What does everyone think of bots on Beehaw?

Personally - I think any bot that could be straight Lemmy functionality shouldn't exist but that said, I think good ground rules would be :
Bots should be clearly prompted by a command
Bots should not act in a community without mods from that community being contacted first
Bots should minimize the space they take with their messages (Example: Info on how to contact its creator should be in the bot bio rather than in every message)
Bots should say who made/hosts it
- I also vote for these rules!
  
  I agree - these seem to me like very common-sense rules.
- These rules seem great honestly. The main bot that comes to mind is the TL;DR bot, which one could easily prompt for in a post if they want a TL;DR, if those communities want to enable it for that specific community. Eventually, a list of promptable bots could pop up in one of the instances so that people know which bots are available to be prompted. Alternatively, someone could make a website to list them or something. I can see there being a healthy bot ecosystem forming based on people's needs.
  Since we have more control over the source code, I think eventually what would be nice are community plugins to replace some of the functionality of these bots. For example, a plugin could de-AMP a link, or could provide a banner indicating the rules on a post. If someone really wanted to, they could make a plugin to auto-generate summaries of articles too and include it somewhere in the UI. Since these rules are for Beehaw specifically, I don't think bots which create new posts are that relevant, since there aren't really any niche-specific communities (like a bot which posts changelogs for a game or something), just broad communities.
  Any bots not clearly labelled as bots should be given a warning, then banned from the instance in my opinion. The bot setting exists for a reason, bypassing it indicates that the bot author is not willing to respect the rules of the communities the bot is posting in.
- Do spoiler foldouts maintain their functionality across UIs, either directly or in essence (eg. popup instead)?
  Part of me wishes that Lemmy also had spoilers that reveal in place, but foldout spoilers have some functionality that makes me appreciate having both on hand. I'd bet bots could benefit from using that to minimize visual space if we go through with it.

If they're informative and/or helpful, I don't mind bots. If they're those stupid pointless novelty bots that were plaguing Reddit, they can go away.
- The grammar bots were so annoying! I love good grammar as much as anyone, but really, what help are we actually adding to the world with the they're/their/there bots, the your/you're bots, the payed/paid bots, etc. I really can't imagine those changed anyone's behavior or spelling.
  
  I'm not completely against those, they sometimes made me edit a comment, and can be educational to both native speakers and those learning the language.
  However, it's not nice to force them upon people, it should be each user's choice whether they want those tips or not, so I'd say: maybe, but not for Beehaw (unless maybe for some "learn-[some_language]" community).

Honestly, as a programmer, I'd like the freedom to share bots that can benefit the community. Although, I do think that there should be measures in place to ensure bots don't degrade the quality of the community.
- Maybe there could be a community on Beehaw where people could post about their bots and associated commands, so we could learn how they could be called into threads where they would be helpful?
  
  This could be added to docs.beehaw.org ;)

Please keep the bots to a minimum.
Approved bots that the admins manually review the use cases for is absolutely fine.
I just don't want things to revert back to reddit days where I'm constantly BLOCKING new novelty bots that are absolutely freaking useless and add nothing to a conversation.
Also; PLEASE; implement the following ideas into a(n) agreement/covenant for bot operators; I quote this directly from the Tao of IRC:
The master Nap then said: "Any automata should not speak unless spoken to. Any automata shall only whisper when spoken to."
- This philosophy makes sense for IRC, but how would this work on Beehaw/Lemmy? You have to DM a bot to interact with it? How would people even know it exists? In IRC there is a list of users in the channel you can scan for helpful bots. I'm failing to see the equivalent with Lemmy.

Comment bots are mostly fine so long as they are clearly labelled, don't take up unnecessary amounts of space, have clear purpose and add value to an article or discussion. So stuff like TLDR, Piped, Wiki bots are fine. Stuff like GROND, GPT (even though it's cool we have a Masto feature that does that), Anakin, Musk bots aren't useful here imo.
Post bots, I'm kind of on the side of I'd rather not see them, I like talking about articles with the user who posted it. I won't be too upset if they end up allowed, though. A whitelist, or a strictly enforced guideline would be acceptable for me.
- The TLDR bot has now been disabled as per the decision of Beehaw. Contact your favorite community mods if you'd like to change that.
  
  Thanks, but "I'm fine with it" doesn't necessarily mean I would miss it if it's gone.

