https://codeberg.org/rimu/pyfedi/src/commit/b168820a089ff6e835059f0d806f81b612987a79/app/models.py#L3513

A few people in the other thread assumed that it was required to fork the code to disable those filters. That’s not the case, the filters can be configured, and are off by default.

To hide the reputation system, here’s a line of CSS that admins can add in the admin area to hide it for every user

https://piefed.social/c/piefed_css/p/1722358/hide-red-triangle-warnings-on-accounts-with-bad-reputation

That CSS line can also be used by any user wanting to hide the score at the user level.

  • anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    13 hours ago

    That isn’t true - the comment filters also dock users reputation points, and without any notification to users that it’s happening.

    None of this is presented to users - that’s the definition of opaque. They’ve shoehorned these features into their code without any notice to other users or instance admins, and have provided no way of notifying anyone of what is happening on the backside that might effect how content is handled or federated.

    All of this irreparably injures the reputation of not just the piefed implementation but of the broader fediverse.

    • Skavau@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      13 hours ago

      This can be turned off by instance admins who would see this in their settings. I agree maybe a public-facing form here could be of use though.

      • anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        12 hours ago

        There’s nothing in the code that I can see that indicates that any of the penalties are undone by turning off the filter - but that’s kind of the point. They’ve introduced a new metric that thumbs the scale of content visibility that’s hard-coded and inscrutable to everyone but those with knowledge of the codebase, and that makes the entire project and the devs who made those choices un-trustable.

        Is there a version of their reputation system that’s less objectionable? Sure. But it would need to be exceedingly transparent with clear documentation on how to configure, alter, and revert if there’s a mistake made. But there’s nothing here that indicates the devs of piefed are willing or capable of transparency or even just clear documentation.

        • Skavau@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          12 hours ago

          Have you or anyone attempted to ask rimu about this? I don’t ever recall any piefed instance owner asking this.

          He has already altered or rolled back a ton of functions due to scrutiny.

          • anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            12 hours ago

            I’m not collaborating with a developer who has it out for the platform I’m working to improve. If he wants to fix the shit he broke, he can.