Hmm… it seems https://well-known.dev/sites/piefed.au last saw it around as of four days ago (saved for posterity at https://archive.ph/hjDuK ), but now I’m getting NXDOMAIN from chrome, so the registration just vanished.

Which is interesting because checking with GoDaddy WHOIS says, https://ca.godaddy.com/whois/results.aspx?domain=piefed.au

Updated On
2025-11-20T15:43:38Z
Domain Status
server hold
server update prohibited

Suggesting that the DNS registration expired earlier, 9 days ago.

Alas, GoDaddy only gives a name - Chris Price - and no other useful contact info like an email address or phone number that can be used to reach out.

Of course, well-known also only found out about piefed.au in late October, while there’s evidence of it being around for much longer than that - e.g. https://lemmy.ca/post/45609571/17024992

However, when I look, I can’t find evidence of federation happening more recently than one month ago - e.g. https://al.lemmy.hostux.net/l.hostux.net/u/[email protected]

This makes me think that the admin planned to shut it down, and abandoned it approximately one month ago - but the hosting provider simply kept it around until now.

I speculate that this is the fault of the United States. The scholar, a US citizen, is entering from the US, and as per the article CBSA has concerns regarding “national security” - we know that the CBSA and the US CBP work closely together, so if some top level US official ordered the CBP to pass the “national security threat” along, that’d explain CBSA’s behaviour.

Specifically, why they were concerned in the first place (because they had to take the tip from the US gov’t seriously for fear that they’d lose cooperation on actual important matters if they didn’t), why it took so long before the scholars were released (because they needed those four hours to make sure that they covered all their bases in case the CBP or another part of the US gov’t came knocking again and asking why the scholars weren’t arrested or detained), and also why CBSA can’t more clearly explain why the scholars were targeted in the first place (because the working arrangements between the CBP and the CBSA, and between the security departments of the governments of Canada and the US more generally, require a considerable level of secrecy).

The article also mentions,

Kanji said that prompted them to reach out to different high-ranking officials in an attempt to get Falk and his wife released.

I like to think though that this wasn’t strictly necessary and that CBSA are the good guys who would have still done the right thing in the end, after of course thoroughly documenting the obvious - why the US’s tip was off and there actually was no real threat.

Around the downtown core there seems to be a reduction in density which is curious, and I’m not sure what drives that

Having lived both right on the subway line and in the some areas just outside the downtown core, I may be able to add some insight here.

Basically, that whole area of land feels car unfriendly. Hard to find parking close by and lots of congestion. But living on the subway line this never felt like an issue since there was a good alternative - one typically doesn’t need a car for day to day living in downtown Toronto in my experience. Also, for things like getting groceries or stuff from a corner shop, things are so clustered together that there’s usually something within walking distance of where you live.

Much further away in the GTA, you definitely need a car. But congestion is not so bad (at least until you finally need to head into the city proper) and parking nearby is quite more comfortable as well.

So the areas outside the core have the worst of both worlds - you get much of the lack of space and congestion that you get in downtown proper, but also a lack of viable public transportation alternatives.

Lorrianne G. … added subsequently that she is also worried by the frequency with which businesses in her hometown north of Toronto have become owned by newcomers.
“All of our Tim Hortons are no longer owned by white people,” she said.

I think this really says it all.

So I meant to write in the above comment that while not every case of quiet quitting is malicious compliance, and not every case of malicious compliance related to employment is the same as quiet quitting, there is definitely room for overlap - a situation where one is both quiet quitting and performing malicious compliance. I thought that this was such a case.

After reading https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/e285ec96adf8d443/5868d536-full.pdf I’m backing away from that. What the new whistleblower report seems to allege is that Reuveni was ordered to make statements to the court that he knew were wrong and misleading, and he outright refused - which is honourable but it’s non-compliance rather than malicious compliance.

He also actively sought to confidentially relay the situation to folks higher up on the food chain in order to get them to push back against this, which is probably too much effort to count as quiet quitting.

Dang, by just one vote. Never let it ever be said again that a single vote doesn’t make a difference.

What makes me think that a strong CPC outcome is likely is that there was data from the weekend showing that CPC without a leader handily sweeps the election. So I assume they change PP for someone more likeable which puts them in a much stronger position, therefore likely to win if the Carney gov’t doesn’t execute well.

That’s fair. But my point was that the new person they swap in could be someone who remakes the CPC into a more centrist or even leftist party. (Perhaps even someone who was a former Liberal Party member.) Not saying that’s likely, just that it’s another possibility that prevents the disaster scenario… (as opposed to someone like Danielle Smith taking the reins, which the disaster scenario requires).

All of what you suggest…

Yep, ditto. Sounds like we’re pretty much in agreement here.

