Edit: I was thinking of the default defederation list
As far as I understand it, it’s not “hardcoded” in the sense that all piefed instances have it (otherwise I wouldn’t be able to respond to you).
From what I understand, there is a default list, but this can be edited by any instance admins.
Yeah, it happens. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I probably could have been more helpful by listing out some specific features, so I went back and edited them in.
Looks like someone is already asking them for clarification in this thread here: https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Community/issues/2929
Maybe the banner will be updated to more closely match what Defnulls said. Unless that banner changes it’s certainly not a stretch to say that “Cryptocurrency projects are no longer allowed.”
It’s similar to Lemmy, but with more features and has better integration with Mastodon.
- Edit -
Some specific features that PieFed has:
If that’s supposed to be the correct interpretation, why does the top of the site now state, “Cryptocurrency projects are no longer allowed. View change”?
I’m wondering if there’s some grace period for projects to migrate, or if they just start locking projects down immediately after their community votes to ban something.
It’s a little hard to argue that when the top of the site now says, “Cryptocurrency projects are no longer allowed. View change”.
For “AI editing”, I don’t have much of a problem if a model was trained to tweak the settings in something like Darktable to achieve a good baseline to start with. However, for contributing to research like this, I draw the line when models start generating their own pixels and overwriting the original image.
Hopefully iNaturalist and other similar groups start to look at the metadata of submitted images to help warn/educate end users about this problem. That would at least help with the AI literacy issue. Those metadata tags are already being placed there by the most popularly used tools.
A lot of users here seem to be under the misconception that these are 100% AI generated images.
The problem isn’t really with that as the article states that this is an issue with using AI in the editing process:
Outright hoaxes remain rare and are often easy to spot, said Lees – nobody is falling for a toucan sighting in Siberia – but he says birders often use AI to edit and improve an image, and the algorithm can then introduce parts from different bird species to create the new image.
It’s also worth noting that some phones allow you to zoom in beyond your camera’s normal capabilities by using AI to enhance the picture. With some algorithms this might not be an issue, but if it’s using a model that’s been trained by some animal/object database then this can introduce innaccuracies that would cause problems for researchers trying to keep their database clean.
It works at full resolution, but it’s a cat and mouse game. If something like this becomes popular, then all that needs to be done is to start passing images through a filter first (blur, lower resolution, etc.), or just train a new vision model that can pick out both the blurred message as well as the decoy message.
Am I understanding you correctly that you’re accusing anyone who continues to use Mullvad as someone who supports neo-Nazis in Sweden?