I say no to bots. I see the utility in some of them, but beehaw is only one instance, and I'd love to keep it an instance that I know is full of actual people. Makes me want to engage in conversation much more. Besides, if you want a bot filled experience you can engage in one of the instances that allow bots. If bots are allowed, I want them to be very clearly labeled. I want to know in one glance if I'm speaking to a bot.
- Agreed. I find a lot of them to be irritating and the rest of them pretty useless and annoying.
- beehaw is only one instance, and I’d love to keep it an instance that I know is full of actual people.
  That's an insightful way of putting it that didn't come to mind.
  I think part of what Beehaw uniquely offers is the drive for its own kind of instance and user culture and a closer and more organic community. Bots, save for moderator tools, admittedly detract from that kind of vibe. I could imagine that sacrificing less necessary bots, either partially or entirely, could be an important measure toward securing those aforementioned values. Federation with more Reddit-esque instances still allows us to scratch Reddit sort of itch when it comes up.

I think bots can have a place, but I prefer ones that have to be intentionally invoked. I'm thinking of ones like MTGCardFetcher on the Magic the Gathering subreddit, which would post links to the card on Scryfall if you formatted the card name in double brackets in your comment.
- In my opinion, such bots indicate more of a need for some kind of easy "pipe" feature to integrate tools to transform a post before publishing, so that all of the tweaks can be done within the post instead of as a bot reply. For example, there could be a "MTG-ify" button that takes the text in the input box, turns the double bracketed names into CommonMark links, and then puts the modified text back into the input box.
  
  Yeah I don't disagree at all that it would be ideal if some of this kind of functionality could be built into the platform, but obviously that didn't really happen at Reddit - which is why there were so many similar bots to allow subreddits to create extended functionality - and Lemmy is still new enough that contributors are still trying to fix major issues and get basic functionality working properly. In the meantime bots could fill some gaps, although I lean toward using them very sparingly.

Is anyone checking the AI "summariser" bot for accuracy? I'd rather not get misleading ideas in my head from a poor summary.
- Is someone checking human summarizers as well? I mean, humans make mistakes but also generally adds flavours, and can focus on things due to inherent bias. In fact, this is actually an area were bots can probably produce more factually correct and unbiased summaries than humans (depends on the quality of course).
  The way past both is to actually read the article?
  
  Erm, well, yes. That should happen too. Tends to in a good community with a range of views.
  I asked a single question on a single facet of the current internet. For my own information, because I've found reading a range of articles about Chat GPT useful for understanding and beginning to form my own opinion on them. And rather than add any helpful information, you've gone down this tangent? 🤷‍♂️
  Your "In fact" rebuttal, not needed btw, is technically true. I'm more interested in the current actual state of things with a particular bot, not a hypothetical.
  Human-written posts differ in tone from the summary-bot. The bot "writes" more in the tone of an article, which tends to mean a tone of authority. That affects how the "facts" resurface in my memory. Maybe it works differently for the bright young things who've grown up with the internet. IDK 🤷‍♂️
  Of course reading the articles is important. I don't have the spoons to read every article I come across though. I know I don't have much of a life, but still 😂 Scanning comments is a bit more like human interaction and I find that helpful in deciding whether or not to click through to the article.
  And before anyone jumps in with "Then the summary bot will be really helpful to you", please note that my question was about the accuracy of the bot and if anyone was gathering information. I will make my own observations over time but would also like to learn from others'.
- The bot has now been disabled as per the decision of Beehaw. Contact your favorite community mods if you'd like to change that.
  To answer your question, yes, I am checking it for accuracy as I'm the author and I'd like it to be as useful as it can be. I'd say its summary is really helpful in 90+% of cases, the rest could be better and only once I've seen it post a summary that wasn't helpful at all.
  
  Thanks for this :)

One of the things I like about Beehaw is the lack of bot posts in every thread. Personally I think all bots should be banned because it eliminates some unwanted spam, but a good compromise for me is that bots be explicitly labeled, and can only respond to a trigger command. Nothing that auto posts.
- If you think all bots should be banned, then good news! On Lemmy, bot accounts are (should be) labeled as a bot, and in your profile settings you can disable seeing posts by bots.
  
