Even if it’s just a recommendation on a different group in which to ask the question, I’m curious how Lemmy combats criminal activity and content like human trafficking, smuggling, terrorism, etc?
Is it just a matter of each node bans users when they identify a crime, and/or problematic nodes are defederated if they tolerate it?
And if defederated, does that mean each node has to individually choose to defederate from the one allowing criminal activity?
There are services that help instance admins to coordinate with one another on blocking instances that allow e.g. CSAM or hate content.
See e.g. https://gui.fediseer.com/
(FAQ is here: https://fediseer.com/faq/eng)
lemm.ee resorted to disabling image uploading altogether
Nowadays it’s allowed only for users with >4 week old accounts. It’s not perfect, but having this barrier to entry will hopefully prevent at least some problems.
Thank you for this. It helps me with further inquiry—I wasn’t sure what to search. Again, thank you!
Each server has its own terms. They ban as they see fit.
Yes, if a server allows crap, other servers defed.
Users should find a server whose owner aligns with their values closest.
Also, you can block users, channels, whole servers, bots.
Also, you can block users, channels, whole servers, bots.
to clarify, regular users cannot block other instances-- they can only block posts from other instances. users and their comments from those instances are still visible on federated posts/comments from other instances and must still be blocked individually. i have no idea why this feature was implemented this way, as it’s pretty much useless.
some 3rd-party apps provide better instance-blocking functionality that will block an instance’s users and their comments, too, but lemmy-ui doesn’t.
Nope, instance blocking was added with the last update.
Anyone can block whole instances for themselves.
sadly, this doesn’t seem to be the case. i have hexbear blocked, but i still see hexbear users and comments.
“instance blocking” should block everything from an instance. not just the posts, but also users, their comments, and their votes. just the same as defederation. since i already don’t see any hexbear posts because i’m not subscribed to any hexbear communities, this feature is useless.
Ah, yeah it only blocks the posts. Users still have to be blocked individually.
I don’t think that’s an issue really. Just because I don’t want to see the content posted there doesn’t necessarily mean I don’t care what they have to say on/about other peoples content.
You can still block problematic individuals, and if it’s bad enough your instance can defederate from theirs.
You can still block problematic individuals, and if it’s bad enough your instance can defederate from theirs.
and we’re back to square one with why people wanted a “block instance” feature in the first place-- because many instances don’t want to defederate, even when one instance or another has toxic users. the answer was a “block instance feature” that does nothing. People want a way to block ALL users from an instance at once without having to deal with an instance admin who refuses to defederate or having to hunt down an instance that already has, forcing them to migrate. and not everyone has the resources and technical know-how to spin up their own instance.
a “block instance” feature that only blocks posts is useless since i wouldn’t ever see them anyway, as i’m not subscribed to any of those communities in the first place.
Speak for yourself.
The only thing I ever wanted block instance for was so my ‘all’ feed isn’t 90% porn from lemmynsfw.
Beyond that I’ve only ever blocked an instance to avoid its content. I don’t care about the users.
This current implementation is exactly what I wanted. TBH I think blocking the users as well should be seprate, for the reasons I described earlier.
Seems like we’d need both a way to block an instance posts only, and a way to block all posts, comments and users from an instance. Is it too much to ask? Did somebody open a feature request in github already (and has it been accepted or ignored)?
Speak for yourself.
as you go on to speak for yourself… i’m just describing what a lot of people had been asking for (not just myself) as opposed to what’s been implemented. no need to get hostile.
I agree with your thoughts, that would be nice.
Appreciate you taking the time to help me understand.
It is up to the home instance of the user, and problematic nodes are defederated.
Instances can choose to operate either blacklist or whitelist mode. Most are on blacklist mode, where new instances federate automatically.
It seems like a potential scalability issue, and a lot of work. Props to the administrators who deal with this right now.
I may be wrong, but as I understand it fundementally as part of the fediverse I don’t think they’re obligated to do anything, there’s no greater site policy to uphold.
They could host whatever content and discussion they want, and if that means their local government comes down on them for it and shuts the server down, then so be it, but Lemmy as a platform on its own I don’t believe combats anything cross-instance. Each instance would just have its own rules and mods would ban users or defederate accordingly.
So basically a silk road alternative, but not really because it would be much easier to track down and remove a node? Or is it possible to also hide a node and rely on forcing de-federation?
Why should Lemmy do that
Well, at minimum, instance operators could find themselves in legal jeopardy if they do not, depending on their local laws.
Many people would also make a moral argument for the enforcement of certain laws, but I infer from your comment that you don’t agree with such ideas.
Laws are often not moral
Regardless of you feel about them, website operators must abide by them in most jurisdictions. And therefore it would be naive for Lemmy’s developers to not at least consider this issue.
wdym
For example, gun control often takes the form of “making it unreasonably hard for poor people to arm themselves”
Most policies make things unreasonably hard for poor people to do anything.
For a free throw example, because it shouldn’t become a go-to for child pornography.
