Blaze (he/him) @ Blaze @lemmy.dbzer0.com

Other accounts:

---

Read more

Posts

49

Comments

1,748

Joined

2 yr. ago

Nice to see more Piefed instances popping

Cool idea to be honest

Thank you for the precision!

Community migration is possible on Piefed https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/45876492?scrollToComments=true

Community migration is possible on Piefed https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/45876492?scrollToComments=true

Piefed shows comments from all the crossposts

Example: https://piefed.social/post/871116?sort=new#post_replies

I've seen OP replying in other threads

https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/45876780

Piefed has that warning when you are in the posting menu

https://feddit.uk/

Just link them on the bios and keep the same username. That usually does the job

We discussed it on !fediverse@piefed.social and !fedibridge@lemmy.dbzer0.com

As we discussed before, linking both accounts in the bio achieve the goal

!fedibridge@lemmy.dbzer0.com

Great minds think alike!

Oh great!

I forgot that you are selective with your tolerance with hyperbole.

Hyperbole in this context is borderline disinformation.

“Trump Musk filter”

This filter offers a choice when the users signs up. The new joiner can enable it completely, moderately, or not at all. So in this case, it is indeed the users' choice.

This is what it looks like in the user settings

“Vote weighting”

Do we expect every single user to assess all of the toxic communities, or do we prefer to rely on admins to make decision for the userbase?

In the same way that defederation is an admin-level decision impacting all of the userbase, having those defined at an admin level seem reasonable.

“Attitude and Reputation scoring”.

This is visible for users as well, I guess I misunderstood what you meant? https://piefed.social/u/rglullis@communick.news

Those users are probably going to go to feddit.uk?

Our findings show that the abuse rate for the .zip TLD is 0.20% which is close to the average compared to all other TLDs. This rate indicates that .zip domain names are not being used to attack users more than the average TLDs - at least for now. However, if attackers find they have better success using .zip than other TLDs, the rates of abuse might change.

Given new TLDs, such as .zip, tend to have a higher abuse rate than legacy and ccTLDs we suggest that the security research community should continue the healthy debate about the potential risks of the .zip TLD and that internet users continue to be weary of downloading and opening files with a .zip extension or TLD from sources or individuals they may not know.

https://dnsrf.org/blog/the--zip-tld---ripe-for-abuse--but-so-far-so-good-/index.html

Choosing to use this TLD basically just screams ignorance, and should be causing users to question the competence of the person who made that choice.

Not sure if that tone is the best for a healthy debate.

Our findings show that the abuse rate for the .zip TLD is 0.20% which is close to the average compared to all other TLDs. This rate indicates that .zip domain names are not being used to attack users more than the average TLDs - at least for now. However, if attackers find they have better success using .zip than other TLDs, the rates of abuse might change.

Given new TLDs, such as .zip, tend to have a higher abuse rate than legacy and ccTLDs we suggest that the security research community should continue the healthy debate about the potential risks of the .zip TLD and that internet users continue to be weary of downloading and opening files with a .zip extension or TLD from sources or individuals they may not know.

https://dnsrf.org/blog/the--zip-tld---ripe-for-abuse--but-so-far-so-good-/index.html

Choosing to use this TLD basically just screams ignorance, and should be causing users to question the competence of the person who made that choice.

Not sure if that tone is the best for a healthy debate.