current implementation makes identifying the main account trivial (piefed.social/u/zIM40YKd is banned from lemmy.ml), and risks bloating the DBs of remote instances if the option is toggled.
current implementation makes identifying the main account trivial (piefed.social/u/zIM40YKd is banned from lemmy.ml), and risks bloating the DBs of remote instances if the option is toggled.
You’d have to ask lemmy.ml, but I suspect that the answer from them - if any - would be ‘Rule {{ random_number }}’.
But I’m right that this means they have banned a user whom by definition cannot have made any other interactions than votes?
Of course I have no doubt the user has indeed been breaching upon Rule NaN.
I’ve looked into it a bit more. piefed.social/u/zIM40YKd was banned relatively recently (for ‘Rule 4’, of course), but it complicates things a bit that that profile belongs to a user who was banned (and then unbanned) 8 months ago. Although I found another alt profile - piefed.social/u/gwRZr7CRlfd2x0 (Rule 4, again) - for which I haven’t been able to find a corresponding main profile who was also banned. So, to answer your question: it seems likely, yes.