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 a full new game that you need to purchase separately, but all the marketplace stuff you’ve bought for 2020 will also come with you to 2024

We finally have a release date for Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024!

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

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.

They specifically called it “child abuse content”, not “child abuse”. This seems perfectly valid, no?

By the way, just because these are digital renderings does not mean that there is no harm. Seeing such content can still be harmful to past victims. Just try to put yourself in this situation: imagine just playing some video game online, and suddenly being exposed to people recreating traumatic experiences from your past. Not only that - you also discover that the creators of the video game are involved & actively enabling such content. Seems completely messed up to me.

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)

Thanks for the comment! I think I generally agree with your points, will try to incorporate them into the RFC soon.

While I don’t think admins should be removing things that were reported to the community, they should be able to remove things outside of reports (even without being a mod). Sometimes spam might get reported to the mods, but the admins need to take action. Could the ‘read only’ view add a little warning before action is taken?

To be clear, admins are always able to do that anyway, I’m not proposing any changes to this. I am only proposing to limit the actual “mark as resolved” action, in order to prevent admins from accidentally hiding reports from mods. But I think it makes sense to even not limit this completely, and rather just show a warning when an admin does it - I have updated the RFC.

Btw, for this one:

Sometimes spam might get reported to the mods, but the admins need to take action.

I think it will mostly be OK as long as we allow mods to escalate reports to admins. But still, maybe it is indeed necessary to allow admins to directly resolve mod reports (with an extra UI confirmation step) as well.

Or do you mean reports on content now go to the user’s home instance as well?

Yes, exactly.

Also, there’s no way to report a user to their home instance so long as they don’t post anything in a community on their home instance.

This has been fixed in 0.19 thankfully. But for instances running older versions, what you said is still true.

I’m not sure what the exact circumstances are here, but something to note is that upgrading to 0.19 will mostly just help with outgoing federation (0.19.2 is much more reliable and robust when delivering activities to other instances compared to 0.18). We will start seeing the full benefits of this as more of the network upgrades.

Honestly… it’s not great. I would not recommend it unless you’re playing with somebody who is not put off by constant bugs and general jank.

In terms of bugs, I’ve had several occasions where one player can no longer open the map - it just starts opening the quest log instead of the map. I’ve also had a few occasions of the screen just going completely white. Also, I’ve had a player just become locked in a dialogue with no way of exiting.

For an example of jankiness, one key aspect of the whole game, dialogues, is just completely awful:

1. Both players can begin separate dialogues at the same time, one just gets muted
2. It’s impossible to automatically begin a dialogue with two players, one player has to start it, and the other has to “listen” to it as an additional step
3. It’s impossible to switch control of dialogues during a dialogue. This is constantly an issue, because sometimes, dialogues are triggered when you walk past some invisible checkpoint. Basically you’re forced to always have your high charisma player to walk in front and hope they end up triggering all the dialogues.
4. It’s impossible to contribute to dialogues in any way as the “listening” player. Even if you have some aspect to your character that might provide an interesting line, you are just locked out.
5. If both players speak to a character in succession, the exact same dialogue gets repeated. It’s jarring and completely breaks immersion.

There’s more, but I’m kind of getting more and more annoyed at the game as I write this, so I think I will just stop here, you probably get the picture 😅

I think the co-op is a complete afterthought in this game, and I will probably be replaying it in single player for a hopefully better experience at some point.

https://matrix.to/#/#lemmy:matrix.org

FYI to all admins: with the next release of pict-rs, it should be much easier to detect orphaned images, as the pict-rs database will be moved to postgresql. I am planning to build a hashtable of “in-use” images by iterating through all posts and comments by lemm.ee users (+ avatars and banners of course), and then I will iterate through all images in the pict-rs database, and if they are not in the “in-use” hash table, I will purge them.

Of course, Lemmy can be improved to handle this case better as well!

As a test, I ran this on a very early backup of lemm.ee images from when we had very little federation and very little uploads, and unfortunately it is finding a whole bunch of false positives. Just some examples it flagged as CSAM:

• Calvin and Hobbes comic
• The default Lemmy logo
• Some random user’s avatar, which is just a digital drawing of a person’s face
• a Pikachu image

Do you think the parameters of the script should be tuned? I’m happy to test it further on my backup, as I am reasonably certain that it doesn’t contain any actual CSAM

Any thoughts about using this as a middleware between nginx and Lemmy for all image uploads?

Edit: I guess that wouldn’t work for external images - unless it also ran for all outgoing requests from pict-rs… I think the easiest way to integrate this with pict-rs would be through some upstream changes that would allow pict-rs itself to call this code on every image.

This approach makes so much sense from a business perspective.

How many here have this experience: out of my entire friend group that I grew up playing video games with, I can’t think of a single person who kept pirating games after acquiring disposable income, even though we all exclusively played pirated games as teenagers. Without piracy, none of us would have had access to any games, and very likely none of us would still be into gaming today, spending probably thousands of euros every year on games, consoles, PC components, etc.

Well, I’m an Estonian citizen at least 😅

Damn, even $11.99 sounds like a lot - I only pay 12.99€ for a family plan in Europe.