Look, we can debate the proper and private way to do Captchas all day, but if we remove the existing implementation we will be plunged into a world of hurt.
I run tucson.social - a tiny instance with barely any users and I find myself really ticked off at other Admin’s abdication of duty when it comes to engaging with the developers.
For all the Fediverse discussion on this, where are the github issue comments? Where is our attempt to convince the devs in this.
No, seriously WHERE ARE THEY?
Oh, you think that just because an “Issue” exists to bring back Captchas is the best you can do?
NO it is not the best we can do, we need to be applying some pressure to the developers here and that requires EVERYONE to do their part.
The Devs can’t make Lemmy an awesome place for us if us admins refuse to meaningfully engage with the project and provide feedback on crucial things like this.
The important part was that this was a decision to re-implement the old (if imperfect) solution in time for the upcoming release. mCaptcha and better techs are indeed the better solution, but at least we won’t make ourselves more vulnerable at this critical juncture.
The 2 Lemmy devs have funding. About 1500 total from community support, with the rest coming from a sponsorship/incubator type deal. A deal which pays out when targets/goals are achieved.
Which made me laugh at this:
sure, let me stop doing my day job and start planning on this completely unpaid enhancement
Which is entirely what you are asking the Lemmy devs to do.
Thanks for raising awareness of the spam-bot-account issue.
Well I am making a distinction between creating a newer implementation and rolling back to an older, known implementation. It’s why I find it bizarre when folks point out that there’s a new feature request and a PR is guarenteed accepted - yes, but that will take more time than reverting some commits and maybe retrofitting if needed. The entire point I was trying to make is that they could just roll back, and when the new feature is ready, we can go right to it. I’m not (at least intentionally) asking for grandiose work and assuming going back is quicker and more readily available than waiting for a new solution to be implemented.
In the same article where they provided that 1500 number, the developers said they currently do not receive sponsorship money. Continued payout is tied to features that they are delaying in order to improve stability and robustness. They claim that this was practically their dayjob and now they only have the donations as their monthly income, 1500 for two people is not much.
Update: It looks like that number is about double now, about 3000 accross their three donation platforms.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@beehaw.org
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
The 2 Lemmy devs have funding. About 1500 total from community support, with the rest coming from a sponsorship/incubator type deal. A deal which pays out when targets/goals are achieved.
Which made me laugh at this:
Which is entirely what you are asking the Lemmy devs to do.
Thanks for raising awareness of the spam-bot-account issue.
Well I am making a distinction between creating a newer implementation and rolling back to an older, known implementation. It’s why I find it bizarre when folks point out that there’s a new feature request and a PR is guarenteed accepted - yes, but that will take more time than reverting some commits and maybe retrofitting if needed. The entire point I was trying to make is that they could just roll back, and when the new feature is ready, we can go right to it. I’m not (at least intentionally) asking for grandiose work and assuming going back is quicker and more readily available than waiting for a new solution to be implemented.
In the same article where they provided that 1500 number, the developers said they currently do not receive sponsorship money. Continued payout is tied to features that they are delaying in order to improve stability and robustness. They claim that this was practically their dayjob and now they only have the donations as their monthly income, 1500 for two people is not much.
Update: It looks like that number is about double now, about 3000 accross their three donation platforms.