  That's a very good setting. Thanks! My only other concern is unlabeled bot accounts but I don't know if that's a rampant issue or not.
- Second this, for Beehaw.
  Users can already follow any community from another instance with autoposting bots. With the right interface, users can even merge posts from no-bot and yes-bot communities to create their own customized experience.

I dislike content that has been auto-posted by bots. I treat it like spam instead of genuine content.
I would love to see a "bot" flag and a parameter on your profile to not show any "bot" content.
I guess people who make bots are scared that the Lemmy platforms would eventually stop seeing activity because of a lack of content. But I think that if there were little to no activity, perhaps people would be posting more. I doubt that flooding the platform with auto-generated content or auto-forwarded content actually helps with encouraging people to stay.
- IIRC there is already a bot flag on profiles, though it relies on bot-makers manually setting it and as far as I'm aware you can't automatically block all bot users (though I haven't tried every single Lemmy app).

I don't want bots on Beehaw. Either unknown ChatGPT generated comments or bots that just listen to keywords and hey heres a Wikipedia link type. I want discussion from real, good, people with opinions. Not a bot with useless commentary I could just Google(Kagi) instead. Rules around this type of bot is okay, this isnt gets into rules lawyering and favoritism. My vote is no to bots.

Honestly the only bot I've actually found myself missing is the metric/imperial conversion one, makes talking with Americans a lot easier!

98% of bots are crap. The problem is that people have different opinions as to which 98% of them is the crap portion.
Absolutely any bot needs to self-identify.

I'm of the opinion that bots are okay if:
They provide value to the community - A news-bot seems to be well received at tucson.social and it helps people get all their Tucson updates in one place without having to share it themselves.
They assist with moderation. Auto responding to new posts that reminds thread participants of the rules could be one use-case.
They enhance the dialogue of the thread or provide useful and important corrections. Perhaps there's a bot that looks up species names and provides useful links in a reply of a zoological based post? I say that's great and what we want!
As for ChatGPT bots:
All bots must disclose they are a bot.
All bots must not fake engagement. As in, it's okay to be other bots because of their relatively strict use-cases and minimal ability to hallucinate and no ability to respond to further queries. ChatGPT makes it appear as if it's a person at times and can be subtly wrong - we have people that do that just fine.
ChatGPT content should go into their own relevant subs. A MachineLearning community might be good at first, but perhaps eventually a dedicated LLM/ChatGPT Writes type community would eventually be needed for peoples more creative impulses. It's not exactly relevant for someplace like tucson.social, but might be for a place like BeeHaw.
- Auto responding to new posts that reminds thread participants of the rules could be one use-case.
  IMHO those pinned top messages in Reddit were a stopgap for dealing with highly diverse communities and moderation styles "on a single instance".
  Again in my opinion, the Fediverse would benefit more from having consistent rules per-instance, with only sub-rules on a community level. Both of these should be made easily discoverable to all participants of a "community@instance" directly through their interface (web or app), making the pinned top messages unnecessary.
  Communities with "highly diverse moderation styles", should rather stay on separate instances with similar moderation styles, making it easier for mods to apply a consistent ruleset, for users to decide which instances to follow, and admins whether to federate or not. There already exist interfaces (both web and app) to merge communities from multiple instances if the user so wishes to (at their own risk, but again IMHO the rule differences should be handled by the user's interface).
  Ideally, I think that users should be able to use an interface of their own choice to merge comments on a matching post from multiple instances or groups of instances (federated), interacting in whatever style they choose without interfering with users who didn't choose that style.
  Particularly in the case of Beehaw, which has a consistent set of "rules but not rules" for all communities, I think those messages would only add clutter.
  
  This makes sense, but I think that Lemmy just has this same problem on a different scale (between instances rather than between communities). The problem we have seen sometimes is folks seeing Beehaw posts in the All feed of their home instance and coming in and commenting/posting without knowing what/who we are and without engaging with the sidebar or any of our docs. And some federated sites make it difficult to even tell that you are seeing a post from another instance (I'm looking at you, Kbin). The vast majority of the time it isn't a huge problem, but it does mean that the mods are having the same conversation over and over because some folks aren't aware of the vibe of the place where they're posting.
  Now obviously an automatic bot comment would be a band-aid, and I suspect not a particularly effective one (Lemmy doesn't provide the ability to sticky comments). It would be ideal if there was some functionality built into Lemmy itself to remind users of the instance they are about to post in, and the rules of that instance.

