IIRC, PF-dev Rimu recently explained exactly why he was trialing such limits in a recent software update post. I.e., to create a more efficient internal & external software / HW backbone, for us users, AFAIK. Based on network / host / server loads etc, as I read the updates.

But yeah… the amount of recent negative reaction so far upon that seems… weirdly outsized?
(like, WTF?)

Like-- who the heck comes here exhausted upon corporate social media, and expects a free, open-source community of devs not to tinker with the road-posts and such…?

Pardon my puzzlement here, but I’m a happy PF contributor, and love @[email protected]. Both the dev here and PJ are friends of a sort, and some people I will always try to support.

  • socsa@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 days ago

    Frankly, none of those things are my problem. Voting agents provided a layer of protection for real users from corporate and authoritarian data mining, as well as overzealous moderation. Bot accounts could already easily pull of the same thing by automating multiple user agents, so removing that tool for real users did nothing to stop that. The outrage over the idea was complete, 100% FUD, and was an early sign of Lemmy admins fundamentally misunderstanding the problem. There was literally zero evidence presented that the feature ever assisted in any bot or troll attacks, only that it annoyed admins who wanted to power trip, actually demonstrating that it worked as intended.

    • OpenStars@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 days ago

      Voting agents provided a layer of protection

      Not anymore they don’t. Building things that last requires consensus and buy-in from all the parties involved.

      We don’t want to be incels who upon being told “no”, only continue to push forward harder.