pistolero@p@fsebugoutzone.org: @silverpill @phnt 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: <a class="link-in-note" href="https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/scope-of-the-socialhub-policy/3506/9" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/scope-of-the-socialhub-policy/3506/9</a> > Thanks. So, if I have a problem with how someone is behaving in PRs on codeberg, what do I do next? And then in <a class="link-in-note" href="https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/scope-of-the-socialhub-policy/3506/12" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/scope-of-the-socialhub-policy/3506/12</a> and <a class="link-in-note" href="https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/scope-of-the-socialhub-policy/3506/13" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/scope-of-the-socialhub-policy/3506/13</a> , 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.

Home | Notifications | New Note | Local | Federated | Search | Logout

Note Detail

Reply to @silverpill@mitra.social
pistolero@p@fsebugoutzone.org (2026-04-19 06:35:44)
@silverpill @phnt 

> 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
---Reply---
pistolero@p@fsebugoutzone.org (2026-04-19 06:47:35)
@silverpill @phnt 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.


---Replies---

silverpill@silverpill@mitra.social (2026-04-20 05:11:30)
@p @phnt

>the timestamp on the "Scope of the socialhub policy" post is August 1, 2023,

Hmm. I see Aug 8, 2023 7:40 PM.

Indeed, it was not made after the withdrawal of the PR (I confused it with another thread). This one was made right after my first comments on the PR.