I'm in favor of the guidelines listed by @Lionir for bots operating on Beehaw. Particularly the part about contacting community mods before deploying - it feels like the nice thing to do before adding new wrinkles to the moderation workload (which includes monitoring discussions about the appearance of the bots). That also provides an opportunity for a discussion within the community to engage with, or pre-emptively disengage from the bot account should they choose, rather than having to do it in the spur of the moment.
- Direct link to Lionir's comment on bots - it's very near your comment in the discussion right now, but adding a link just in case these drift apart.
  
  I appreciate you doing that, thank you

I like summary bots, summoned bots that serve a purpose, and meme bots if they stay in specific communities where they are expected to be. All bots should self identify.
I could be mistaken but doesn't Lemmy just have a setting for the user to not see bot posts?
I also figure users can block specific bots if they don't like them.
- The summary bot has now been disabled as per the decision of Beehaw. Contact your favorite community mods if you'd like to change that.

I think some comment bots are nice, like the TLDR / summarization bot, reminder bot, youtube piped links, maybe one that replaces an amp link with the original? But these bots should be labeled as bots in settings so users have the option to toggle off seeing them.
I don't like having bots post posts though, I've seen some in other instances and there's not much discussion happening in the comments a lot of the time.
- I just saw a summarization bot on here make a summary that was longer than the post. Kind of silly.
  
  I saw one that pretty much missed the point of the article. Pre-digested pabulum. We should be reading the frickin’ article ourselves before we comment.
- The summary bot has now been disabled as per the decision of Beehaw. Contact your favorite community mods if you'd like to change that.

Bots like gramma and spelling bots should just gtfo. Every bot should be a genuine postitive improvement to a community or otherwise they shouldn't exist.
- I see corrections to my grammar or spelling as positive ;-;
  
  I think a lot of how I interpret them is how they are written. On Reddit there's a lot of GOTCHA style bots which insult the user for not knowing "perfect" grammar. However, I've seen some bots which actually try to explain and help out the user and couch their language in a way where it's clearly meant to be helpful, especially to English as a second language learners, and I think there's a huge gulf of acceptability between the two.
  
  A platform like Lemmy is about communicating in a relaxed non-formal way with others. How you achieve that is fine and spelling mistakes etc don't really matter. At the very least, such a bot should only be opt-in if you like it. Otherwise, leave the nitpicking to the teachers.
- Realistically, spell-checking should happen at the comment authoring stage anyway. Given I don't know how the Lemmy code works at all, I imagine checking for "they're/their", "would of/could of" &c. could be an optional UI feature rather than a bot.

I'm sure someone's got some bots on Lemmy that are actually decent, but I haven't seen them yet. The bots I've seen have just been spamming copies of reddit posts or other articles. I block them, and I usually block the communities they spam.

Bots can be extremely useful and the flexibility of where and how bots could work was one of the things that made Reddit popular. Before, well, y'know.
Bespoke bots can also allow particular communities to develop local features or functionality. I assume Lemmy's mod tools are fair bare bones right now too, so I suspect someone, somewhere is probably working on an automod toolkit.
Bots should be allowed, but must be flagged. I don't know if it's a default lemmy option, but the app I use has a toggle to hide bot accounts if you don't want to see them.
That said, I would very much prefer if bots were restricted to just making comments rather than posts. Certain communities have bots that automatically post article links and they completely blanket feeds sorted by new until you block the account.
- I've started an account on Mastodon recently, and really noticed the bot accounts. If you accidentally follow one of the extremely active bots, all your feed becomes their posts. I don't think there's enough people on the Fediverse just yet to be able to drown those bots out when they show up.
- 😅😅
  I kinda wish the ALL feed could be a bit more intelligent. Also, sorry for gunking up your feed!

My opinion is that bots should be classed by how they operate.
Summoned bots should be mostly free of restriction. If it needs someone to explicitly summon it, then the onus is on them to not needlessly summon bots. Requiring explicit
Keyword/auto-summon bots should at a minimum be required to implement easy user/community/instance opt-out. I think the most viable would be allowing auto-summon only when explicitly allowed by the user, community, or instance, but allow them to reply to manual summons without restrictions.
So how it would work is if someone had a bot that would, for example, post Nitter links in response to Twitter links, it would be allowed to:
Respond to @nitterbot@example.com
Respond on posts by someone who's indicated they want the bot to auto-reply to their posts
Respond to posts on a community that allows the bot to do so

Bots like that one that changes YouTube links to Piped are good, as are bots like a metric/freedom unit converter. A well done meme bot could even be good. I just don't like the ones that pretend to be human.

