiverse is fairly good, overall?

And now PieFed offers tools to detect AI content. I guarantee you that it will be abused, somewhere/way/when/how. Though at least now it exists, and can be improved? And we can be a part of that process too, by offering realistic suggestions to the development team, which demonstrably listens to and actively solicits such feedback all the time.

What makes the thoughts strong is that their implementation already exists.

Likewise, PieFed saw a number of opportunities to improve things, and rather than simply wishing that something were so, people expended effort to actually code them up so as to make them REAL, i.e. no longer mere thoughts but actions.

e.g. Lemmy offers a marking/tagging for NSFW, which PieFed expanded so that NSFL (gore) is an entirely separate category. Theoretically I could completely hide all NSFL while blurring the thumbnail of NSFW posts, or vice versa, or make both sets semi-transparent, or whatever. The Lemmy software might offer thoughts and prayers along those lines - e.g. theoretically you could dedicate different communities for each type, or even different entire instances (one for NSFW and a separate instance for NSFL?), or perhaps add standardized keywords (not that Lemmy allows keyword filtering innately, as PieFed does, but in case some 3rd party apps wanted to do so?) to distinguish between NSFW vs. NSFL - but multiple years ago now PieFed birthed that thought into a full-blown solution.

In the same manner, PieFed is far beyond the stage of merely beginning to have a couple thoughts along the lines of dealing with AI content: as that linked posts indicates, 5 months ago it already offered a full implementation of a solution.

PieFed has rather strong thoughts on the subject: https://piefed.social/c/piefed_meta/p/1523426/labelling-or-hiding-ai-generated-content.

In short, just as NSFW/NSFL posts or bot accounts are totally fine so long as labeled, so too AI posts are fine… unless unlabeled as such. And if users refuse to label them, then community mods have tools that help them detect and label them for the users.

PieFed’s options for AI content are:

• Show

• Hide completely

• Label as AI

• Make post semi-transparent

This method democratically puts powerful tools into the hands of end-users to individually choose what approach works best for them, rather than e.g. make an authoritive declaration such as defederation of instances that often allow AI content.

The world is a less friendly place than it used to be… especially the interwebs.

Still needs an instance owner who is legally responsible for all the content on the entire site - this way the police know who to come for if there is illegal content like CSAM. At that point, better make sure that the admins are trustworthy individuals who have been vetted more extensively than simply having applied.

But sounds a great way to engender a sense of ownership among mods (& perhaps those admins who were vetted).

Btw PieFed also has several features that implement democratization of moderation, lessening the work that a mod traditionally is forced to do on Lemmy since the end-users can do the thing on their own, aided with software. e.g. if someone wants to see less content about Musk or Trump, then keyword filters provide that option (All, Some, or None), rather than a moderator having to decide for all of the community members at once. Or if someone wants to avoid contentious content, they can hide or just collapse (requiring an extra click to read) comments below a certain (user-definable) score threshold. Or NSFW content can be blurred, rather than simply allowed vs. removed; also NSFW is distinguished from NSFL (gore). Also fwiw, moderator reports federate, and someone is actually notified if their content is removed or if they are banned, plus much more - PieFed already allows much more democratic processes than the more authoritarian-styled Lemmy provides for (I believe there is even a deeper description of administrative roles built right in). So you may want to read about that. See also this article.

However it is accomplished, it sounds like a grand experiment!

“MIGHT”??!

If youse knows whats good for youse, capiche?

said HSBC staff needed to ensure they were “not fighting us, not disenfranchised, not anxious, overwhelmed, and resisting the change.”

-> “you should smile more”.

I thought it was potassium.

I mean, they can and are doing that right now, haha! 😂

And sometimes they even have a point, buried incredibly deeply, about how we could improve things across the Threadiverse, but it requires so very much effort to translate past all the BS and outright lies (intentional or otherwise) that 99/100 times it simply is not worth the effort. Plus it leaves you drained, exhausted, and burnt-out, without a clear vision of what needs doing in order to move forward.

