Look, we can debate the proper and private way to do Captchas all day, but if we remove the existing implementation we will be plunged into a world of hurt.

I run tucson.social - a tiny instance with barely any users and I find myself really ticked off at other Admin’s abdication of duty when it comes to engaging with the developers.

For all the Fediverse discussion on this, where are the github issue comments? Where is our attempt to convince the devs in this.

No, seriously WHERE ARE THEY?

Oh, you think that just because an “Issue” exists to bring back Captchas is the best you can do?

NO it is not the best we can do, we need to be applying some pressure to the developers here and that requires EVERYONE to do their part.

The Devs can’t make Lemmy an awesome place for us if us admins refuse to meaningfully engage with the project and provide feedback on crucial things like this.

So are you an admin? If so, we need more comments here: https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/issues/3200

We need to make it VERY clear that Captcha is required before v0.18’s release. Not after when we’ll all be scrambling…

EDIT: To be clear I’m talking to all instance admins, not just Beehaw’s.

UPDATE: Our voices were heard! https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/issues/3200#issuecomment-1600505757

The important part was that this was a decision to re-implement the old (if imperfect) solution in time for the upcoming release. mCaptcha and better techs are indeed the better solution, but at least we won’t make ourselves more vulnerable at this critical juncture.

  • @[email protected]
    710 months ago

    The 2 Lemmy devs have funding. About 1500 total from community support, with the rest coming from a sponsorship/incubator type deal. A deal which pays out when targets/goals are achieved.
    Which made me laugh at this:

    sure, let me stop doing my day job and start planning on this completely unpaid enhancement

    Which is entirely what you are asking the Lemmy devs to do.

    Thanks for raising awareness of the spam-bot-account issue.

    • th3raid0rOPA
      510 months ago

      Well I am making a distinction between creating a newer implementation and rolling back to an older, known implementation. It’s why I find it bizarre when folks point out that there’s a new feature request and a PR is guarenteed accepted - yes, but that will take more time than reverting some commits and maybe retrofitting if needed. The entire point I was trying to make is that they could just roll back, and when the new feature is ready, we can go right to it. I’m not (at least intentionally) asking for grandiose work and assuming going back is quicker and more readily available than waiting for a new solution to be implemented.

    • @[email protected]
      10 months ago

      In the same article where they provided that 1500 number, the developers said they currently do not receive sponsorship money. Continued payout is tied to features that they are delaying in order to improve stability and robustness. They claim that this was practically their dayjob and now they only have the donations as their monthly income, 1500 for two people is not much.

      Update: It looks like that number is about double now, about 3000 accross their three donation platforms.