Bots that can be summoned (e.g. !savevideo, or whatever the command format would be) could be useful. Otherwise, bots can sod off.

I can see value in a summarization bot or an auto moderator so long as allowing some didn't turn into a burden on the admin team on which ones to allow.
I think their value can easily be outweighed if there are too many bots providing no value.

While I understand the use cases of bots that provide some sort of utility or post helpful information, I lean towards having no bots. Reddit was festering with bots of all stripes - mostly memes - and it was kind of unbearable.
I personally long for a community that features strictly human-to-human conversation and interaction.
I'm aware that this opinion will likely be in the minority, given how tech-centric the fediverse in general is, but that's my thought on the matter.

Bots that spam or "help" > No No bot is going to be able to help every individual the way they need to be helped. Same issue with plenty of "convenience" features in Microsoft products which quickly become an annoyance. Spam is self-explanatory.
Bots that entertain > Maybe in some communities I have seen some quality use of bots for entertainment purposes, especially on meme subs. My favorite use of bots which I have seen is the old subreddit simulator sub which is populated entirely by bots with each bot trained by a popular sub, leading to some very entertaining interactions. The second use I've enjoyed was their use on prequel memes, in which bots would react with certain text with the appropriate meme response. I'm not sure bots exactly like these would fit anywhere on Beehaw, but I wouldn't mind in some communities like Jokes if there was a good one.
Bots for artistic purposes > I'd like to see them as long as they don't post too often The main example I can think of is Tumblr's Haikubot which is amazing. If someone happens to post a message with the same structure as a haiku poem, the bot will reply with that post re-formatted as a haiku poem which can be amusing and occasionally profound. I would be ok with the general use of bots like this as long as their parameters don't allow them to show up often enough to become tiresome.

I'm glad ya'll have made it to where I can easily block them all in the settings. I guess some people like them tho; so that's a happy medium.

There are most definitely some useful bots, like the recent tldr that I've encountered. I find them incredibly valuable. They should be used sparingly though.
"Fun" joke or game bots could be okay with if they were in specific communities that wanted them (which would be communities I'm not a part of, 😁), but not in general. I tend to be a purist and like to keep things as vanilla as possible.
- The tldr bot has now been disabled as per the decision of Beehaw. Contact your favorite community mods if you'd like to change that.

I have no issue at all with utility bots (AutoMod-style assistants, summarizers, unit conversion aids, RemindMe!, etc.) and honestly, novelty comment bots don't bother me much either as long as they're not drowning out actual conversation. I'm less tolerant of bots posting links and content, though.
- novelty comment bots don't bother me much either as long as they're not drowning out actual conversation
  Same - honestly, I generally find them legitimately amusing! - but I worry that most Lemmy instances are too young/inactive for this kind of bot yet. I don't think we're past the tipping point where the people commenting will automatically outweigh the bots, and I don't think those bots are fun unless they're dramatically outweighed by normal human interaction. It's not novel if that's all the comment thread ever is, you know what I mean? And novelty is the true spark of humor imho; things usually have to be at least a little surprising to be actually funny.
  
  The novelty bots on Reddit were a mixed bag for me. I struggle to think of any that I genuinely found amusing, most of them were at best annoying. The exception might be some of the reply bots on some meme subreddits I was on (r/wetlanderhumor and r/cremposting). There were also a few that, for some reason, really got under my skin. I think the ones that really frustrated me were the grammar bots that regularly replied with irrelevant corrections, and that one Shakespeare bot that "shakespearified" your comment with wildly incorrect early modern English grammar.
  
  I worry that most Lemmy instances are too young/inactive for this kind of bot yet. I don’t think we’re past the tipping point where the people commenting will automatically outweigh the bots, and I don’t think those bots are fun unless they’re dramatically outweighed by normal human interaction.
  That's an interesting way of putting it that I didn't immediately consider.
  I don't necessarily like them, but I'm not really all that against them, either. If we don't have the activity to balance out bot input, however, it might be reasonable to limit them one way or another. It seems to me like a worst-case scenario, but if a community or thread has what feels like a noticeable amount of bots, that would be a turn-off for me.
  If the community decides to limit bot traffic either partially or entirely, it might be good to revisit that decision later on if there's an upward trend in users and activity.

