Ah, I see. So something like https://activitypods.org/ ?
That would be an improvement indeed, but probably not something we will see any time soon.
Blaze (he/him)
- 2 Posts
- 139 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
Cake day: August 9th, 2023
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
The reason I’m in lemmy.ml and not some smaller instance is because of problems like the ones showcased here.
Quite a few instances are managed by non-profits which are much less prone to service disruptions, like https://fedecan.ca/en/ for lemmy.ca.
The local account would continue being the primary source of access to the content…
Isn’t that contradictory with the users - content separation?
note that having a separate hosting service doesn’t mean that the hosting service must be the one managing access to the content.
That seems contradictory with the previous point. My understanding was that
- users would use Lemmy.user accounts to browse content (this is the recommended way to avoid user management for the content instance admins)
- mods would use Lemmy.content accounts to moderate communities (users would have to switch to those type of accounts from the first type if they want to start / mod a community)
Is this correct, or am I missing something?
Exactly. That means instances would not longer have that responsibility. It would be responsibility of the hoster, meaning less pressure for the instance. Once they ban the user, the content would not be shown.
At that point, the content instances would be merely storage. This model is already possible now, but the vast majority of instances host both users and content, because it is more interesting to have users to build a local community than just being a storage server.
If some admins were interested in only being storage servers, you would see more instances not allowing user registrations, but all the 35th most active instances allow them: https://lemmy.fediverse.observer/list
The interesting part is that after it’s triggered, then the process is pretty much automatic.
There have been cases where federation deletion was not processed correctly, so it would add an additional layer of potential issue
Why would it be any different for a content hosting server?
As I stated above, it is currently recommended to mod from local accounts, as report federation will be fixed in Lemmy 1.0, not released yet:
What that means is that on top of your Lemmy.user account, you would need a Lemmy.content account that would be able to fully moderate the community as a local account. Users don’t like to juggle between different accounts to moderate and participate.
the only thing the content provider would do is hosting
Hosting involves removal of content, which is triggered by actions performed by users.
At the moment, if a Lemmy.world user spams CSAM content everywhere, other admins can reach out to the LW admins, they ban the users and purge the content.
In a users/content model, with Lemmy.users and Lemmy.world still being the content, other admins have to reach out to the Lemmy.users instance, get them banned, then to the Lemmy.world admins to trigger the purge of the content on the communities.
On top of that, it is currently recommended to mod from local accounts, as report federation will be fixed in Lemmy 1.0, not released yet: https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/issues/3781
The main part of the “admin burnout” comes from the management of users. There isn’t really that much to manage on the content part that isn’t linked to users.
Complete bans (at the home instance level) would require synchronization between the content provider instance and the authenticator instance.
Mod actions are caused by users comments on content, so the two aspects are closely intertwined, you can’t dissociate the content from the users.
At the moment, admins synchronize in a group to deal with toxic users, usually leading to the ban of those users on their home instance. Having a split between two types of admins adds an additional layer that could actually increase the admins workload.
How do you ban users in this scenario?
it does not seem that difficult to me to annotate a dead post with a comment about why a user was deleted (I’m assuming there’s a user-deletion log somewhere at the admin instance-level (or even a shared user-ban-list propogated across instances?) this info can be pulled from), but I suppose I can understand how it might be an extra layer of complexity trying to sync such actions.
Feel free to open an issue on the Lemmy Github: https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/issues
This post has been quite interesting to be honest
How else can you ensure that a user’s data gets deleted when they delete their account?
Ah indeed, seems to be a different case than the “permanently deleted”
I just hid and refreshed, it seems to work. Are you using the correct view filter?
You can hide your own posts
they clone it?)
They clone it. Which means that if lemmy.ml ban a user, they are going to also remove their posts.
You can technically see it from the lemmy.ml modlog and looking at the “banned from site” action: https://lemmy.ml/modlog?page=1&actionType=ModBan&userId=790936
In this very specific case, you would need to check your account profile from another instance (the way I did it, from my instance) to see those posts that would still exist but not on lemmy.ml as they’ve been banned.
There was a mod action: lemmy.ml instance banned that account. It still exists on LW: https://lemmy.world/u/cm0002
They still posted 6 hours ago: https://lemmy.world/u/cm0002
I had a look, seems like for the fedimemes post the poster got banned, and probably their post removed:
I had a look, seems like for the fedimemes post the poster got banned, and probably their post removed:
Also, do you remember what was the name of the AskLemmy thread from today? This one I can’t see either
Ok so I see it from here
But not here: https://lemmy.ml/comment/17565669
Thank you for the warning, looks like 4chan indeed