5 ms·

That issue that you linked shows that it's configurable now. What's the issue here?

by kevinh 4y ago

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
brigandish 4y ago
The attitude and intent of the developers running the project has no bearing here?
- kelseyfrog 4y ago
  None. This is like complaining to Linus that your favorite <kernel feature> isn't supported and then getting mad when he tells you to pound sand when you can simply fork the kernel and add it yourself.
  - brigandish 4y ago
    A linux kernel is not part of a federated network and if I fork it I'm still able to interoperate with other machines running Linux. Are forks permitted to join Lemmy's federated network, and are those that use different filters to those that the core team would want able to?
    - test098 4y ago
      It sounds like you wouldn't want to be part of Lemmy's federated network in the first place. Maybe use a network that you find more palatable? Why do your preferences trump theirs?
      - brigandish 4y ago
        Why wouldn't I want to listen to what myriad people have to say on the Lemmy network?
        test098 4y ago
        Because you don't seem to share their values and have a problem with the way they choose to collaborate with others.
        brigandish 4y ago
        Yes, I have a problem with overtly hostile responses to reasonable and polite requests. They could simply disagree in a polite and reasonable way. More importantly (for our discussion), why would I have to share someone's values in order to think they're worth listening to?
        test098 4y ago
        > Yes, I have a problem with overtly hostile responses to reasonable and polite requests Again - this means that you probably don't want to use this project, then. > More importantly (for our discussion), why would I have to share someone's values in order to think they're worth listening to? Because you've dismissed their entire project based on their comments in a single PR from years ago.
        brigandish 4y ago
        > > Yes, I have a problem with overtly hostile responses to reasonable and polite requests > Again - this means that you probably don't want to use this project, then. You haven't answered the question why, you're begging the question. You can scroll up and see what I asked and perhaps finally answer it. > > More importantly (for our discussion), why would I have to share someone's values in order to think they're worth listening to? > Because you've dismissed their entire project based on their comments in a single PR from years ago. This is a non-sequitur. Firstly, I haven't "dismissed" their entire project, I've criticised their stated position and the way they handled a polite issue request (not a PR). Secondly, why is that single thread not indicative of the attitude of the developers? Do you have other issue threads available on the same or a similar topic where they were less hostile? Lastly, it doesn't answer the question at all. Why would I have to share someone's values in order to think they're worth listening to? When you see a question I'd be grateful if you could try answering it instead of trying to answer the straw man version of me you've created in your head.
      - viridian 4y ago
        Lemmy can do what they want, but they are both being bad stewards, and hurting their own chances of success by rejecting what is typically a core tenet of federation: maximizing interoperability by default. The nature of federated networks is such that the vast majority of nodes by count will always be more or less default configured, and serving a tiny, single digit or low double digit population. In spite of their miniscule size, they almost always punch above their weight in terms of content produced, which makes sense, given that at least one of those dozen or so people was at least driven enough to build their own platform. Keeping these small networks in the network is generally very high value, and so generally you want to maximize federation by default. Sending some messages, either inbound or outbound into the ether, without explanation, silently weakens the network and lowers interactivity of the entire federated graph. Maybe messages with slurs are so bad that the cost is worth the benefit, but its far from a free choice, and it's one that an API team should view as a solemn, painful compromise - hurting the network and the interface in order to keep it safe. That doesn't seem to be the attitude or level of respect the Lemmy devs give their own decisions however, which is why I'd consider them bad stewards of their own project.
        test098 4y ago
        These are valid criticisms and I totally understand your point of view. Thank you for the response!

That issue that you linked shows that it's configurable now. What's the issue here?

by kevinh 4y ago

That issue that you linked shows that it's configurable now. What's the issue here?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

brigandish 4y ago

The attitude and intent of the developers running the project has no bearing here?

kelseyfrog 4y ago
None. This is like complaining to Linus that your favorite <kernel feature> isn't supported and then getting mad when he tells you to pound sand when you can simply fork the kernel and add it yourself.
- brigandish 4y ago
  A linux kernel is not part of a federated network and if I fork it I'm still able to interoperate with other machines running Linux. Are forks permitted to join Lemmy's federated network, and are those that use different filters to those that the core team would want able to?
  - test098 4y ago
    It sounds like you wouldn't want to be part of Lemmy's federated network in the first place. Maybe use a network that you find more palatable? Why do your preferences trump theirs?
    - brigandish 4y ago
      Why wouldn't I want to listen to what myriad people have to say on the Lemmy network?
      - test098 4y ago
        Because you don't seem to share their values and have a problem with the way they choose to collaborate with others.
        brigandish 4y ago
        Yes, I have a problem with overtly hostile responses to reasonable and polite requests. They could simply disagree in a polite and reasonable way. More importantly (for our discussion), why would I have to share someone's values in order to think they're worth listening to?
        test098 4y ago
        > Yes, I have a problem with overtly hostile responses to reasonable and polite requests Again - this means that you probably don't want to use this project, then. > More importantly (for our discussion), why would I have to share someone's values in order to think they're worth listening to? Because you've dismissed their entire project based on their comments in a single PR from years ago.
        brigandish 4y ago
        > > Yes, I have a problem with overtly hostile responses to reasonable and polite requests > Again - this means that you probably don't want to use this project, then. You haven't answered the question why, you're begging the question. You can scroll up and see what I asked and perhaps finally answer it. > > More importantly (for our discussion), why would I have to share someone's values in order to think they're worth listening to? > Because you've dismissed their entire project based on their comments in a single PR from years ago. This is a non-sequitur. Firstly, I haven't "dismissed" their entire project, I've criticised their stated position and the way they handled a polite issue request (not a PR). Secondly, why is that single thread not indicative of the attitude of the developers? Do you have other issue threads available on the same or a similar topic where they were less hostile? Lastly, it doesn't answer the question at all. Why would I have to share someone's values in order to think they're worth listening to? When you see a question I'd be grateful if you could try answering it instead of trying to answer the straw man version of me you've created in your head.
    - viridian 4y ago
      Lemmy can do what they want, but they are both being bad stewards, and hurting their own chances of success by rejecting what is typically a core tenet of federation: maximizing interoperability by default. The nature of federated networks is such that the vast majority of nodes by count will always be more or less default configured, and serving a tiny, single digit or low double digit population. In spite of their miniscule size, they almost always punch above their weight in terms of content produced, which makes sense, given that at least one of those dozen or so people was at least driven enough to build their own platform. Keeping these small networks in the network is generally very high value, and so generally you want to maximize federation by default. Sending some messages, either inbound or outbound into the ether, without explanation, silently weakens the network and lowers interactivity of the entire federated graph. Maybe messages with slurs are so bad that the cost is worth the benefit, but its far from a free choice, and it's one that an API team should view as a solemn, painful compromise - hurting the network and the interface in order to keep it safe. That doesn't seem to be the attitude or level of respect the Lemmy devs give their own decisions however, which is why I'd consider them bad stewards of their own project.
      - test098 4y ago
        These are valid criticisms and I totally understand your point of view. Thank you for the response!