It’s not really a bug, it’s just a case where app developers need to update their code to support a small change in the Lemmy API. More details here: https://lemm.ee/post/34259050/12479585

It’s the first option in the dropdown:

Big thanks to all maintainers and contributors!

That’s true, it will only show content which has been federated to lemm.ee, so indeed if you want to search for more content than is available on your instance, you would need some additional tools for that.

I’m a simple man:

“What day is it?” asked Pooh.

“It’s today,” squeaked Piglet.

“My favorite day,” said Pooh.

Should work just fine for posts and comments as well, for example, here’s a search result containing your comment

The built-in search feature is actually quite decent I find, is it not working well for you?

For context I use all of these daily: Linux (servers + handheld gaming), Windows (gaming), Mac OS (work & general purpose). I used one of the first iPhones around 2008, then exclusively Android for 10 years, and then back to iPhones.

Iphone users of Lemmy, people say not to trust you on tech insights.

IMO, these “people” with such takes are the only ones who shouldn’t be trusted on tech insights here :P

The sad fact is that some people keep constantly spreading false rumors about Lemmy devs not working on mod tools. Anybody can just take a few minutes and go through the past Lemmy updates in this community to see that moderation improvements are basically worked on constantly (and this is not some recent change either). But there are plenty of users who never bother to actually check this, and so the rumors keep spreading.

Obviously being instance-banned won’t prevent you from commenting on their posts, it just won’t get federated to that instance

I am actually working on fixing this right now, so that in the future, users would be prevented from commenting in this situation

Awesome work!

Do you have an idea yet for the timeline of the 0.19.4 release?

Just a hunch, but is it possible you missed the --recursive flag when cloning the repo?

On 0.19.3, you can:

1. Limit the file upload size for local users through nginx configuration
2. Disable incoming federated images through Lemmy configuration: https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/blob/main/config/defaults.hjson#L49 (set this to false)

If I have several backends that more or less depend on each other anyway (for example: Lemmy + pict-rs), then I will create separate databases for them within a single postgres - reason being, if something bad happens to the database for one of them, then it affects the other one as well anyway, so there isn’t much to gain from isolating the databases.

Conversely, for completely unrelated services, I will always set up separate postgres instances, for full isolation.

Interesting project! Can you explain the vision a bit more - I understand that every instance can have their own version of an article, but how would a user know which version of an article is most relevant to them to read (and maybe even contribute to)?

Sorry if you were just making a joke, my sarcasm detector is not really working anymore (/s at the end would help). But if not, this comment really perfectly captures the entitlement in open source.

Now imagine you spend months (or even years) of your free time to build something for people to use freely, and the result is that you get endless comments from random strangers, telling you that you work for them and that you need to respect and be grateful to them. I honestly am impressed that open source still exists at all at this point.

I just want to add a counter-point to the argument that Lemmy devs are somehow opposed to contributions. In my experience, there has been no resistance to contributing any type of change (I have personally added niche features for running Lemmy in a distributed manner, optimizations, bug fixes, etc). In fact I would claim the complete opposite - I have received plenty of support and good code reviews from maintainers whenever I have wanted to contribute anything.

I think there is truth to the claim that Lemmy maintainers don’t have a lot of patience for people making demands and snarky comments, but that is very different from being opposed to contributions. Also, after running a big instance for a while now, I completely understand this lack of patience - when some of your users just keep being rude to you, it wears down your patience. It’s easy to patiently and kindly respond to the first 100 rude users, but at some point after that, it just becomes gradually more mentally exhausting, to the point where it’s basically impossible.

Even the example provided in the blog post: I don’t think snowe had bad intentions, but I do think they had clearly misinterpreted the situation with that issue, and their comments were needlessly condescending.

On Lemmy 0.19.3, reports go to:

• Community mods
• Admins of the instance where the community is hosted
• Admins of the instance of the reported user
• Admins of the instance of the reporter

I think separate report inboxes are needed for the report reasons approach as well. This RFC doesn’t prevent having report reasons, rather I think it brings us closer to that goal.

Thanks for the thoughts!

Why not take this approach to simplify it then?

Yeah, the wording can be changed, I’m adding a note about it to the RFC

But I should be able to mark a report complete if I have dealt with it. Otherwise I’m just going to go to the post and sort it out anyway, so its just adding complexity. Barriers/extra steps to administration is not the way forward here.

I think in this particular case, some barriers are crucial. At the very least, I think we need to have warnings/extra confirmations when an admin wants to resolve a mod report.

I mean, if an admin handles it to the point where mods can’t take any further actions anyway (ban + content removal), then the report is automatically resolved already, so there is no need to manually resolve. OTOH, if an admin handles it in a way that a mod might still want to take additional action (for example, the admin just removes a comment), a mod might still want to take further action (for example, ban the offending user from their community), but if the admin marks the mod report as resolved, the mod will most likely end up never seeing it.

I am legally on the hook for content on my instance, not the moderators, and proposing changes that make it harder to be an admin is a touch annoying.

Btw, I don’t think any admin actions should be made harder, I am only talking about adding barriers to resolving reports which are in mod inboxes, and when I say “resolving reports”, I am literally just talking about marking the report as resolved (this shouldn’t really be a common action for admins - it’s akin to marking DMs as read for other users IMO). I don’t want to limit admins in any way from banning/removing content/anything like that.

No. This is a step backwards in transparency and moderation efforts. Granularity and more options is not always a good thing. If you’ve ever had the misfortune of using Meta’s report functionality you’ll know how overly complex and frustrating their report system is to use with all their “granularity”.

Agreed, I think that’s in line with why I proposed not going that path in the RFC as well.

To add: I would suggest thinking about expanding this to notify the user a report has been dealt with/resolved, optionally including rationale, because that feedback element can sometimes be lacking.

I think that would a good additional feature, but orthogonal to this particular RFC (I mean, neither feature depends on each other)