I wouldn’t say it’s truly decentralised in its current state.

Yea it’s cool. Although, regarding sublinks, it really looks like the project has stalled.

It doesn’t really help for me, but the beauty of the fediverse is that it doesn’t have to. You can like PieFed, I can prefer Lemmy and we can both still talk :)

On the other hand, it has some weirdly opinionated features:

• Hiding downvoted comments (mob rule)
• Marking people with many downvotes as “low reputation”. I get it, getting many downvotes is a bad sign but I don’t think the software should try to make a ruling here, I think human moderators should look at the whole picture. It doesn’t make you a bad person that people disagree with you.
• Communities organized into “topics” - I’m not certain if these groupings are decided by the dev or the admin? Either way I find it a bit problematic.
• Marking certain communities as “low effort” and not counting “reputation” for those. I don’t feel like the software should be making this kind of value judgement.

I just block most political comms, I don’t see too much of it I would say.

User blocking merely blocks their communities. You’ll still see comments from the instance and you’ll still see posts in other communities from their users. You’ll also still have their votes influence your feed.

Defederation is the more proper tool to use. Individual user blocking is not effective.

You mean you personally blocked them? You need to actually be on an instance that defederates them for it to mean anything. User blocking hardly does anything, it just hides communities from that instance, that’s all it does.

You really should join an instance that defederates from those instances. That is the way to actually “vote” on the fediverse, not via simple user blocking that doesn’t actually achieve what you think it does, as the other reply points out.

I mean, lead them to instances that defederate hexbear for starters? Seems reasonable anyway.

Sounds hollow coming from an instance that doesn’t even defederate hexbear.

Not as far as I am aware - I don’t think you can really fix it within the protocol, i.e. without a breaking change. Then you may as well make a new protocol.

So aside from Baldurs gate 3, who’s actually making good RPGs these days?

Your client doesn’t parse according to CommonMark then, which requires spacing between the # and the heading.

Any FEP trying to fix this will be incompatible with existing instances, so I don’t really see how it’s gonna work.

no idea if ActivityPub would get in the way

It totally would. In ActivityPub, all objects (like users and posts) have an identifier that includes the domain name. For instance, your ID is https://midwest.social/u/m_f. That’s what identifies your user. There is no way to change an ID - the point of an ID is after all that it stays the same and still refers to the same entity. This is a pretty serious limitation of ActivityPub right now unfortunately.

TypeScript for the backend too? Sorry, can’t help with that. But I’d say just open source it anyway.

This page has like no information basically.

Well there are in fact other options than Lemmy already, like Mbin and Piefed. This is good - more options means users have more choices and they all still interoperate so everyone can choose what they want without being separated.

Yea - when it comes to a security review, it’s really the backend that matters the most though.

Obscurity is not security, so you could argue that you should just open source it anyway. Any security holes present are also there right now - the fact that the source code is not available is irrelevant.

But if you insist, it may help if you say what programming language is used.