IIRC, PF-dev Rimu recently explained exactly why he was trialing such limits in a recent software update post. I.e., to create a more efficient internal & external software / HW backbone, for us users, AFAIK. Based on network / host / server loads etc, as I read the updates.
But yeah… the amount of recent negative reaction so far upon that seems… weirdly outsized?
(like, WTF?)
Like-- who the heck comes here exhausted upon corporate social media, and expects a free, open-source community of devs not to tinker with the road-posts and such…?
Pardon my puzzlement here, but I’m a happy PF contributor, and love @PugJesus@piefed.social. Both the dev here and PJ are friends of a sort, and some people I will always try to support.
I’m strongly if favor of this. Its a super easy helper… in bot control.
If you read Rimu’s analysis post it explicitly is NOT that. (If it had been, e.g. if it would have rate-limited to like one vote per second or some such, then I would have agreed with you, it’s just that it is not the case.)
It will not turn away a single bot (at least there is zero evidence that it would, nor is it meant to). It will only turn away humans. By design.
I haven’t read it. I just understood:
Rate limiting posts; and thus, rate limiting bots, and increasing human engagement over bots.
I agree with everything that you have said, in theory.
And when you read it, you will understand more: that’s not what this is.
Oddly enough, this will actually have the effect of increasing bot interactions over humans - although mainly this has nothing to do with bots whatsoever, only limiting human interactions to be more equitable, at the expense of the highest (voting) contributors among us, e.g. PugJesus.
But we cannot discuss this further until you’ve read it.