this post was submitted on 16 Jan 2024
40 points (90.0% liked)

Ask Lemmy

26734 readers
1987 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions

Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected]. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

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)?

[–] [email protected] -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

as you go on to speak for yourself...

Yes, exactly. I've expressed only my own opinion and been clear in that point, instead of presuming or implying that what I want is also what others want.

What I wanted has been implemented, and I don't think it should be modified to include what you want. Instead I think blocking all users on an instance should be a separate feature/option as I wouldn't use it myself, preferring to block the posts/content only.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

I agree with your thoughts, that would be nice.