I don't think I have a strong opinion toward bots. They could get gimmicky and unnecessary, but I never felt like they detracted from my experience to a noteworthy degree. I don't think I ever disliked bots too much on Reddit? But then again, I rarely liked or wanted bots, either. I have a loose leaning toward letting people reasonably experiment with how they interact with a platform online, but "bots" as in the kind of stuff I remember from Reddit seem like a relatively weak expression of that. If I had to put an opinion down, I'd say that I'm in favor of their continued presence with the caveat of some guidelines and defined best-practices. Otherwise, if I wake up one day to learn that bots are banned on Beehaw, admittedly I wouldn't be all that bummed about it.
th3raid0r and Lionir seem to get pretty well at the kind of recommendations I'd like to see. Bots ideally should provide a meaningful contribution to communities. Bots should be clearly labelled and identifiable as such. Bot creators should have consent from the community's moderators to have a bot interact within the community. The Cardinal Be^e Nice applies here, perhaps to a greater degree: bots shouldn't be used to fake engagement, impersonate people, commit technical attacks on the community, etc.
the_itsb also reminded me of another aspect: we may want to consider how active and populated a community is. Bots take up the attention and visual space of everyone else browsing a community and its discussions. It strikes me as a worst-case scenario, but I could imagine it's possible for a bot overabundance to choke out legitimate conversation. That's enough for me to start thinking twice about whether or not I have a loose stance on this.

Bots = spam as far as I'm concerned.

bots are kinda boring

I don't find bots useful. I was on Reddit for years and I didn't use any of them. I don't think the door should be closed on bots permanently but for now I'd rather not see them, they're no better than spam to me.

I like the bot that provides a piped link for YouTube.
- I actually kinda really dislike that one, I don't understand why it would be used rather than a link redirector extension in your browser.
  
  It's really useful. Especially for resharing with others outside of Lemmy.
  
  It's useful for mobile.
- I feel similarly for that Reddit bot that strips Amp links and posts a link explaining why Google's amp links are terrible for the Internet.

Some bots are cool, some are annoying. How about the community gets to vote to add certain bots. Many such options have been brought up already.

I'm here for the people. I don't want to be a part of a community that is bots talking with bots, which is what I felt like places like Reddit had become. When I found Beehaw, it was a breath of fresh air to actually see intelligent conversations between real people. I'd hate to see that be lost.

My thoughts on this is pretty much voiced by some of the others.
For instance, there was a tool that could be used to repost things from a reddit user page. I've warned (and the dev have added the warning to the repo itself) that the tool can cause one to be banned. Now the only way I can see that working without inciting a ban is if the tool was triggered by a command, and only took one link at a time. Assuming the mods already gave permission. Something like the wiki bot I've seen over on reddit that posted the overview of a wiki link. However, I would rather be able to trigger it with a !wiki <url> or something to that effect.
The only exception I would take with this is with an automod that reminds users to include specific things in their posts...but I'm also meh about this. If people post without reading the sidebar, they're probably not going to bother coming back and reading a comment. This issue would be better solved through other means (a reminder of the community rules in the New Post page, after choosing a community).
The bots 100% need to have the bot tag on. No bots impersonating as people, please.
That's my 2¢ for now.

I'd love to see a RemindMe bot for Lemmy!
- @RemindMe@Mstdn.social is a bot you can use to remind you.
  
  Thank you!!!

If we accept bots, I prefer those that can be summoned by the user, as it happens on Discord. If we accept bots either summoned or not by the user, they must be identified as such on their profiles.
But in no way I'll accept bots that pretend to be a human user or that can interact in the same way a human user can, neither commenting nor posting nor voting.

in others instances I've seen some ones that provide links to alternative front ends to social media sites, for example piped in the case of youtube

Do. Not. Want.

Personally I haven't seen any bots on here yet. If they become problematic or if there are too many then I would be pro-restricting them.
I do like the novelty bots you can get though, they can be fun

Auto tldr is really cool, this is a bot I support
- The auto tldr bot has now been disabled as per the decision of Beehaw. Contact your favorite community mods if you'd like to change that.

GROND