Post #1407559

2026-04-18 21:35 UTC

@silverpill@mitra.social @phnt@fluffytail.org > Curiously, Gleason was supportive of the proposal Is that curious? > Also, some strange things started to happen in the aftermath of closing that PR. I started seeing vague posts expressing moderation concerns on Codeberg and SocialHub (in this thread, for example: https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/scope-of-the-socialhub-policy/3506). People suddenly started talking about adding a CoC, etc etc. But every time I asked what this is about, there was silence. HOLY FUCKING SHIT

Replies (1)

@p@fsebugoutzone.org 2026-04-18 21:47

@silverpill@mitra.social @phnt@fluffytail.org Okay, well, to be fair, the timestamp on the "Scope of the socialhub policy" post is August 1, 2023, and the "PhotoDNA Attestation extension" is from August 4, but I think that was possibly preemptive, because he posted this on August 18: https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/scope-of-the-socialhub-policy/3506/9 > Thanks. So, if I have a problem with how someone is behaving in PRs on codeberg, what do I do next? And then in https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/scope-of-the-socialhub-policy/3506/12 and https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/scope-of-the-socialhub-policy/3506/13 , he made it explicit that this was about the PhotoDNA discussion. And he directly retreats into "But think of the optics of not thinking of the children!" > I ended up withdrawing the PR. I had adapted the proposal in the Stanford Internet Observatory’s Child Safety report into a FEP to start the discussion process. I was attacked personally in the comments, and the FEP wasn’t allowed to be merged. I don’t think it helped our movement to have such vigorous opposition to developing CSAM filtering standards.

Open ##1407558