Lemmy

12548 readers

25 users here now

Everything about Lemmy; bugs, gripes, praises, and advocacy.

For discussion about the lemmy.ml instance, go to !meta@lemmy.ml.

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

nutomic@lemmy.ml

Banned users on my instance (lemmy.1204.org)

submitted 1 year ago by italiota@lemmy.1204.org to c/lemmy@lemmy.ml

12 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I have just logged in on my own Lemmy instance, and I see a list of banned users in the administrative area, from other instances. I have not banned anyone myself.

How does it work? If you’re banned from an instance, you’re banned from the whole federation?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] italiota@lemmy.1204.org 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes. I have a VPS and I am using their Docker files: https://join-lemmy.org/docs/en/administration/install_docker.html

[–] madmaurice@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There should be a public modlog which should tell you when and why someone was banned. I haven't set up my lemmy instance yet, did you maybe leave your instance unprotected for long enough so some could add bans? Or did you use an old database with data from a previous instance? Did you pull the wrong docker image?

[–] italiota@lemmy.1204.org 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Everything is running fine. It is as @jon@jon@lemmy.tf and @neoney@lemmy.neoney.dev write.

If I am server A, and I federate with B. If user@B is banned by B, this is propagated to me, so that A does not see content from B that comes from user@B. It makes sense.

[–] madmaurice@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What I don't understand is why does server B have to tell server A that user@B is banned on B, instead of just not letting user@B login anymore and thus disallowing the creation of further content by user@B?

And maybe A wants the content by user@B, so why can server B dictate bans that server A has to enforce?

What happens if server A ignores them?

As an instance would I be able to flood another instance's ban list by just pretending to have trillions of users that are all banned?

[–] italiota@lemmy.1204.org 1 points 1 year ago

Given that I asked the question in the first place, here is how I make sense of it after some answers and looking at the modlog.

What I don’t understand is why does server B have to tell server A that user@B is banned on B, instead of just not letting user@B login anymore and thus disallowing the creation of further content by user@B?

Because A sees B's content, but on A server. user@B is banned on B, hence, A keeps seeing B content, but not user@B content on B. user@B can still register on A and post there.

And maybe A wants the content by user@B, so why can server B dictate bans that server A has to enforce?

Because user@B's content, while copied and displayed on A, is still B's content. B bans the user and their content everywhere. Again, user@B can register elsewhere and start posting.

What happens if server A ignores them?

From what I can see, if I am A, I cannot unban user@B in any way. user@B can register in my instance, though. I can ban user@A afterwards (or not).

As an instance would I be able to flood another instance’s ban list by just pretending to have trillions of users that are all banned?

I think so. I federate with Beehaw. If Beehaw bans everyone, my banned user list will get quite long.