Which is presumably the very point of much of this drama seeking - to throw everything at the wall and see what sticks, in order to “win” their POV by any means necessary (rather than aim for truth as an end-goal and work towards that collectively).

Tbf all of these tools - and Pixelfed more than most - are so very new, and being developed on a shoestring budget using volunteer efforts that are not seeking capitalistic remuneration. And being able to pull in old posts is a very niche feature that affects an instance pretty much only once, upon its initial creation and then never again, so it might not be a top priority for its dev team to implement. Though a lot of teams for Fediverse tools (like PieFed) tend to be quite responsive, and pinging them may help them realize that it needs to be done sooner, i.e. communication of that may be helpful rather than annoying?

Whereas ATproto’s main downsides lay in it lacking “robustness” for the future - what happens when like pretty much every Internet company that ever existed (Google, Meta, Amazon, etc.), they decide to switch from attempts to attract a wider user base to trying to monetizate its content? Suddenly all those ATproto connections become a liability where someone can access the content held hostage therein without having to watch advertisements that benefit the main branch, thereby switching the collaborative model to a competitive one.

ATproto is strictly better in the short term, and will cause much pain later on, as opposed to the Fediverse that has some onboarding and ongoing pains now but to some people offer better hopes for the future of a more unfettered/unconstrained method of interaction between people, where control is placed more democratically into the hands of the end users rather than centralized authorities.

Check this pinned post in the current community: This is not a complaints forum, which among other things clearly states:

If you have problems with an entire instance: Just leave it.

Other communities, such as YPTB, would be a more appropriate forum for this. As it is, this post is merely drama farming.

Yes indeed, but to clarify: this will only affect PieFed, while Lemmy will remain as it is, subject to the moderation whims of that development team.

Done as of earlier today.

Now when can we expect the same from the Lemmy devs?

What if someone KNEW that they were dumber than average - wouldn’t that make them smarter by definition? :-P

I can’t speak to how Pixelfed works, but PieFed pulls in old posts. e.g. when lemm.ee (a Lemmy instance) shut down, several communities were migrated, including its old content.

Perhaps one day Pixelfed will implement that as well.

Since you seem to have issues with reading comprehension, I will simply repeat myself:

the non-conditional title statement of this post, even if its text walks the situation back a bit, is now being called “de-escalation”?

(emphasis added)

Rimu != PieFed

You can tell because one is a person, the other is software.

And while we are at it, https://piefed.social/ is neither - it is an instance, like https://quokk.au/ is an instance, both of which run the PieFed software.

Your agenda is not supported by facts. There are definitely problems that need solving, though this post helps solve none of them.

If you want to help, stick with the facts, they will work better than emotional appeals, if the goal is truly to improve things on the Threadiverse/Fediverse.

More choices = better imho.

That is “free speech” 101: everyone must have the ability to listen to their BS. They burn books, while you are “free” to “speak” only one among the approved talking points, which may shift over time. e.g. they routinely call for murder, even for admins of other instances, yet they are perpetually the wronged and totally innocent party, never admitting an ounce of responsibility to others, yet demanding “fair” treatment in return (which as the quotes suggest, is the epitome of unfairness actually, due to being lopsided - but somehow the righteousness of their cause justifies their zeolosness; in short, in their view their good end somehow justifies the means, and not only in terms of promoting irl murder but also in using lies over the internet).

When you see the similarities between the argumentation practices used by incels and tankies it suddenly all makes perfect sense. DOn’T yOu KnOw WhAt A nIcE mAn I aM? Watch Innuendo Studios The Alt-Right Playbook series for a treat. Their goal is not arriving at truth via means of discourse, they use toddler tactics where they want to WIN, by any means necessary. And since Might Makes Right in their view, they push as far forward as others will allow, i.e. until others expend the effort to stop them, while they refuse to stop themselves or to abide by the conventions that exist in a more polite society (which they explicitly excuse themselves from, again citing their excuses as to why you should be okay with their zeolotry, thereby gaslighting you into their worldview - as in its surely not their problem that they are lying, its everyone else’s fault for not doing as they say).