Shared Fediblocks are a plague. Get added to one by somebody that personally dislikes you and every instance that uses the block will unknowingly block you.
this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2023
181 points (79.5% liked)
Linux
48003 readers
1032 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Don't worry, highly popular instances won't get on the block list and small instances don't matter enough for it to be a problem. Power always favours the powerful.
The issue is there's no oversight here, or at the very least, no oversight that we can trust to be impartial.
When parties form a federation, it's usually with a signed agreement, to maintain the integrity of the federation and keep it together. Shared standards, rules, ideals, regulations, etc. All I'm seeing here are parties trying to carve out a sub-federation, and with no neutral oversight, it's just going to become a "people like me" circle.
And I guarantee at some point people are going to start thinking "Hey, if this instance isn't subscribing to the shared blocklist, that must mean they want those other instances around, and therefore they deserve to be added to the list"
Then just like that, the fediverse has a defacto authority. Instead of one sepz, we have a council of them from the largest instances.
And I guarantee at some point people are going to start thinking “Hey, if this instance isn’t subscribing to the shared blocklist, that must mean they want those other instances around, and therefore they deserve to be added to the list”
Already is happening on the Mastodon/Pleroma side of the Fediverse. Instances getting de-federated because they dared allowed their users to see posts from "bad" instances
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
This is a terrible idea that steers lemmy into being an echo chamber. Let admins use their own judgement.
But isn't that what this program does? It allows you to choose an instance with admins that you trust. And those who want to review every single one manually can still do that. I'd love this tool. The ones setting up these servers aren't stupid. They can use their judgement and use this tool if they want!
And those who want to review every single one manually can still do that.
But will they? This tool promotes blindly trusting another instance block list without due diligence from the admin.
Don't know. That's up to them. The problem is not the tool but the unreflected trust in blocklists. The Internet is huge, if Lemmy takes off so will the number of instances. The amount of decisions needed to get a legal instance working in many countries will be insurmountable. I'd rather piggyback on someone I do trust as a rough basis. It won't be perfectly tuned with my informed decision but the alternative is me not setting the server up. The list of defederation can be reviewed. If you're careful about the template its not blind trust. Much in the same way as using FOSS software without understanding all components isn't blind trust if you're careful about the source and verify downloads. It's not perfect but the alternative is not using the software at all.
Why not set up your own instance?
Thank you. I recently set up my own instance and realized the need for tools that can assist in managing.
This sounds a bit like how to bring the shared blocklists from Twitter to Lemmy. Those were a disaster on Twitter, and I don't expect it'll end any better here either...
Please don't use tools like this. Manually curate instances you feel the need to defederate with. The Fediverse was built on a model not unlike that of email. You wouldn't just randomly block whole email providers willy-nilly, so you shouldn't do so here on the Fediverse either.
As a sysadmin that's a terrible analogy:
- Shared email Blocklists are the norm, not the exception
- As a professional IT admin I would absolutely blackhole any vile hives of scum and villainy rather than dealing with their BS. If someone is going to do that for me I'll use the tool.
Also a sysadmin.
> Shared email Blocklists are the norm, not the exception
Shared blocklists in IT are managed by industry professionals for the purpose of safety from malicious activity and there are vetted processes for being removed from days lists. False positives happen, but you aren't hung out to dry if you get hit, you just go through the process and clear your name.
Most of this "Fediblock" nonsense is several orders of magnitude less reliable, and filled with toxic people pursing personal grudges. There's no process to clear your name, and I've personally watched multiple admins and their entire communities be publicly mocked and told they "don't owe you anything" for merely asking why they were blocked, let alone how to remedy the situation.
These are not remotely equivalent and anybody who trusts them is a fool. The Fediverse has a serious problem with vile, bitter people who would not be out of place running an HOA. If we are going to emulate the blocklists common in IT, we need professionals in charge of it, not nosy busybodies.
> we need professionals in charge of it, not nosy busybodies.
Great, you form the not-for-profit company to manage this and get the buy-in from a critical mass of servers. Gold luck finding and vetting staff
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
Admins can and do use email server block lists, though, so maybe that's a great example.
I suppose you're right--for now. But at some point Lemmy etc will grow large enough to make manual blocking infeasible. Just how much effort does it take to start a new instance even today?
load more comments
(2 replies)
For reasons an other commenter has said, I think things like fediseer are a better solution to this. The way they use for measuring trust is distributed, like Lemmy itself (just fewer instances, because it is not for use directly by thousands of users, but for admins who are fewer).
LCS
That sounds interesting!
and Lemmy Post Purger (LPP) for clearing old posts on smaller instances.
Does that permanently delete posts? Why would you do that?
Does that permanently delete posts? Why would you do that?
Reduce the footprint of the install. Text posts and comments are negligible but pictures chew through storage.
And does this only delete visual media by default? If not, this is worse than anything reddit has done ever. I frequently save posts and links to myself in the form of links, for later processing. This would mean that by the time I get to it (can easily be years, honestly), it will have disappeared forever.
Not everyone who participates with their own instance can afford storage. Some users might have bandwidth restrictions. It’s the Fediverse. Wild, unpredictable and anyone can participate.
- Always document things you want to keep, never rely on someone else to do it for you.
Just to give some context, I have a one user instance running on a very lightweight Debian container containing only lemmy. After the 2 weeks I've had it up it's at 6gb storage used. No clue how it would scale with more users federating with more communities but I could see it getting pretty big pretty fast.
It doesn't delete anything that anyone on the instance upvotes, downvotes, comments on, saves, etc. Its mainly a tool for personal instances.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Also, if anyone is interested about fediseer, there are useful resources in this post: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/220288
Hi there! Looks like you linked to a Lemmy community using a URL instead of its name, which doesn't work well for people on different instances. Try fixing it like this: !fediseer@lemmy.dbzer0.com
I'm going to found a user community for it! I'm kind of cooky, so I'll name it "the church of LDS". Surely nothing litigious will happen.
Jokes aside, great work :)
Obviously opinions are divided on shared blocklists, but we're at the beginning of the road and only time will tell how this impacts the fediverse. Email had to introduce blocklists as well, so it's not surprising this also exists.
Email blocklists are based on spam and malware.
I've never heard of an email operator refusing to send or deliver SMTP messages to/from a certain provider because too many of its users support the wrong political party.
I haven't heard of users or instances getting banned/blocked for supporting the wrong political party either unless racism, brigading, CP, and death threats are core tenets of said party, which leads me to believe you may be referring to the Republican party in the US?
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
And here all I can think is “latter-day saints”
I see where this can be useful, but is this list categorized or at least indicate why a certain instance was added?
It's different blocking an instance for simply repeated toxic behavior vs political leanings. Sometimes an instance can have both.
Letting new admins know and select categories/tags to block or let through could be an improvement, if it isn't there already:
- NSFW (sometimes people want a SFW site, like browsing at work)
- NSFL (porn might be okay but not everyone have fond memories of ogrish.com and likes)
- Illegal in X jurisdiction (e.g. CSAM)
- Far right or far left
- Repeated instances of troll / spam bot accounts
- Abandoned by admin
load more comments
(1 replies)
Disgusting. Let's defederate with everyone whose ideology my echo chamber disagrees with111!
view more: next ›