@fedilab He should get together with the guy on Twitter who thinks it's his job is policing how other men carry their papers around. They could form a club. XD
@fedilab Yes, it's deeply unfair to have a way to choose not to talk to certain people.
@fedilab These people are beyond ridiculous at this point.
@fedilab Idiot(s), it's them who we should ban from our side.
This is a complete joke. Communist crusaders, that's what they are. Talk about fascism and then do everything in their power to destroy people that don't conform to their demands. They are the ones harassing people, on the grounds of protecting you from harassment. If they had their way it would be firing squads and gulags, just like every country they ever came to power in.
The silver lining is all they will acomplish is blacklisting themselves out of the federation. Good riddance.
people putting groups of ppl in boxes depending on app, browser, OS, car they drive aso better move to north korea or similiar for their living but better not harras or throw hate against smart people seeing 360 degrees of this world. random user agent is cool because communism ideology could put preasure on users, groups of ppl and instance admins which should be avaided. we had this here in europe already till late 80's before former eastern europe opened.
@fedilab some people need some away time from the computer and need to be exposed to the real world. How do they function?
@fedilab I just had a fun little argument with that person, more for the benefit of anyone who comes across it, really. I guess that sums up my views on the matter
You read the link I attached. It's not about that point.
@fedilab Yes, I read it. It is irrelevant why a user wishes to filter out certain clients -- that is their choice. If they do not wish to see Fedilab users, for whatever reason, that is up to them. I understand it is hard to be impartial about this when it is your app that is being discussed in negative terms, but the base request is not invalid.
Because you also forgot that Fedilab is two years old and many people use it. That means blocking cool and nice accounts simply because they use Fedilab since years.
But, no matter, if an instance blocks the use of an app, it's easy to detect and create another client id. That will be transparent for the end user.
Also, people can hide the app that they use :)
I am ready to work on that if needed.
@fedilab It does not matter how cool or nice someone is -- if someone else wants to block them, they can do so for any reason. 🤷 Does Fedilab display app-names? If so, it is no different than what is being requested.
@trwnh yes, but the query looks like more an automatic way.
@azure @fedilab i would. fedilab aside, there are many crossposters which i wish not to see. back when i used twitter, 3rd-party clients often had option to mute by source, so you could mute tweets via youtube or facebook for example, but if you wanted to you could also mute any tweets via twitter for iphone if you wanted to as well.
this is a useful feature that i feel fedilab is only opposed to due to feeling insulted by claim of being an app for racist harassers.
For what you are looking for it's a filter for bot accounts.
Yes, this label is not mandatory, but maybe if moderators had the ability to put this label (after reports), it could help.
@fedilab @azure @Gargron i don't want to filter bots. i want to filter Persons who are posting via certain sources, including but not limited to crossposters. federating apps via "generator" property is an open feature request, as is muting by source. and something is better than nothing.
frankly if i were a fedilab user i would like to have such a feature in fedilab too, but I primarily use subway tooter because it implements such a feature, even though it is effectively limited to only local.
@fedilab in any case i maintain that it does not really make sense to oppose the feature when it provides clear value with no significant ill effect to the ecosystem. users can opt out if they wish not to disclose, and i would even argue that filtering by app is similar to filtering by domain. do you also oppose "hide the entire domain" by the same logic you oppose "mute via source"? both use metadata on posts for filtering purposes.
@trwnh Filtering messages from people using a certain app is not the same that the OP suggested.
There is a difference between filtering and hunting.
@fedilab the same mechanism is used for both. it is not appropriate to call it "hunting" when it is in fact consent of the user to do whatever they want with their accounts. if someone wants to block "posted via fedilab" then i don't see the issue any more than blocking "posted via Moa" or even "posted via Web" if they so choose
@trwnh "Hunting" because the approach is clearly different. It's not for filtering a content that was ready to be displayed (like it currently exists), it's for providing a tool that will search and block accounts.
For information, the app works with Mastodon filters (synced) and custom regex. I can extend these regex to app names, it's not too much work.
Obviously, next they will start to block anyone who is not using one of the party approved clients. Well, I'd say let them build a wall around their garden. But if you want to resist that, you'll probably want an ability to return a custom client string, not just null.
Okay, let me get this straight. There's open source apps that can be forked, modified and republished so that the users could, in theory, change the user agent to whatever they want.
Does user agent blocking have ANY significance at all?
>Does user agent blocking have ANY significance at all?
No, like blocking instances login. But if some admins try to block requests having a user agent containing Fedilab, the app will not be impacted.
Framapiaf est un service de microblog similaire à Twitter. Il est libre, décentralisé et fédéré. Il permet de courts messages (max. 500 caractères), de définir leur degré de confidentialité et de suivre les membres du réseau sans publicité ni pistage.