this post was submitted on 10 Jul 2023
12 points (87.5% liked)

Selfhosted

60934 readers
881 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

Detailed Rules Post

  1. Be civil.

  2. No spam.

  3. Posts are to be related to self-hosting.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or readme if you're providing a link.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title.

  6. No trolling.

  7. Promotion posts require active participation, with an account that is at least 30 days old. F/LOSS without a paywall has exceptions, with requirements. See the rules link for details. Tags [CBH] or [AIP] are required, see the links in Rule 8 for details.

  8. AI-related discussions and AI-involved promotional posts have additional requirements for tagging, as noted in Rule 7 and the AI & Promotional Post Expanded Rules post, and find example disclosures here.

Resources:

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

This issue is already quite widely publicized and quite frankly "we're handling it and removing this" is a much more harmful response than I would hope to see. Especially as the admins of that instance have not yet upgraded the frontend version to apply the urgent fix.

It's not like this was a confidential bug fix, this is a zero day being actively exploited. Please be more cooperative and open regarding these issues in your own administration if you're hosting an instance. 🙏

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] GuyFleegman@startrek.website 1 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (1 children)

This issue is already quite widely publicized and quite frankly “we’re handling it and removing this” is a much more harmful response than I would hope to see.

Hi, mod of a community on the instance in question here. Why is this response harmful? What should we have done instead?

[–] andrew@lemmy.stuart.fun 1 points 3 years ago

I feel like it's up for discussion here and you very well may stand by the response there, but IMO with how prevalent this issue is, a specific response of "we've disabled custom emoji" or "we're upgrading to 0.18.2-rc.1 today" would have been more constructive and reassuring to users. Removal of the question and lack of details gives me a lot less confidence that the issue and fix are understood and doesn't leave any room for that discussion.