this post was submitted on 23 Dec 2025
295 points (99.0% liked)

Fediverse

38655 readers
367 users here now

A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, Mbin, etc).

If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to !moderators@lemmy.world!

Rules

Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
ruud@lemmy.world
Xylinna@lemmy.world
MrCenny@lemmy.world
TragicNotCute@lemmy.world
automodbeta@lemmy.world
woelkchen@lemmy.world
295
PieFed 1.4 is released - emoji, federated stackoverflow and AI content filters (codeberg.org)
submitted 1 week ago by perishthethought@piefed.social to c/fediverse@lemmy.world
81 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

This is our biggest release yet, including more finished tasks than any of our previous ones. Below is a summary of the highlights:

What's new

Posts & communities can be labelled as AI-generated and people can choose to hide all posts tagged that way. Very similar to how NSFW works.

Comments can be marked as an Answer, like on StackOverflow.

React to posts and comments with an emoji.

Hide an individual post from yourself, without blocking the author.

PieFed is now in the Yunohost app store, making initial setup easier.

When banned from a remote instance you cannot make local-only posts in their communities.

Honeypot to automatically IP ban badly-behaved crawlers.

https://lemmy-federate.com/ integration, making PieFed communities get more exposure.

"Share on Mastodon" menu item on posts.

Vastly improve docs for new developers, see https://codeberg.org/rimu/pyfedi/src/branch/main/docs/developer_docs.

Language selection is more visible during post creation.

Tag clouds can also be viewed as a list of tags.

View post/comment markdown.

Bot accounts are not included in community statistics.

Footnote support in markdown.

Polish translation.

Better HTTP caching, which reduces dependence on Cloudflare.

Bugs

Passkey fixes.

Polls can now have up to 15 options.

User profile performance improved.

Don't allow bypassing minimum username length and post title with whitespace.

Polls and Events can no longer be posted into Lemmy communities.

API

Additional user settings can be set through the api, including Extra Fields.

Fetch url metadata.

Sort comments by controversial.

Comment search now works.

Hashtags.

Events.

Polls.

Emoji reactions on posts and comments.

See https://piefed.social/c/piefed_api for more details.

To upgrade

To upgrade from 1.3.x:

git pull  
git checkout v1.4.x  
./deploy.sh or ./deploy-docker.sh

There is a big database migration that will take a few minutes to run. How long will vary depending on how old your instance is - older instances will have more content to process. It took ~25 minutes on piefed.social so expect it to be less than that.

Donations

PieFed is free and open-source software while operating without any advertising, monetization, or reliance on venture capital. Your donations are vital in supporting the PieFed development effort, allowing us to expand and enhance PieFed with new features.

Donations can be made via Patreon, Liberapay or Ko-fi.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] The_Picard_Maneuver@piefed.world 39 points 1 week ago

So many features!

[–] rglullis@communick.news 25 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (20 children)

It's this kind of thinig that makes me think of PieFed as just a pile of hacks with no serious consideration for the Fediverse

Designating which comment is an answer involves federating a new Activity:

{  
         "id": "https://piefed.social/activities/answer/hgb4iO4b8UAFRTn", 
         "type": "ChooseAnswer",  
         "actor": "https://piefed.socialz/u/rimu", 
         "object": "https://piefed.ngrok.app/comment/224",  
         "@context": ["https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams", "https://w3id.org/security/v1"],  
         "audience": "https://crust.piefed.social/c/linux_questions",  
         "to": ["https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"],  
         "cc": ["https://crust.piefed.social/c/linux_questions"]  
}

There are at least three different ways to implement this in a way compatible with ActivityPub:

  1. Send an "as:accept" activity with the comment as the object.
  2. Add an attribute for the comment indicating that it has been selected.
  3. Create a collection for chosen answers, add to the post object.

And even if this type of new activity was a necessity, they could add their own extensions via a proper JSON-LD context definition. But they completely disregard JSON-LD, which means that they expect other servers to either (1) adopt their ad-hoc vocabulary or (2) ignore it completely and keep this idea that "Only PieFed has these features".