Thought it worth going through and pointing out the logical flaws in the disaster scenario.

Mainly, there are a number of false premises involved.

He likely has significant Brookfield investments in that blind trust.

We don’t know that. More importantly, he doesn’t know that. A blind trust is supposed to be blind, which means that he doesn’t know if these have since been sold and replaced.

Without knowing that the blind trust does in fact own the investments to any particular degree of certainty, the odds of a move to benefit Brookfield specifically at the expense of others is reduced, probably significantly so.

He likely has a seat open on that board whenever he quits public service.

I’m not sure how much Brookfield would be influenced by public opinion, but if Carney actually did this, he’d likely suffer greatly in terms of public opinion. Usually companies pay attention to this because failing to do so can hurt their pocketbooks (think things like public boycotts, such as folks refusing to buy gas at gas stations that are fueled by the pipeline).

What if he uses emergency powers to … [get] … that much richer

I can’t cite an authority on this but I strongly suspect that this would not be legal. And while I’m really uncertain about what legal remedies might ensure in this case, I strongly suspect both disgorgement and significant jail time would be on the table. And of course, being found a criminal by the Courts of Canada would make it that much harder for Brookfield to offer Carney that spot on the board.

Considering how much personal risk Carney may take on in doing this, I think this significantly reduces the chances he’d attempt this, even if he were inclined to do so (which hasn’t been demonstrated imho).

while we get saddled with an even angrier and vindicated CPC

This one displays a clear logical error - that of non sequiturs and false dichotomy. It doesn’t automatically follow that, even if all of the above happened, that the CPC would be able to follow and push its current agenda. What if sympathy for Quebec after all this is so strong that PQ ends up with the leading role in a new coalition? Or former Liberals flee to the NDP, reviving it and granting it a majority?

Perhaps even the CPC may be so disgusted by this that they have a change of heart and reform. (I mean it’s a hypothetical possibility.)

Strictly speaking, it’s not unbanned. Rather, the deadline by which this will happen keeps getting extended.

The first extension occurred back in January as reported in https://www.forbes.com/sites/esatdedezade/2025/01/20/tiktok-was-unbanned-after-just-12-hours-heres-why/ (and actually the app was down for about 12 hours before getting restored).

The second extension was reported here https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx256dd1znpo which provides the “official” rationale - the President wants TikTok to be sold and is trying to give more time to get that deal concluded. In fact it seems the deal was almost concluded but got yanked at the last moment due to the tariff actions.

As to why the President is so willing to grant extensions to get a deal done (as opposed to, say, letting the ban take effect and only allowing restoration once the app has actually been sold), https://www.statesman.com/story/news/state/2025/01/22/tiktok-ban-banned-trump-who-bought-2025-meta-elon-musk-ceo-reversal-executive-order-delay/77852924007/ has some good thoughts why.

Two important points - a younger generation likes TikTok, who he may now be loathe to alienate, and also that it was Biden who signed the ban into law - so by getting TikTok sold and unbanned, it’s another reversal of something that Biden did.

If a deal to sell TikTok fails to happen by June, it’s still possible that the ban will go into effect then. Though, if you were going to bet that a third extension would be granted, I wouldn’t be willing to take the other side of that bet.

It looks more like he was doing the best he could to behave ethically.

Agreed, 100%

He can’t lie to the judge so he didn’t.

Again, in 100% agreement.

There’s not really anything else he could have done without violating his duty to the court.

I addressed this in my comments about the case. So apparently the US attorney general said this,

“He shouldn’t have taken the case. He shouldn’t have argued it, if that’s what he was going to do,” she said.

Now, it wasn’t clear to me if a DOJ lawyer can avoid taking on a case like this, as Bondi seems to be saying. But Google’s AI did report this to me, below.

If Google’s AI is accurate or Bondi is correct, then Reuveni could have passed on the pass and let someone else argue it. And if every legit ethical lawyer in the DOJ was allowed to pass on the case, it’d end up in the lap of some newly appointed MAGA lawyer guy who might have struck lightning and someone convinced the judge that reversing the deportation is not possible - or at least gotten additional delays in, prolonging Abrego Garcia’s suffering.

So my case is that he didn’t do the minimum (which was the pass on the case) but he took it and then did the minimum on the case, ensuring a victory for the other side.

