Kalcifer

joined 1 year ago
[–] Kalcifer 2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

[…] I'm not sure […] voting on each defederation is necessary. […]

My proposal does not include voting on cases of defederation.

[–] Kalcifer 3 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

[…] I am not sure engaging the admins in a philosophical debate about why they blocked an instance is going to be productive. […]

To be clear, I didn't specify that the admins would be required to engage with and resolve every comment that they receive on the posts about the instances that they are defederating from; they simply have that option. The main aspiration of the proposal is that the admins simply provide their rationale for defederating an instance when they do so. I wasn't advocating for some involved process where they must receive agreement and input from the community before a defederation occurs (though, I don't necessarily think that is entirely a bad idea).

[–] Kalcifer 2 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

[…] it’s potentially the hundreds of options that would need sorting through from the users. […]

I'm not sure that I understand; could you clarify what you mean?

 

The Issue

Currently, it seems to be that the majority of instance defederations happen silently on SJW: As of writing this, SJW currently blocks federation with 86 instances ^[1]^, yet, from what I can tell ^[2]^, there has not been 86 announcements. For clarity, this is not intended to be construed as an accusation, pointed at the SJW admins, that this is some sort of intentional obfuscation; however, for the sake of transparency and understanding, I think it would be a good practice to open these practices up to the rest of the instance.

Proposal

I propose that whenever an instance is to be defederated, an open (ie unlocked) post should be published by the SJW admins (eg it could be published to [email protected]) detailing the name of the instance that is to be defederated, the rationale for why it is to be defederated (including evidence to support the rationale), and what steps would need to be taken by the respective instance's admins in order for that instance to be re-federated.

Benefits

  • I think it would provide users with an opportunity to better understand the rationale and alignment SJW's admins.
  • I think it helps keep the administrators (both locally and federated) publicly accountable.
  • Having an open announcement for defederation could invite discussion on the topic. I think this discussion could offer enlightening insight.
  • It will create a sort of searchable database for users to reference if they wish to know why a given instance is defederated.
  • I think it could potentially reduce the administrative burden on the admins in that it serves as a sort of FAQ in place of users repetitively asking the admins why an instance was defederated.
  • I think that It may provide a more targeted opportunity for the admins of the defederated instance to directly, and publicly, engage with the issue.

Drawbacks

  • If there ends up being a large volume of defederations, this practice may end up becoming a sizeable burden for the SJW admins. One note on this is that it may be possible for some defederations to be grouped together, but this would have to be done carefully so as to not become obfuscative.

Additional Context

I think a potential counterargument could be: "If a user wishes to know more about why an instance is defederated, then they should just make a post asking about it, or they should dm the admins."; however, I think this may actually increase the workload on the admins if the question is posed frequently enough, furthermore, I fear that this sort of active approach on the part of the inquirer could have a sort of chilling effect: the topic of "instance defederation" is often a contentious one, and some may be hesitant to actively open themselves up to that sort of potential conflict in order to seek the desired information. This proposal would offer sanctuary for the inquisitive lurker.

References

  1. Type: Website. Publisher: sh.itjust.works. Accessed: 2025-03-03T05:15Z. URI: https://sh.itjust.works/instances.
    • See the "Blocked Instances" tab.
  2. I simply searched for posts with keywords like "defederate" and "block" in [email protected].
[–] Kalcifer 2 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

An update for anyone finding this in the future: This proposal has been implemented! ^[1]^

References

  1. Type: Post. Title: "The 2025 SJW Update: Donations, costs and other points". Author: "TheDude" (@[email protected]). Publisher: ["sh.itjust.works Main Community" ([email protected]). sh.itjust.works. Lemmy.]. Published: 2025-01-29T19:02:48Z. Accessed: 2025-03-03T04:16Z. URI: https://sh.itjust.works/post/31922118.
    • §"New Tesseract front end available".
[–] Kalcifer 2 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

Ahh, okay. I misunderstood the intent/direction of this one. Thank you for clarifying 😊

[–] Kalcifer 2 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (2 children)

Wouldn't auth-right be the ones wanting to keep the monarchy?

[–] Kalcifer 1 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

[…] If you don’t support imprisoning people who hold these views that directly lead to the death of many innocent people, the taking over of people’s land/homes, the destruction of democratic systems, and the elimination of entire races of people from populations, then you are inherently tolerating their beliefs.

To me, it feels like you are conflating some things here: I draw a distinction between how I try to conduct myself (and, by extension, how I think society should conduct itself), and how I think a government should conduct itself. Any common overlap, while it may theoretically draw from the same core personal beliefs, is more of a coincidence in practice, imo. Yes, I think that society should not socially tolerate any of these behaviors, and I think that society should take an active position to socially oppose them; but I don't believe that a government should take action unless the well-being of an individual is actively under threat.

I could be wrong in my interpretation, but all of your examples seem to simply a be a difference of opinion (no matter how abhorrent and unpalatable an opinion may be). I don't believe that one should be legally punished for a difference of opinion. The only one that may have some legal ground, in my opinion, as I currently understand your examples, is

Supporting dictatorship, authoritarianism, or totalitarianism as a concept or goal

but that would depend on how you are defining "support".

 

References

  • Type: Video. Title: "Casually Explained: The Political Compass". Author: "Casually Explained". Publisher: YouTube. Published: 2025-02-28T14:00:57Z. Accessed: 2025-03-02T21:54Z. URI: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGEWPY3nqHw.
[–] Kalcifer 10 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

[…] [he shouted] out a straight up neonazi propaganda channel as one of his favorites […]

Do you have a source?

