BentiGorlich

The problem is simply that the images cannot be created, because the media backend has problems. Because of that the posts cannot be created either. I ordered replacement parts for the media backend, but it'll take a few days for them to arrive

Ok, so the issue is with exactly this field, because it is one that doesn't use the date field

mbin uses html date fields almost everywhere, so your browser settings should be able to change that I think

You could type in the url of the post in the search bar, but if you follow a user their future posts will be sent to your server. We were talking about implementing a backfill option, but there is no eta yet, so no guarantee it will be implemented at all. But since it is an annoying problem, maybe it will

I am using conduit as a matrix server and fluffy chat as my main app. I think that most people could be happy with that :)

that was actually mostly a pg-bouncer. I have no idea why it is happening though...

I just have a script that checks for this line and restarts php-fpm if necessary:

#!/bin/bash

lineCount=`tail -n 1 /var/log/postgresql/pgbouncer.log | grep query_wait_timeout | wc -l`

if [ $lineCount -gt 0 ]; then
  systemctl restart php8.3-fpm.service
  logger "Restarting php because pgbouncer has query_wait_timeout messages"
else
  echo "No"
fi

Hi there, so we fixed this issue in this PR on Febuary 24th, 1.9.1 is actually from Febuary 9th. So as soon as @jwr1@kbin.earth upgrades this is fixed null

The reason we do not use the url property: according to the Activity Vocabulary which is part of the standard, this property

Identifies one or more links to representations of the object

Which the links in mbin or lemmy just don't fit. Multiple other projects would handle this property as the "original url" (including Mastodon).

The prices for my servers basically increased by 30% I thought about consolidating my 3 VPSes in one big VPS for all 3 instances, but I have not gotten around to it, and I am not sure if I will actually go through with it...

There is ecosia, although they also use the US indexes

Thanks, I couldn't find it... But I do not understand their rating of Savage worlds. You can play it with really basic rules and it still works fine. Its one of the core strengths of that system 😅

Do you know what is meant by accessibility? I would have thought it is just an inverse score for complexity (high complexity -> low accessibility and vice versa)

The obvious problem is that the author/their instance has a vested interest in up/down votes. [...] The author is interested in getting their message out. Think about someone trying to sell stuff, for example. They would want to manipulate the visibility/apparent popularity of a post. Such a party would also be most interested in the identities of supporters/detractors.

That is the same on every social media platform, including Mastodon

I don't think likes influence visibility outside the home instance?

Likes don't affect that at all, boosts or shares or retweets or whatever they are called affect that and are sent to the author and your followers

If you wanted to create psychological profiles, you could create bait messages and observe the reactions. That would be much more effort, but if that is a concern, then that probably isn't good enough.

At the moment this is very easily achievable in the threadiverse. You just sub to a community and you get everything you need from that community. With my proposal this would be much harder to achieve, as you'd only get the information from people interacting with you, or, if we'd shift it to the community actor, you'd have to control the instance of the community. Sure still possible (it always will be) but a lot harder

1. Doesn't change the fact that people are used to their votes not being seen by other users
2. Don't know what that has to do with me saying that more people vote than post
3. of course it is easier with always the same one bit information as it is for something that can be one word or 50k words that are basically never the same. Plus the fact that people want the things they post to be seen, but not necessarily their votes

The main reasons for me:

1. People are not used to votes being public, because (afaik) it was just not this way on "traditional" social media (there only the operators might have had access)
2. Votes being public affects far more users than posts, because only a small subgroup of all users actually post anything
3. Votes being private is (imo) much more achievable, as they contain the same message each time either "I like" or "I dislike", more information than that is not conveyable in up- and down-vote-buttons

Only regarding to votes, but yes. So only the author receives votes and then distributes the update activities containing the new vote counts to the group and the author's followers. I totally see the potential for abuse, I don't if that potential is to big or if it is negligible... Mastodon seems to think it is fine...

Also sensible. What do you think of sending it only to the group actor instead of the author?

My concern is that this goes against the implicit assumption that the group actor (the community/magazine/category) is the source of truth.

The group actor is the clearinghouse of data in 1b12 style federation, and it would be a departure to change votes to only be sent to the target.

That is true. It could of course be changed to send it to only the group instead of the author 🤔

Also this goes directly against @rimu@piefed.social 's vote batching proposal.

Can you link me to it. Seems that I missed that

My problem is not saying it to the person itself, my problem is that you can build a rekatively detailed personality profile based on the things someone likes. My proposal was that everything goes to the author and the author alone

If you have malicious software, then nothing. Nothing prevents malicious software to invent users who create like activities either... So in my opinion nothing changes about that

Well I mean only when you have a master password for them, otherwise even if they are encrypted, one can just decrypt them like the browser would. Am I mistaken? Because in my mind storing passwords in browser is basically a password manager without the encryption...