[–] Snoopy@piefed.social 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It’s this kind of thinig that makes me think of PieFed as just a pile of hacks with no serious consideration for the Fediverse

Was it necessary ? I invite you to rewritte.

[–] rglullis@communick.news 1 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (1 children)

Off the top of my head, piefed is:

  • Sending pseudonymous actor ids to hide votes
  • "Migrating" communities by re-creating activities and objects on their own server, just rewriting the URLs and pretending the piefed server actually was the original source.
  • Integrating functionality that is hardcoded to specific instances/groups (auto-posting new communities on !newcommunities@lemmy.world)
  • Integrating lemmy-federate directly into the instance - which is a horrendous idea if you consider that will lead to every piefed instance holding every copy of the messages, even if no one in the instance actually follows or interacts with it.
  • Proposing a completely out-of-band and a custom activity protocol to notify moderation reports
  • generating a JSON-LD document filled with unspecified terms.

I am not here to gate-keep anything. If the devs are having fun working on it and if the users are happy with the product they are getting, more power to them.

It might be that piefed gets enough users and outside interest to force the team to be more discipline and mature about their practices, but to an outsider this looks more and more like a bunch of amateurs building stuff for fun, and not something that can become a viable alternative for a open social web.

[–] Skavau@piefed.social 2 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Sending pseudonymous actor ids to hide votes

This has long been scrapped. You can choose to not federate out your own downvotes now for maximum anonymity, but this was widely disliked so it was dropped.

“Migrating” communities by re-creating activities and objects on their own server, just rewriting the URLs and pretending the piefed server actually was the original source.

Yup. Although this isn't complete in many cases, but is an entirely transparent process. I've told you this has vast fediverse support because it enables community modularity, which is needed in a world where instances will go offline, causing communities to be orphaned.

Integrating functionality that is hardcoded to specific instances/groups (auto-posting new communities on !newcommunities@lemmy.world)

This was agreed with the moderators of said community.

Integrating lemmy-federate directly into the instance - which is a horrendous idea if you consider that will lead to every piefed instance holding every copy of the messages, even if no one in the instance actually follows or interacts with it.

I'm not quite sure how this specifically functions for new instances, but I have suggested this be opt-in rather than opt-out.

[–] rglullis@communick.news 1 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

maximum anonymity, but this was widely disliked so it was dropped.

Maximum anonymity is a lie. Users still need to trust the server admin. The truth is that the Fediverse is not a secure/private messaging platform, and attempts to hide this from the users might be well-intentioned but will bite the devs in the ass, sooner or later.

this has vast fediverse support because it enables community modularity, which is needed in a world where instances will go offline, causing communities to be orphaned.

To solve this it would be better to have the PieFed team pushing/implementing the appropriate FEPs (FEP-7952 and FEP-EF61) instead of an-hoc hack.

This was agreed with the moderators of said community.

Not the point. The point is that the devs are taking the "everything and the kitchen sink" approach to features, prioritizing any type of functionality that is minimally useful to the users instead of putting some effort on the harder stuff.

I have suggested (lemmy-federate) be opt-in rather than opt-out.

Doesn't matter. Admins will see it, think "that is nice!", turn it on and only realize later that their database is completely bloated with data that is not really needed. Meanwhile, the real problem of content discovery could be solved by implementing pull-based federation and client-side caching, but again this type of work is not being done because it's not something that the users see directly.

[–] Skavau@piefed.social 1 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (1 children)

Maximum anonymity is a lie. Users still need to trust the server
admin. The truth is that the Fediverse is not a secure/private
messaging platform, and attempts to hide this from the users might be well-intentioned but will bite the devs in the ass, sooner or later.

Sure. Pseudonymity. Again, it was dropped.

To solve this it would be better to have the PieFed team pushing/implementing the appropriate FEPs (FEP-7952 and FEP-EF61) instead of an-hoc hack.

