I meant people will block to echochamber themselves

Testing Reddit's new block feature and its effects on spreading misinformation and propaganda.

[](##My submission does not run afoul of the submission guidelines.) Reddit recently announced changes to how blocking works. [Here is a link to...

reddit (old.reddit.com)

This system exists on Reddit, and this is an example of how it can be gamed.

Oh thats not the same. Its stops replies. I want it to be completely bilateral. I don't see their posts or replies and they don't see mine. It only stops replies because they would not see something to reply to. It would effectively make it so if someone blocks someone it effectively shadow blocks them from that person like they blocked them. Mutually assure blockstruction.

Looks like a great update. Very cool that communities have the granular ability to disable down votes.

Yes, Reddit also blocks visibility too. You would see [unavailable] if someone has blocked you on Reddit. This can cause problems highlighted in that post.

ok because it sounded like it blocked replies which sounded like they still saw the content. I don't even see how they would make a reply to something they can't see. maybe im not getting the article. EDITED - you know I should say probably moderaters should not have content of their communities blocked to them but yeah now it sounds real complicated as you would need the shadow block flag but also some sort of mod override flag for posts to their community. actually now that I say it, it does not feel as bad as I thought at first. Still. more complication.

They wouldn't see posts by users that have blocked them, but the problem is that a malicious account could block people who would call them out and then post misinformation, safe in the knowledge that anyone who might challenge them are blocked.

Yes. The intended use-case is something like a community group that runs their own instance, or an admin team coordinating among themselves. Those people are going to be on the same instance.

Yeah sorry I edited quickly but you are responding quickly. The issue I see is the mods. Those are formal positions. I don't really see a problem with the blocking of people who are good at calling out. I guess when I envisioned it I just assumed mods could always see an admin level of a community that would be everything. Even stuff other mods removed.

Admins can sticky a post on the home page, not just mods in their communities

Nice!

We've been using the announcement field, but that doesn't show up for people on apps. This should be better

Swapped it out now: https://piefed.ca/

Odd, I can only see the pinned posts when signed in @rimu@piefed.social

Right now we have two pinned posts, one from lemmy.ca and one from a local only piefed.ca community. Both show up nicely when signed in, neither show up when signed out

probably a whitelist of instances (by hostname) is the only way? each community has its own whitelist set by its mods?

Merci, parfait ! i will desactivate downvote in most of my communities. I hate downvote with a deep passion.

New users can only do 3 posts in their first 24h, to reduce floods of posts by that guy who keeps deleting his accounts and making new ones

Alts Georg is an outlier and should not be included in the average alts per users figure

Auto-delete of replies on remote instances when reply author has been blocked by parent content author

I don't really understand this. So if I block Timmy@instance.net and then he replies to My posts on piefed.social, piefed.social will delete his comments? But instance.net won't?

This will be really useful for the soulist credit card number sharing group! /funny

Back when I was involved in sapphic partner abuse drama on Twitter, you could block someone but still reply to their posts, so you could put DARVO under all of their posts and they wouldn't be able to see it or respond to it or report it.

So NO THANK YOU to being able to block someone and hide your posts from them. Abusers would abuse it so bad.

The pinned posts still obey some of the visibility rules of any other post. So, in this case, piefed.ca has Popular as the default sort on the instance. That means that the community that is home to those posts must have the Posts can be popular box checked in the admin settings for that community:

I can't confirm that this is the issue, but I was able to confirm with a dev instance that local-pinned posts do show up for anonymous users using the popular sort when that box is checked and don't when it is unchecked.

DNS is not trustworthy enough, you’ll probably need something like a public / private key pair for each server to verify each other.

It could be, where would I find that setting? I didn't see it in the community settings.

I do see the "popular" column is ticked on admin/communities for those communities, but I don't see a page that has something like your screenshot

Thank you so much for your great work!

I don't understand what the purpose of the plain http is, can anybody explain to me please?