Lemmy's Image Problem
wedistribute.org
The popular Reddit alternative's user count has grown a lot over the past year. One problem, though: users and admins can't delete images.

Highlighting the recent report of users and admins being unable to delete images, and how Trust & Safety tooling is currently lacking.

  • masterspace@lemmy.caEnglish
    41·
    8 months ago

    It is not entitled to expect a published project to comply with basic privacy legislation and not be illegal to use.

    If your bar for this project is that much below basic consumer expectations, then this project was always going to fail.

      • masterspace@lemmy.caEnglish
        11·
        8 months ago

        I understand having frayed nerves, I even understand snapping at someone because you’re having a bad day, and I do feel sympathy for the devs, and wouldn’t hold this against them (especially since they’re at least providing a nuke everything option that will address it).

        But the line between entitlement and reasonable expectation is not one of monetary compensation.

        Engineering ethics does not let you off the hook just because no one paid you to build what you built. If an engineer goes to the park and unilaterally builds a playground that doesn’t meet basic legislated safety standards and kills a kid, they’re not off the hook. They will be investigated by their professional body and have their license revoked.

        Hell if they just build a playground off in the woods on their own private land but don’t take reasonable steps to prevent kids from accessing or using it then they will have their license revoked.

          • masterspace@lemmy.caEnglish
            2·
            8 months ago

            Again, that does not matter. If an engineer published those plans online and you built it and your kid died they would have their license revoked and face likely criminal liability.

              • masterspace@lemmy.caEnglish
                11·
                8 months ago

                There’s no equivalent to a licensed civil engineer in programming.

                It’s literally called a software engineer in most jurisdictions that aren’t America where anyone is allowed to call themselves that. And software engineers also have to take engineering ethics, both courses in university as well as in their final professional exams if they want to call themselves engineers.

                Why do you keep adding new parameters to these analogies? It’s such a simple concept but you are determined to prove your opinion, that the devs should acquiesce to your point of view, no matter what.

                You’re the one who added the “posted online” parameter. I responded and pointed out that it doesn’t matter to the analogy.

                If you put something dangerous into the world, mark it “ready to use”, and encourage people to use it, and that results in them getting hurt or hurting others, then that is a bad thing and you have an obligation to fix it or warn people.  

                It’s such a simple concept but you are determined to prove your opinion, that the devs should acquiesce to your point of view, no matter what.

                You’re right about it being a simple concept, I don’ understand where you think I’m demanding anyone do anything. The devs have already acquiesced after the community overwhelmingly dumped on their response. My only point has been that it’s not entitled to expect a developer to put a warning on software once they’ve been alerted that it’s dangerous.

        • gregorum@lemm.eeEnglish
          1·
          7 months ago

          Your failure to provide a reliable source for your claims is not my problem.

          If you cannot provide a reliable source of your claims, your claim will be dismissed.