TheObviousSolution

Thanks for the correction, I was going off of the FAQ page, https://join.piefed.social/features/, that had a post to a thread that has not been updated.

So in that regard, is it what lemmy instances already do when they don't want instances like mbin to see downvotes? Or does it completely eliminate federation of votes and only shows tallies from the host instance? Either way, the decision is taken from the user and basically undoes the federated aspect of the platform for a dubious concern. At the very least, it should be up to the user.

PieFed private voting is just sad as well as toxic. Inevitably PieFed instances will be abused to facilitate manufactured downvotes from instances due to their inherent anonymity. We are already blind enough online, not being able to see upvotes or downvotes does nothing. Being able to go to mbin and see the way people vote hasn't resulted in some huge controversy. Even the most recent controversy involved admins shouting brigade due to downvotes they didn't like, and PieFed does nothing to prevent it.

I'm not saying people wouldn't react to being able to see who downvoted or upvoted them, but I would liken it to a toddler phase getting used to socialization. Once people get acclimated to it, it essentially adds transparency that can explain trends, reveal stalking and remove suspicions. Without it, people just get fed up and make their own assumptions, which just feeds toxicity and division without any real awareness.

The fediverse is prone to manipulation, and PieFed makes it more so with this change without really providing a reason except that people feel uncomfortable standing behind their downvotes. Downvotes (or upvotes) from the people who can't stand behind them shouldn't count. The whole reputation system also sounds a bit like a love letter to reddit karmawhores, and the whole design seems to be designed to take away power from users and move it to particular instances admins to curate content through things like visibility.

Elon neuralinked into Grok AI, and mechahitler was the result.

Opted for large scaled systems. It’s more than just simple software. There is a ton of infrastructure and proprietary solutioning that goes into it. That’s likely used for other games as well.

Doesn't mean it can't be released, just that it might be difficult to reproduce. It would still be much, much easier to reverse engineer that than to reverse engineer everything from the client and network communication captures.

It may not even be possible to release the software because it is not just software and the resources to prepare it for releasing may not be available.

In other words, so you don't know, and vague assumptions on a closed box because closed boxes allow you to make them.

Most MMOs usually have multiple instances running, each which need to be maintained separately. That means they have usually gone through the process of encapsulating the server functionality in a way that can be reproduced and recreated into new instances. They have to be maintained at the same time, so they need to be relatively standard. At one point those supposedly absent resources to duplicate the instance of a server have likely existed, and just need to be packaged for public release. Proprietary portions can simply be excluded - an incomplete release is preferable to an absent one. Can't release databases, they can release schemas, etc. Incomplete > absent.

You largely seem to be giving MMO companies the excuse that if their server solution could theoretically be proprietary and convoluted enough, even if it really isn't, that they not be subject to the Stop Killing Games initiative. MMOs, unlike single player games, have a far more notable sociable and persistence factor to them, a bigger cultural footprint within those communities, that makes the Stop Killing Games Initiative particularly applicable to them. There's one simply way not to be subject to its demands - don't kill the games.

The problem is a lack of "Beware of Grass Ticks" signs.

It's hard to find a more Nazi way of doing it. Never forget, Zionists signed the Haavara Agreement with Hitler. You can look up Hitler's quotes on Zionists to find that his problem with them was that *"It doesn't even enter their heads to build up a Jewish state in Palestine for the purpose of living there" *- that they weren't being imperial colonialist enough and were just all talk. It's sad to see the meaning of genocide twisted so much to use the genocide of the past to protect the genocide of the present. Hitler's problem with Jews in Germany is that they were staying in Germany, it was not with the Zionists who were trying to take over the reigns of Mandate Palestine.

Sort of what we are seeing now, radical far right groups sticking up for each other even when at face value ideologically they should be opposed - because it's not about the lie they are peddling, it's about forcing people out and conquering occupied territory to take their wealth and resources. Not that these far right leaders will ever admit it, but the shifting stream of excuses, justifications, and contradictions create the outline of what they've even lied to themselves about. They are not people of character.

I think people are overestimating what this petition is going to do. It will likely just end up in a response from the EU listing pros and cons but effectively saying "can't really do anything about it, sorry!". It's still good, even MMOs have server software gaming companies could release if legislation forced them instead of causing fandoms to die. Games are culture. They may also be entertainment, but that's culture as well. But I wouldn't hold out hope.

Yeah, this is a shit instance to have a discussion in anyway.

Cool, I'll come to you to check on the feelings of literally entirely everyone else when I need to. I'm glad everyone went out and got themselves a spokesman. Meanwhile, I'll point you to an earlier mention in my comments about raising awareness.

You shift into completely diametrically opposed claims whenever it seems to suit you and portray a lack of awareness and possibility as consensus in this regard. Is it "trying to re-engineer the whole platform" or is it already "possible today"? There is no use like this because without willingness, people will just set up the instances like they've been told they have and perform slight variations on them. That is no proof or argument against the idea at all from people just following the cookie cutter.

Literally, go to a house fly and try to test its common reasoning. Then try to argue with it. Find a new house fly and do the exact same questions and points. You'll see what I'm talking about.

There's no way to argue in such nebulous terms when every minute difference is made into an unsurpassable obstacle. You are not going to convince me, and you are not open to being convinced. We'll just end up with absurd discussions, like talking about how and whether stochastic applies to Alzherimer's.

Like I said, I can’t force you to see it. The fact that you think it would mean re-engineering the whole platform means you aren't getting it. It's almost literally the suggestion of least effort, it's largely an organizational change that encourages instances not to cope with more responsibility than they can deal with by encouraging decoupling the current structure into two more specialized ones.

If you want re-engineering the whole platform, then I would suggest having all instances be authentication instances and rather than "host" communities to allow users to broadcast to community labels. Have any number of moderation groups be able to be created in an organized on that label or a personalized way by allowing users to select their own curators, perhaps even extrapolating it from the downvotes of trusted users and prioritizing the ranking of those they value. Work on providing a ground.news of discussions instead of biased takes and prunings from those in charge. Allow fast tracking of moderation across these adhoc groups for specially toxic content. That would solve the problem of nobody really going from a 10000 user community that has 100 daily posts to a 10 user community with 2-3 posts a week, because they would all operate within the same community but every user would be able to customize their perspective. The risk then is to balance the bubble they've created with transparency of all the other bubbles people are creating to interact with the community. Each particular instance would be able to be as biased as it wants to particular users or groups of users, but their content would truly be broadcast and federated.

Burn all the bridges!

Trump is the best thing that ever happened to China and Russia.