User avatar
sugar [i use akkoma btw] 🏳️‍🌈 @sugar@snug.moe
3w
huh, apparently saying "Happy 3-month anniversary of not giving a fuck about accessibility!" is against the github tos?????????

fae is glad that fae migrated to codeberg long time ago, because what the fuck is that,,,

(this is from github.com/mastodon/mastodon/pull/37881#issuecomment-4467139726, contents of the post can be verified using github api, api.github.com/repos/mastodon/mastodon/issues/comments/4467139726)
2
2
3
0
User avatar
Julia v_bi @julia@eepy.moe
3w
@sugar that's not what's happening

That means someone from the repo specifically marked the comment as disruptive
2
0
2
0
User avatar
sugar [i use akkoma btw] 🏳️‍🌈 @sugar@snug.moe
3w
@julia hm?

normally moderation actions look like (and fae verified all of those exist by searching for those strings using a search engine) "Hidden as abuse", "Hidden as duplicate", "Hidden as spam", "Hidden as off-topic", "Hidden as outdated", "Hidden as resolved", and "Hidden as low-quality" and those can be expanded

in the moderation menu, fae only sees the strings that match those "Hidden" reasons fae mentioned before

however the one fae linked is explicitly talking about github policies: "This comment was marked as a violation of GitHub Acceptable Use Policies", which feels like it was github that did a moderation action

is there something fae is not understanding?
Moderation menu on GitHub, featuring reasons to hide a comment: "Spam", "Abuse", "Off-topic", "Outdated", "Duplicate", "Resolved", and "Low quality"
1
0
0
0
User avatar
Julia v_bi @julia@eepy.moe
3w
@sugar oh, on the mobile app it says hidden, not marked as violation
1
0
2
0
User avatar
illy [Shrimple-mode] protomoji_orange_flag_lesbian @illyBytes@shrimp.imsofucking.gay
2w
@julia @sugar mobile pwa also says marked as violation
:sylveon_heart@snug.moe:1
0
0
0
1