silverpill@silverpill@mitra.social: @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.

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

Note Detail

Reply to @p@fsebugoutzone.org
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.
---Reply---
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.