I'm not here to quibble about the mechanics of the implementation, but purely noting that it is popular. You seem to be opposed to it on principle.

Doesn’t matter. Admins will see it, think “that is nice!”, turn it on and only realize later that their database is completely bloated with data that is not really needed. Meanwhile, the real problem of content discovery could be solved by implementing pull-based federation and client-side caching, but again this type of work is not being done because it’s not something that the users see directly.

Then attach with it an explanation that it could cause data bloat and increase costs for them which might be unwelcome if they're designed as a personal instance. You're against admins having the ability to turn this on if they want?

[–] rglullis@communick.news 2 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Sure. Pseudonymity. Again, it was dropped.

No, it was not dropped. "do not federate votes" is not a privacy guarantee. It just reduces the exposure of the information from the whole Internet to the server admin. People still need to trust the admin.

I’m not here to quibble about the mechanics of the implementation, but purely noting that it is popular.

If you are one of the developers of the project, you should be quibbling about the implementation. "It is popular" is not a good enough reason to effectively fabricate information.

You’re against admins having the ability to turn this on if they want?

What I am against is this constant release of poorly thought out features and the prioritization of "easy" vs "correct".

The more you try to justify what PieFed is doing, the more you are cementing my original opinion:

  • it looks and feels amateurish.
  • Its idea of "design" is "add any tool/functionality/feature that the developers think might be useful to them/their users".
  • it is not contributing in any meaningful way to development and improvement of the standards of the Social Web.

You might feel offended by me calling it "a pile of hacks", but I can not think of any other term to describe this.

[–] Skavau@piefed.social 1 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

No, it was not dropped. “do not federate votes” is not a privacy guarantee. It just reduces the exposure of the information from the whole Internet to the server admin. People still need to trust the admin.

Well, sure. But it's still less of an 'exposure' so to speak, than a vote federating out.

If you are one of the developers of the project, you should be quibbling about the implementation. “It is popular” is not a good enough reason to effectively fabricate information.

People don't see it as fabrication if the community movement is reflected in the public logs - which it would be. I think I've only seen one other person object to the mechanic of community migration on the basis of "fabricating" information, other than you. You are in a vast minority. Most people are keen to see it go further and move subscribers too, from what I can tell. The end-game is a situation where most people recognise that communities on the fediverse are functionally modular and can be moved if necessary. Most people would understand, if this was the norm, that communities are modular and can be movied in certain circumstances.

What I am against is this constant release of poorly thought out features and the prioritization of “easy” vs “correct”.

That's not what I asked you. I said the lemmy-federate functions should instead be opt-in, and you still seemed to oppose it.

[–] rglullis@communick.news 2 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (1 children)

We are talking past each other by now...

Well, sure. But it’s still less of an ‘exposure’ so to speak, than a vote federating out.

My point, in one sentence: it's not up to the developers of a project building on ActivityPub to define policy regarding "exposure".

ActivityPub is a protocol for public social networks. It's not about private communications. Anyone looking for privacy should be told that and instructed to not post on a server if they are not willing to accept that will be public.

It's as simple as that. If the developers of PieFed do not understand the basic principle of "use the right tool for the job" and keep trying to replicate anti-features from centralized websites (such as the fake-privacy that is provided by closed networks), then I will have no trust on their ability to design a good ActivityPub system.

You are in a vast minority. Most people are keen to see it go further and move subscribers too.

This is a good example of selection bias. You are getting most of your feedback from other PieFed users, who clearly are not aware of the implications of such implementation.

I said the lemmy-federate functions should instead be opt-in, and you still seemed to oppose it.

Yes, I am opposed to any functionality being added to the server when it can be solved at the client. Content discovery can be done by the client and using a separate service like Fediverser, fedidb, or anything else. It makes no sense to have this built-in into the ActivityPub server. It is one of the many examples where the piefed devs are adding a feature because they can without thinking whether they should.

[–] Skavau@piefed.social 1 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

My point, in one sentence: it’s not up to the developers of a project building on ActivityPub to define policy regarding “exposure”.

