- cross-posted to:
- selfhosted@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- selfhosted@lemmy.world
Kittygram is an Instagram frontend, like nitter and invideous.
A lot has changed since I first posted about it. Kittygram now has:
- a developer API
- atom feeds
- ratelimit tracking
- explore/popular pages
- more themes
I think that’s partly the point of this exercise - if they find a meow they now know this is an untrusted source.
Because it’s pretty easy to say ‘ignore untrusted sources’ but when you’re maintaining an open source repo (especially if it’s still pretty small/new) this detection is part of the cognitive burden. Almost every contribution will technically be from an unknown source for a long time, until, if you’re lucky, some drive-by contributors turn regular.
True…but the arguably better / more defensive stance is “accept no PR unless the user explains wtf it does and/or I personally trust them”.
Iow, stop accepting PRs from randos - clanker or meatbag - full stop. The lowest cognitive load is “none”.
I don’t know you / we can’t have a convo why you sent me this? Into the bin.
(In my humble opinion, for a small or new project, that’s a cleaner footing anyway)
The claude.md file is cute, but I don’t think a claude would actually be tripped up by that.
It’s not such a high bar to pass to be honest with you. You’d probably need something more subtle, at which point you’re just shooting yourself in the foot.
The meow thing is more like a philosophical line in the sand than anything else and I respect it.
But given the way that Codeberg actually blocks crawlers and agents (and how Claude works), it probably doesn’t really do what we think it does.
How does a developer with good intentions prove their trustworthiness?
What about the XZ Utils backdoor? That was inserted by a trusted maintainer who literally spent years building up trust.