this post was submitted on 17 Jun 2023
31 points (100.0% liked)

/kbin meta

4 readers
1 users here now

Magazine dedicated to discussions about the kbin itself. Provide feedback, ask questions, suggest improvements, and engage in conversations related to the platform organization, policies, features, and community dynamics. ---- * Roadmap 2023 * m/kbinDevlog * m/kbinDesign

founded 1 year ago
31
We should defederate from lemmynsfw (kbin.social)
submitted 1 year ago by LollerCorleone@kbin.social to c/kbinMeta@kbin.social
226 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The mods there have decided to allow underage looking content, skirting close to CP. Unless we want such disgusting stuff on our feed, I think we should defederate from that instance.

Pinging @ernest as well.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] tal@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

As long as kbin domain blocking tools work,

Instance blocking.

[–] 0xtero@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] Shortcake@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

go to https://kbin.social/d/lemmynsfw.com and hit the block button if you don't want posts from there in your feed

[–] FIST_FILLET@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

how the hell do i add a domain to this blocklist? i don't want to see anything from any magazine on @ lemmynsfw dot com

[–] aroom@forum.fail 2 points 1 year ago

Click on the domain (between brackets) and block it like you’ll block a magazine or a user.

You can also display a domain by copying it after your.instance/d/the_domain

edit: Warning : when you'll click on the domain, it will display its content that may be NSFW

EDIT: this doesn't block the instance, but only the domain. new tool coming soon, confirmed by the main dev:

domain blocking existed long before federation. It serves as a way to block sources like youtube.com, spotify.com. Blocking instances will be a separate option in the user profile soon. I will submit a pull request.

https://codeberg.org/Kbin/kbin-core/issues/118#issuecomment-942720