@pettter I don't have a strong opinion about the feature per se, I just sympathize with the objections. It's probably valuable for somebody to implement, but maybe not for G, and maybe not compared to other features.
I can see why the expectation would be there, and the behavior surprising, but at the same time I also see the "doctor it hurts when I do this" aspect. But that's just my techbro showing.
@eal @pettter Yeah, I know they wrote blocking, but thanks to clarifications by other people in the issue comments, I realized that muting is what's relevant. Whether muting should be implied by blocking or not, I'll leave to the Mastodon community to sort out, I don't have a horse in the race apart from this:
It sounds vaguely useful (at least one user is using it) to separate the two concepts instead of auto-muting when you block. Maybe turning on blocking could turn on muting, but then you could choose to turn it off separately.
Looks like GDPR is super annoying and causing a lot of extra work and head-scratching, as everybody should be aware of generally, but that things are basically working out for Liberapay specifically?
@pettter I think the existence of remote profile pages makes adding the complexity to local profile pages less justifiable, especially as you can always look up the user name in the SPA instead.
If the SPA does indeed fail to hide people you've muted, that is a legitimate bug.
But yeah, the only way you're gonna get democratic governance is by organizing, funding, and hiring developers, or finding developer volunteers that personally share your particular stakes.
In the examples I find not a single example of refusal to do anything reasonable, his only fault is lack of restraint in expressing his frustrations.
I don't trust the writer enough to know whether the claimed actual bug (muting someone still allows their messages to sometimes be shown on your home screen) is real. Demanding that people's profile pages apply your muting is not entirely reasonable, as half of them will be on other servers.
Of course Pleroma makes it possible, as you can view any federated user's output timeline on your home server. But then that's considered an avenue of abuse too, so you just can't win whatever you do.
"Unlike ordinary JIT compilers for other languages, Ruby’s JIT compiler does JIT compilation in a unique way, which prints C code to a disk and spawns common C compiler process to generate native code."
> I would also want to block Gargron and his posse of advocates so I don’t get sucked into it all again, but the subpar block system means I would still see him when he gets boosted by other people. I would want to mute posts about the drama (usually called “discourse”) over the whole site with keyword mutes, but the keyword mute system is currently regex (😡🙄😫), limited per timeline (Home, local, federated), and doesn’t work on notifications or people’s profiles at all. This makes it impossible for me to be there.
Ironically, I think Pleroma would be able to accomplish most of what the writer needs here.
@bob@bumi Unfortunately, the core issue for OSS projects remains the network for people finding your stuff and becoming contributors without friction. Private projects are a non-issue imo. I think we need to solve federated forking and merge requests, including code comments etc., unless we all want to lose valuable contributions.
People: "LOL, politicians have no idea how the Internet works at all."
The same people: "It's a great idea that the EU tries to regulate the entire Internet via unlimited chains of responsibility among companies across borders. We as citizens should be legally forbidden to make our own decisions about what servers and people we connect to, for our own good."
@bumi That decision was made when they took the $100M in order to grow like crazy. I'm actually glad about this, because there was a bit of a collective denial about the fact that we build entire OSS ecosystems upon a single startup's proprietary product.