As someone who actually opposed the initial implemention of Piefed's voting being made non-public to non-instance admins (as much as possible) to other users, I completely disagree. Some people don't like it and don't want their votes to be easily accessible to the wider fediverse. The only way that can be implemented currently is by removing federation. Rimu serves that.

This is a good example of selection bias. You are getting most of your feedback from other PieFed users, who clearly are not aware of the implications of such implementation.

No, I've seen this opinion from others. It's also a wider criticism of the viability of the fediverse long-term in that communities are only as long as their hosted instance. This does a lot to mitigate that.

Yes, I am opposed to any functionality being added to the server when it can be solved at the client. Content discovered can be done by the client and using a separate service like Fediverser, fedidb, or anything else. It makes no sense to have this built-in into the ActivityPub server. It is one of the many examples where the piefed devs are adding a feature because they can without thinking whether they should.

Can you tell me exactly what harm this does to the mythical ActivityPub, beyond an instance owner toggling it on in ignorance to their own detriment.

[–] rglullis@communick.news 2 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (1 children)

Some people don’t like it and don’t want their votes to be easily accessible to the wider fediverse.

Then why restrict this logic to "like/dislike" activities, and not extend to any type of activity?

It’s also a wider criticism of the viability of the fediverse long-term in that communities are only as long as their hosted instance. This does a lot to mitigate that.

A mitigation is not a proper solution, even less so when it violates other principles in distributed systems.

Can you tell me exactly what harm this does to the mythical ActivityPub.

The harm itself will be for the instance admin later on. Still, the larger point is this solution is a workaround that does not bring any meaningful benefit for others in the Fediverse.

To be honest, though: I don't know what we are arguing about here. I've already said it: I am not here to gate-keep anything. If this the way that the PieFed developers want to do their thing, more power to them. But it's like you expect me some kind of approval from me. You don't need that. I may not like 90% of things that Rimu and others are doing, but they don't owe me anything.

[–] Skavau@piefed.social 1 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Then why restrict this logic to “like/dislike” activities, and not extend to any type of activity?

Some communities are also, or can be set to local only. What other activities do you have in mind?

A mitigation is not a proper solution, even less so when it violates other principles in distributed systems.

So far as I can see, that's up to the collective fediverse population. You done a poll on this?

The harm itself will be for the instance admin later on. Still, the larger point is this solution is a workaround that does not bring any meaningful benefit for others in the Fediverse.

It's not supposed to in this context. It's for an instance admin who wants to populate the content of their own instance. Although it could be beneficial if it's an instance for others that is not personal in scope and is supposed to be a wide-use instance.

[–] rglullis@communick.news 1 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (1 children)

What other activities do you have in mind?

Any and all of them? What is so special about as:like and as:dislike? There is nothing on ActivityPub preventing users to create posts or announce activities for a different target audience.

You done a poll on this?

This is tyranny of the majority. If one person is out there saying "I don't want to have the data I've posted on server A to be presented as if I posted on server B", then this person will be right to complain if they see their requests being respected.

(And before someone comes up and points fingers at me saying that Fediverser was also copying user posts without their consent: it's true that the bots were recreating the posts and comments, but they were not publishing information on the Fediverse with "actor ids" from Reddit. There is a subtle, but important difference)

Anyway, can we move on from this conversation, please? I am not going to change your mind about it and I don't want to re-hash past discussions. I'm also not particularly interested in any of the current server-centric Fediverse projects, so you will have a hard time convincing me that anything being done on PieFed is worthy of praise.

[–] Skavau@piefed.social 1 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

This is tyranny of the majority. If one person is out there saying “I don’t want to have the data I’ve posted on server A to be presented as if I posted on server B”, then this person will be right to complain if they see their requests being respected.

Well we already have 'tyranny of the majority' here regarding a whole host of functions on the fediverse. On reddit voting is entirely private, mod-logs hidden and people now can even hide their posting history. I am sure a non-zero amount of people here object to that (I know some do). But there's no support for changing that due to the belief prevalent across the fediverse that these being publicly accessible keep the fediverse honest.

