Would you mind if we set some of your priorities also? You're asking us to do free labor for you, that you're unwilling to do yourself. Do not put ultimatums and demands on people making FOSS, or I won't hesitate to block you from these repos.

https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/issues/4433#issuecomment-1939275302

[–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 0 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Just another guy who thinks he’s Gods gift to open source because he found a bug, and thinks the volunteer developers fail to show proper gratitude by not dropping everything to work on your pet bug.

[–] bleistift2@feddit.de 0 points 6 months ago

To be fair, this is a bug that could be the end of lemmy. As soon as one malicious actor sues even a few instance admins, other will get scared and shut down their instances. As the reporter points out, this isn’t just a shiny feature that’s missing. Instance admins lack the ability to follow data protection requirements that their users have a right to. It’s a lawsuit waiting to happen.

[–] Darrell_Winfield@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Interestingly, he was silent for 3 weeks after being assigned to the bug, then came back to post his blog post and nothing else. I've seen this blog post a few times today, looks like his self promoting strategy is working.

[–] bleistift2@feddit.de 0 points 6 months ago

I agree commenting that post under every issue was a dick move.

[–] rglullis@communick.news 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Not that I hold the Lemmy devs in particular high regard, but unless OP is cutting them a check every month enough to pay their full time salaries, I really don't think that he should be expecting anything just because he faced an issue that was difficult, but (a) not specific to the developers but the admins of the instance and (b) ultimately solvable.

I also think that this is not a reason to justify a whole fork or even a fully adversarial position. Yeah, tooling for moderation and instance management is lacking, but these can be built on top of the existing codebase. If my fediverser tool does that for user authentication and account management, it could also be extended for content moderation and provide granular access for staff.

[–] Maalus@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Well, the bare minimum you need to do, is refuse traffic from the EU then. The devs don't want to do that, but they also don't want to implement the changes which is illegal and carried huge fines (yes, they can fine you in the US too)

[–] rglullis@communick.news 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

The "huge fines" are proportional to the revenue of the company and there are plenty of legal steps that need to be taken before someone with a big stick gets involved.

Also, this is not an issue for the developers, but for the admins.

[–] bleistift2@feddit.de 0 points 6 months ago

The fines are only proportional for big corporations. Organizations without revenue can still be fined:

Infringements of the following provisions shall, in accordance with paragraph 2, be subject to administrative fines up to 20 000 000 EUR, or in the case of an undertaking, up to 4 % of the total worldwide annual turnover of the preceding financial year, whichever is higher: (a) the basic principles for processing, […] pursuant to Articles […] 7 […];

https://gdpr-info.eu/art-83-gdpr/

In this case, the processing of data hinges upon the data subject’s consent, which is detailed in article 7.

Also, this is not an issue for the developers, but for the admins.

Imagine a car manufacturer building cars without brakes and then saying ‘This isn’t a problem for the engineers, but for the retailers’. Of course the developers can’t be sued for this. But that’s not the point! The point is that this bug or missing feature or whatever you want to call it jeopardizes the admins upon which this whole ecosystem hinges. I can’t believe that that’s in the devs’ best interests.