The problem:
The web has obviously reached a high level of #enshitification. Paywalls, exclusive walled gardens, #Cloudflare, popups, CAPTCHAs, tor-blockades, dark patterns (esp. w/cookies), javascript that makes the website an app (not a doc), etc.
Status quo solution (failure):
#Lemmy & the #threadiverse were designed to inherently trust humans to only post links to non-shit websites, and to only upvote content that has no links or links to non-shit venues.
It’s not working. The social approach is a systemic failure.
The fix:
-
stage 1 (metrics collection): There needs to be shitification metrics for every link. Readers should be able to click a “this link is shit” button on a per-link basis & there should be tick boxes to indicate the particular variety of shit that it is.
-
stage 2 (metrics usage): If many links with the same hostname show a pattern of matching enshitification factors, the Lemmy server should automatically tag all those links with a warning of some kind (e.g. ⚠, 💩, 🌩).
-
stage 3 (inclusive alternative): A replacement link to a mirror is offered. E.g. youtube → (non-CF’d invidious instance), cloudflare → archive.org, medium.com → (random scribe.rip instance), etc.
-
stage 4 (onsite archive): good samaritans and over-achievers should have the option to provide the full text for a given link so others can read the article without even fighting the site.
-
stage 5 (search reranking): whenever a human post a link and talks about it, search crawlers notice and give that site a high ranking. This is why search results have gotten lousy – because the social approach has failed. Humans will post bad links. So links with a high enshitification score need to be obfuscated in some way (e.g. dots become asterisks) so search crawlers don’t overrate them going forward.
This needs to be recognized as a #LemmyBug.
Of course absence of code can be a bug. If it weren’t, why write the code at all? A large portion of bugs are a consequence of lacking code. In some cases I’ve had to introduce hundreds of lines of new (previously non-existing code) in order to fix a bug.
Got it: so if it’s posted on host A it’s a bug report but if that same content is posted on host B it’s “bitching”. If you’re going to run with that nomenclature, then yes I’m bitching (as my bug report did not make into the exclusive walled garden where you deem it to be a “bug report”).
A bug report is a not a fix. So far I signed up for reporting the bug. I wouldn’t learn rust in order to fix it, but I would not object to participating in other activities inherent in the fix such as testing and documentation.
You’ll have to substantiate that with a quote of a complaint.
Again, absence of code can of course be a bug. If I were familiar with the code at hand, I could point to where the code is missing.
Are you saying PRs will be accepted?
You can nix that since Github is an exclusive walled garden. Whether Github accepts me is not my call. It’s worth noting that github rejected my experimental registration. Had Github accepted me, I wouldn’t feed a Microsoft asset anyway.
Why is that an option “if I want it”? It’s the other way around. If you want a bug report to have effect, abandoning it is how you get it canceled. Devs will sometimes cancel a bug report when reporters leave the scene. I don’t intend to abandon my bug report regardless of the popularity of the idea. But feel free to move along yourself.
Lol what do you want? Your feature is only going to be accepted on Github, but you’re whining about using that too. You’ve chosen none of the three options, which is why I said you just want to complain here. No one is taking you seriously here because all you’re doing is complaining. Go actually do something if you want it done. I already explained how, and you whining that you don’t want to take part in it.
Oh, I guess there’s an option 4. Go fork Lemmy and build it yourself, hell host the code on some other service who cares. Then you can accept whatever features you want, and we don’t have to listen to your insufferable whining here about features that only you want.
The code submission does not require /me/ to be on Github, only the developer. The bug report need not be on GH either.
That’s non sequitur logic. These arbitrary options were only just presented in the same post you attempted to frame my bug report as “bitching”. My rejection of your silly options came after that thus cannot serve as rationale for saying “you just want to complain here”. Even if your mental timeline were not screwed up, the logic still wouldn’t follow. Rejecting your silly options is not a complaint – just a statement that your ideas are a non-starter.
You’ve neglected to back your own implied claim that PRs would be accepted, so doubling down on that idea doesn’t really make sense here.
There’s the first viable option you’ve mentioned. Congrats. Of course this is outside the scope of the bug report as it misses the point of how bug reports serve the quality process. This bug report serves no purpose if I fork it myself.
Wonderful. I’m glad you’ve opted for Option 4. Now, go actually do something instead of expecting others to do it for you. You want to be a part of Lemmy’s development process? I’ll see you on Github, otherwise I look forward to you releasing your own fork.