From Google’s AI:

Yes, a lawyer within the Department of Justice (DOJ) can pass on a case, but it’s typically done through a formal process and with the approval of superiors, not simply by choosing to ignore it.
Here’s a more detailed explanation:
DOJ Lawyers are Assigned Cases:
DOJ lawyers, like other government lawyers, are assigned cases by their superiors or within the legal team they are part of.
Reasons for Passing on a Case:
There are several reasons why a DOJ lawyer might pass on a case, including:
Conflict of Interest: If a lawyer has a conflict of interest, they may need to be removed from the case.
Lack of Expertise: A lawyer might not have the specific expertise or experience necessary to handle a particular case.
Overload: A lawyer might be overloaded with other cases and unable to take on additional work.
Case Strategy: A lawyer might believe that the case is not worth pursuing, or that the best course of action is to pass it on to another lawyer or unit within the DOJ.
Formal Process:
Passing on a case is not something a lawyer can do unilaterally. They must follow a formal process to request to be removed from a case, which usually involves:
Consulting with Superiors: The lawyer must first discuss the reasons for wanting to pass on the case with their supervisor or other relevant authority.
Documentation: The reasons for passing on the case should be documented.
Approval: The request to pass on the case must be approved by the appropriate authority.
Consequences of Passing on a Case:
There can be consequences for a lawyer who passes on a case, including:
Loss of Trust: If a lawyer passes on a case without a valid reason, it could damage their reputation and the trust of their superiors.
Negative Impact on the Case: If the case is important, passing it on could have a negative impact on the outcome.
Alternative to Passing on a Case:
Instead of passing on a case, a lawyer might seek assistance from other lawyers or units within the DOJ, or they may request additional resources to handle the case.
Generative AI is experimental. For legal advice, consult a professional.

Is anyone else able to access youtu.be/hd3wvxk23H ? For me YouTube just says the video isn’t available anymore.

I think the answer to 1 is that he doesn’t, so it’s just a good excuse to avoid getting pushed into a situation related to 2. In other words, the POV is likely, “there isn’t any point in bilateral talks, but let’s say we’ll do it if he shuts up about that thing that he can’t stop talking about” - it’s just a way to pin the blame for a lack of talks down South.

Came here to say that. I wasn’t covered by GDPR under spez’s site - but luckily their policies treated me like I was anyways.

I moved to kbin.social - which was probably the 2nd largest after lemmy.world. Also, it was Polish.

What I liked about that was - as per my understanding - since these are hosted in the EU, the GDPR applies to my data here even if I’m not the EU myself and am not an EU citizen.

Ditto, but this is actually a bonus for me.

“Didn’t you see my email and message last evening?”

“Not until I got in today, because it came after I had logged off and I can’t see that stuff on my personal phone because, you know, IT policy.”

A difference between kbin (and mbin?) vs lemmy (and pyfedi) - the former would show the entire name, including instance. If instance was not included, it was because it was local (so you could assume ‘@kbin.social’)

On lemmy/pyfedi the name shows up alone - though you can hover over and see the instance name. But at a glance I can see how someone could get confused. Not the best UX IMHO.

About time.

So I tried to search for pyfedi, and the only things I found are some repos. Not quite sure what to do
with that. HOWEVER, a few different repos seemed to list piefed as the thing it do.
So is pyfedi the same as piefed.social ?

piefed.social is the flagship instance while pyfedi is the software. By analogy, lemmy.ml is the flagship instance of Lemmy, kbin.social was the flagship instance of the kbin software, and while it doesn’t offically have a flagship fedia.io is the largest instance to run the mbin software.

I am enjoying the layout of piefed. It’s quite tasty! I hope this is the thing that does the other thing.

Yes!

But what if I transfer my Lemmy account to Piefed? Will I still be able to create communities on Lemmy.World?

My understanding is that unfortunately, to be the owner of a community or magazine (such as [email protected] ) that’s local to given instance (lemmy.world here) your account would also have to be local.

Or am I going to just end up with two different accounts, on two different sites, that do 97% the same thing?

From what I understand, most folks pick one favoured instance as their primary one for that 97% - but create the local account to own the magazine/community as well as the rest of the 3%. (Note that you can add your primary account as a mod though, even if it’s not local - so you have to create the community on lemmy.world with your lemmy.world account, but then you can add your piefed.social account as a mod to that community and then manage the new lemmy.world community mostly from piefed.social.)

Or am I just wrong all around, and pyfedi has nothing to do with piefed, and I’ve stumbled onto a different thing that does the thing that the other thing couldn’t do, but is still connected to, but not in the same way, but still uses the same services?

What can I say? The fediverse is complicated. But in a good way.

Lemmy is open source and so anyone who wants to add this functionality is free to do so.

Considering who the original creators of Lemmy are and the controversy over lemmygrad.ml however, I’d say that we dodged a bullet, all things considered.

If you want a thing that tries to integrate with everything, consider pyfedi - in addition to Lemmy and Mastodon they also have code to integrate with pixelfed and probably even more things (I’m still learning about all the integrations that it has).

Lemmy doesn’t implement Mastodon (which is the fediverse version of Twitter), only their own Lemmy one (Reddit clone). Kbin and Mbin implement both, as does pyfedi/piefed.