@raffomania have you seen @pppond yet? Would be great to get you two and @betula all working well together!

@julian I’m glad that you are not affected by them. I don’t evaluate the fediverse in terms of what is more or less crappy. I evaulate what aspects adversely affect my experience as a user and consider if the overall benefits outweigh the negatives. Those bots make me more reluctant to post and be an active user, but they are not the only problem.

It's been a couple weeks and I wanted to add another perspective about this. I noticed a user downvoting posts, https://lemvotes.org/user/FarStare@lemmy.dbzer0.com if it helps to have specifics. In the more than one full year of existing, they have never once contributed via making a post, never once commenting even, just doling out up- and down-votes in roughly equal proportion, and even those nearly exclusively via posts but almost never comments. I am not concerned about receiving votes from PugJesus - either up or down, as PugJesus has earned the right to speak on behalf of the community. But who is this other person who is influencing how others see my content? Are they male or female? Do they have a degree of some kind? Do they primarily visit meme communities, as the vote pattern might suggest, or other communities as well? So how do I feel about people who use the Threadiverse more than others? My answer is more complex and nuanced than simply yay or nay. I might prefer the opposite of the implemented feature even - the more someone posts (including comments?), the more upvotes they are allowed to make? Have they not earned such? Also, if votes were exposed, each individual could decide for themselves how they wanted to make use of voting - perhaps someone would ban PugJesus, or conversely write special code (a 3rd party app / API recipient?) to highlight posts that PugJesus upvoted (isn't that how "boosting" works? at least re-tweeting does). It's really difficult to guess what someone wants, as each person wants different things. Which is why ultimately in an effort to make things more fair & equitable, the solution can end up making it less so. I like the follow-up suggestion to leave this new option OFF by default, so that an instance admin would have to specifically opt-in, perhaps as part of an overall suite of features limiting things like posts and comments as well. Although really, I think other approaches might work better - e.g. why would someone want to limit themselves to "some" of PugJesus' content, wouldn't they rather simply have it all or else ban him from the instance and therefore have none? I am not seeing the benefit realistically of having "some", especially when the delimiter is not based on community or overall content but simply what time of day (based on an arbitrary threshold for when they starts and ends to restart the next period) the votes are cast?

implementing ActivityPub from scratch? Why do that though? As someone mentioned there is https://fedify.dev/ but also Fedbox itself relying on microfed. So you can rely on existing small servers and libraries https://socialdocs.org/docs/ecosystem/libraries-overview I would precisely suggest NOT to make your own solution if it's not your focus. If you are a Pinterest alternative, focus on the photo sharing experience (I naively assume that's the core) and rely on something well maintained to federate.

@BrennpunktUA it's not a 1-1, but this almost akin to someone starting their Mastodon instance with the default Mastodon codebase, then customizing it from there. Everyone starts somewhere!@darnell @ricci

Correct. Quite a few people were very clear that they don't want their puiblic posts bridged to Bluesky.(Although I think Cassidy asking something different, how do people here (whether or not they personally are bridging) feel about seeing Bluesky accounts in their feeds.)@morph @reiver @cassidy @general