This is tyranny of the majority. If one person is out there saying “I don’t want to have the data I’ve posted on server A to be presented as if I posted on server B”, then this person will be right to complain if they see their requests being respected.

Maybe one could have an opt-out toggle in users profiles for potential community migration. Ultimately, I'm in favour of (if this functionality ever actually exists to completely move a community) being widely known. People would join the fediverse knowing that there's a possibility that the community they're posting on could, down-the-line, move to another instance and thus 'move' their posts and comments within that community.

And I'm just replying to your points from a community perspective. You're welcome to reply or not.

[–] ademir@lemmy.eco.br 1 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

If Piefed continues to implement features without considering the ActivityPub protocol and other platforms, much as Mastodon has been criticized for, it will damage the very interoperability that makes the fediverse valuable.

[–] Skavau@piefed.social 1 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Has that happened yet?

[–] rglullis@communick.news 1 points 14 hours ago

Yes?!

Isn't that my whole complaint about the implementation of "ChooseAnswer"?

Isn't that my whole complaint about the community migration being done in a way that will not work with servers implementing the Portable Objects FEP?

[–] rglullis@communick.news 2 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

On reddit voting is entirely private,

Go to Reddit with a bag of money, get the voting history of whoever you want... how is that for "private"?

If we are talking about building an "open" web, then it makes no sense to justify any design based on how the "closed" web works. The incentives are different, the use-cases are different and in the long run it will be detrimental to the open web if we keep trying to mask away the differences.

More than that, I think that the biggest mistake being done by current fediverse projects is that they keep trying to emulate the proprietary networks. Social media "platforms" are bad by its very nature and chasing this idea that we can "fix" them by making open source versions of them is a fool's errand.

[–] Skavau@piefed.social 1 points 14 hours ago

Sorry, I meant in the sense of privacy from the perspective of other users. Your voting history cannot be seen by other users on Reddit, and you can hide your comment history from them too. I think these are bad decisions, but at the same time some people on the fediverse have voiced support for them.

load more comments (19 replies)
[–] Catoblepas@piefed.blahaj.zone 11 points 1 week ago

I can’t wait for my instance to update, this all sounds great!

[–] Aids@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (4 children)

I’m on voyager app signed in to Lenny.ml how would I go about using this ? Or would this have to be incorporated by the admins Lenny.ml ?

[–] Skavau@piefed.social 44 points 1 week ago

Piefed is an entirely different software. You would have to sign up to a piefed instance.

[–] SatyrSack@quokk.au 19 points 1 week ago

These also mostly look like things that Voyager would also need to add support for on their side as well. Voyager definitely supports signing into a PieFed account, browsing, commenting, and other basic features, but not all PieFed features currently work.

[–] Agent_Karyo@piefed.world 9 points 1 week ago

I use Piefed on Voyager, they don't really support any of the major features of Piefed.

I still use the mobile WebUI mostly.

[–] Zombie@feddit.uk 9 points 1 week ago

How I imagine everyone dresses on Lenny.ml

[–] flamingos@feddit.uk 6 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Comments can be marked as an Answer, like on StackOverflow.

Was anything changed about how this federates? If no, what protections are in place against someone just patching their instance software to always return an "answer": true on Notes?

[–] rimu@piefed.social 12 points 1 week ago

That won't have any effect unless the author of the Note is the same as the author of the original post. You're welcome to try it.

The json structure used during federation does not limit the kind of access control checks we can do.

[–] wjs018@piefed.wjs018.xyz 8 points 1 week ago

I don't think so, but I wasn't working on it. Tagging @rimu@piefed.social for awareness.

To do this, they would need to be an admin running a modified version of the software no? If that was really happening with any kind of regularity, it would surely be grounds for defederation.

In any case, if this were to become an issue, then I am sure we can change it. We have already had to change how community flair federates a few times to try to keep up with lemmy's PRs on the feature to try to make sure it is compatible.

load more comments
view more: next ›