Why? I don’t see a benefit to the button at all. Even being able to register disapproval is better done via comment, anyway, and having to articulate it makes you far more likely to self-reflect and temper yourself than if you can just downvote every comment in a thread
This is just further evidence that we just shouldn’t have a downvote option at all.
That’s just how a federated exchange needs to work, though. Without sharing which user is creating activity, there would be no way of verifying the legitimacy of activity without some convoluted blockchain process. On the other hand, sharing IP addresses isn’t just unnecessary but more involved.
There’s frankly no point in making votes private, anyway. Why should it matter who knows how you vote?
Important to note here, too, is that ip addresses of users arent synced across instances.
This is only a problem for people who care about the reputation of their user account - which is something people should be rotating out anyway if they care about their privacy.
IP addresses are not something that can be pulled from just any instance. You would need to be the administrator, and even then you’d only get access to the ip address of just your own instance users. AFAIK, at least - maybe they’ve made efforts to mask ips, too, but im not even sure how that’d work.
Federated posts and comments are copied from server to server. When someone from .world is looking at a comment from .dbzer0, what they are seeing is information that was synced from the dbzer0 server address, not the user’s.
There was a brief moment when there was a vulnerability with linked images sent via DM that could route you to an external server and log your IP address, but that has been patched now by most instances.
As with anything on the internet: assume your activity is not private at all times, or take active precautions to mask your identity, or both. No opsec is perfect and often the only thing standing in the way of a hack or dox is the endurance and motivation of the bad actor.
Unpopular opinion but social media has always been fundamentally public.
Unless they’re scraping private dm’s on encrypted devices, this should come as no surprise to anyone.
The good news is that nobody has exclusive right to data on federated platforms, unlike other sites that will ransom their user’s data for private use. Let’s not forget that many of us migrated here because the other site wanted to lock down their api and user data so that they could auction it to google for profit.
Reposting these memes shows up on everyone’s feed regardless of if they’re subscribed or federated with .ml - i’m not speaking for ‘everyone’, only pointing out who your script is impacting, which is everyone in that subset.
Not everyone has gotten banned on .ml.
Making the experience worse for everyone because you have a personal ideological disagreement with another instance is hardly what I’d consider a justified moral crusade, but it’s easy enough to block reposts when they’re coming from a single user, so you do you.
Sure, but:
and
do what you want but this is basically just petty vandalism
Sometimes I get the vague sense that I’ve already seen a post in my /all view, but I don’t think i’ve ever seen them back to back like this. Not even the title is different
Just so we’re all on the same page - this is the same disjointed wage growth we were seeing under Biden that we were being told wasnt a big deal. It’s obviously gotten worse under Trump, but this has been a growing problem since at least the dotcom bubble
Lmao I thought you were joking for a second
Shout out to PJ who embodies the “fuck you, I will NEVER stop posting” mentality
170+ comments in a day is not simply ‘arguing about politics’. Even then, though, not every community or instance allows just any kind of arguing, and not every mod will tolerate a flood of reports about a single user arguing just a bit too aggressively. Especially when the specifics of the argument are borderline rulebreaking by themselves.
We seem to have moved the goalsposts from “he’s abusive” to “he was banned from blahaj which as everyone knows means he definitely actually did something” to “he argues about politics how dare.”
Sorry, who’s moving the goalposts? You accused the admins of ‘harassing’ him, then backed down to ‘unfairly singling him out’. It would be impossible to ‘single him out’ any more than he has already distinguished himself by the shear volume of his activity. A one-off heated comment is very different than dozens and dozens.
I am aware of your personal political alignment with PJ, so I understand you may identify with the content of his commenting - but the shear volume of it is enough on its own to warrant intervention.
It’s only a temp ban, anyway - a glorified time-out. I’m fine with leaving it as a disagreement.
I think even you have pointed to it, but PJ is a prolific poster. If he’s having a bad moment (as everyone does on occasion), it’s not just a couple of comments, it’s hundreds.
When pugjesus gets into it with someone or about something, it’s a bonafide flood of activity. If it were any other user I might even agree with you that it’s unfair, but pugjesus is not ‘any other user’. Having been on the receiving end of his ire before, I really have to say that it’s appropriate to hand out a temp ban.
Everyone needs time to touch grass sometimes -not more than when you’re days-deep into a posting bender.
It’s a pattern of instance admins harassing this guy
Someone should really ask for receipts on this one.
Prominent is certainly a choice of words
I wouldnt be surprised if he was the source of the majority if mod reports the last few days - some time off would do him good.
I legitimately don’t even know why someone might think this.