I’m not new to link aggregators/communities, but new to those outside of Reddit. About a month ago I joined Lemmy and today my curiosity led me to Piefed, although I’ve come across the name before.
My research told me Piefed is developing at a much faster pace than Lemmy, is that true? I like the onboarding of Piefed better, because it allows you to select things you might be interested in as part of the process, which is helpful. Overall, it’s a much more guided approach.
I’ve also gotten to know it doesn’t really matter for the average user which of the platforms one joins. So I’m specifically posting this question on a community on Lemmy through my Piefed account.
I’m based in Europe if that makes a difference, which I believe it doesn’t. Nonetheless I’m happy to read your thoughts. Thanks
I agree about the attitude score he calculates but saying the word stupid is ableism is silly.
Think about it. If you are stupid, and nobody can tell you that, you get a society full of very stupid people.
Humans do stupid things and we should tell eachother. It’s fine if someone thinks I’m stupid. It’s an opinion, and I want to live in a society where people are allowed to have that opinion.
I removed the word ‘stupid’ from the code 3 months ago, the function is now called ‘reply_is_low_effort’.
The haters don’t bother keeping their propaganda up to date.
I think you shouldn’t have removed it because saying something is stupid is not ableism.
Anyway, most people like piefed and I think its great with many alternatives. In a project like this you will get many opinions. Listen to the ones that make sense and ignore the ones that are stupid. Yes, I called something stupid. It’s not ableism for gods sake.
I think your attitude score is stupid. But that’s my opinion and in the end it’s up to you, since it’s your software. It’s fine. Your intension is to create better discussions which is good. How to do it is not so easy.
Abelism or not it took seconds to change so I don’t mind.
Attitude has turned out to be a lot less useful than I hoped…
Yeah. I think hacker news has some decent ideas about how to manage these things. You can ask chat gpt about some details to get the idea, but I think its something along the lines of users not being able to affect a discussion with voting until they have some sort of reputation. And I believe that reputation has to come from reactions by the community.
I think if you ask chat gpt about that and have a discussion, some good ideas could surface. They have karma but it’s a ladder system where users get more options only after contributing successfully to the community, not just by time.
Interesting, thanks
If you want to nitpick you’d be better off replying directly to the comment I linked to.