[–] Kalcifer 24 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I wonder if he'll make a video (if he hasn't already) on why he chose to switch to Linux; I'm quite interested to hear what made him decide to switch, and I'm also very interested to hear what issues, if any, he encountered along the way.

[–] Kalcifer 8 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (4 children)

Zero. I believe that the negotiations of an employee's market value are between the employee and their employer. I don't believe that it is my responsibility to charitably subsidize a company through the subsidization of their employees' wages.

[–] Kalcifer 2 points 2 days ago

Transphobic main dev […]

Do you have a source?

[–] Kalcifer 1 points 3 days ago

Thank you for verifying 🙂

 

nginx ("engine x") is an HTTP web server, reverse proxy, content cache, load balancer, TCP/UDP proxy server, and mail proxy server. […] [1]

I still pronounce it as "n-jinx" in my head.

References

  1. Title (website): "nginx". Publisher: NGINX. Accessed: 2025-02-26T23:25Z. URI: https://nginx.org/en/.
    • §"nginx". ¶1.
 

I propose that the UI version be included alongside the backend version at the bottom of the page. For example, Lemmy.ml does this ^[1]^:

I think this information is useful to have for diagnostic purposes, reporting bugs, and for referencing documentation.

References

  1. Lemmy.ml. Lemmy. Accessed: 2025-02-08T05:59Z. URI: https://lemmy.ml/.
    • Found at the bottom of the page.
 

Unclasped version

 

I think it could be useful to collect this data, both for administrative and research purposes.

I'm unsure, currently, exactly what data should be collected by the censuses (that would be proposed and discussed here). The data that is collected, should be collected anonymously. Furthermore, participation should be entirely voluntary.

 

References

 

In case you aren't sure what to look for: If you look at the left side of the tracks, you can see the imprint of the wing feathers on the snow. I'm guessing this is where the bird landed on top of the prey, which it saw on the surface of the snow.

15
submitted 4 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) by Kalcifer to c/[email protected]
 

Solution

The Lemmy server appears to have a database limit of 255 characters ^[2]^; however, individual instances appear to put their own limits on username length though the frontend ^[3]^ and/or the API ^[4.1][4.2]^.

Original Post

If you know, please also provide relevant documentation.

UPDATE (2025-02-02T06:06Z): I did some brute-force testing, and, at least for sh.itjust.works, it seems that the maximum username length is 50, and the maximum password length is 60 ^[1]^.


References

  1. "Sign Up". sh.itjust.works. Lemmy. Accessed: 2025-02-02T08:49Z. https://sh.itjust.works/signup.
    • When creating an account on sh.itjust.works, the sign-up form will throw this error if the provided password is greater than 60 characters in length.
  2. @[email protected] To: ["[SOLVED] What is the maximum username length for a Lemmy account?". "Kalcifer" @[email protected]. "Lemmy Support" [email protected]. sh.itjust.works. Lemmy. Published: 2025-02-03T00:54:51Z. https://sh.itjust.works/post/32085936.]. Published: 2025-02-02T05:57:26Z. Accessed: 2025-02-03T00:44Z. https://sh.itjust.works/post/32085936/16442382.

    It might be 255 characters? […]

    • They pointed to code on GitHub for the Lemmy server which outlines the length of the username data in the SQL database.
  3. "[SOLVED] What is the maximum username length for a Lemmy account?". "Kalcifer" @[email protected]. "Lemmy Support" [email protected]. sh.itjust.works. Lemmy. Published: 2025-02-03T00:54:51Z. Accessed: 2025-02-03T00:46Z. https://sh.itjust.works/post/32085936.
    • §"Original Post". ¶2.

      […] I did some brute-force testing, and, at least for sh.itjust.works, it seems that the maximum username length is 50 […]

      • The maximum username length for sh.itjust.works was found to be 50 characters by brute-force testing the length limit.
  4. "Andrew" @andrew_[email protected] To ["[SOLVED] What is the maximum username length for a Lemmy account?". "Kalcifer" @[email protected]. "Lemmy Support" [email protected]. sh.itjust.works. Lemmy. Published: 2025-02-03T00:54:51Z. https://sh.itjust.works/post/32085936.] Published: 2025-02-02T19:57:49Z. Accessed: 2025-02-03T00:59Z. https://sh.itjust.works/post/32085936/16453656.
    1. curl -L http://lemmy.world/api/v3/site | jq -r .site_view.local_site.actor_name_max_length (26)

      • The maximum username length for Lemmy.world was found to be 26 characters via an API request.
    2. curl -L http://sh.itjust.works/api/v3/site | jq -r .site_view.local_site.actor_name_max_length (50)

      • The maximum username length for sh.itjust.works was found to be 50 characters via an API request.
 

References

 
  • R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 365. Justice Laws Website. Government of Canada. Published: 2024-12-10. Accessed: 2025-01-04T22:46Z. https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-365-20030101.html.

    365 Every one who fraudulently

    (a) pretends to exercise or to use any kind of witchcraft, sorcery, enchantment or conjuration,

    (b) undertakes, for a consideration, to tell fortunes, or

    (c) pretends from his skill in or knowledge of an occult or crafty science to discover where or in what manner anything that is supposed to have been stolen or lost may be found,

    is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

  • "An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Department of Justice Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act" C-51. 42nd Parliament, 1st session. Parliament of Canada. Published: 2018-12-13. Accessed: 2025-01-04T22:50Z. https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/42-1/c-51.
    • §41

      Section 365 of the Act is repealed.

view more: next ›