Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, 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 spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
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 info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Yep. People around here love to attribute some magic powers to decentralization it definitely does not have. The assumption that crappy behavior is somehow localized to a specific instance is bizarre, nothing is keeping people from spamming accounts on instances with free signups. If anything, the decentralization makes it significantly harder to scale up moderation, on top of all the added costs of hosting volunteer social media servers.
That said, I'm not concerned at this point. There is nowhere near enough growth happening to make this be a problem for a long time. Masto worried about it legitimately for like twenty minutes back in some of the first few exodus incidents, before all the normies got alienated and landed on Bluesky.
Don't get me wrong, I like it here, it feels all retro and kinda like 90s forums, but "what if it gets so popular it's swamped with bad actors" is VERY low in my list of priorities. We have like two spammers and they've become local mascots. Mass malicious engagement is NOT the concern at the moment.
I disagree. If that is your primary concern, look at what Beehaw (another Lemmy instance) did. They closed their signups to prevent the bad actor spam accounts on their own instances, and they defederate from instance that allow the easy signups.
Its extreme, yes. It limits conversation from the wider fediverse, yes. However it does mitigate the exact problem you're citing. I personally prefer to deal with the spammers for the wider audience, but I don't fault Beehaw for their actions and choices.
No, see, you're assuming that this is a problem for one instance. Which makes sense because there's nobody here and not much incentive to target people who are.
If you're the size of a Twitter (and that's a couple hundred million accounts) or a Facebook (about ten times that), then there are more than enough people to be targeted by more than enough bad actors to swamp EVERY instance with more spam sign-ins than Beehaw ever had, legitimate or not.
And you have nothing to stop bad actors from spinning up entire instances, which you then have to moderate individually, too.
You can't defederate from every instance that gets hostile accounts because the logical thing if you're a malicious actor is to automate signups to ALL available instances. Spam is spam is spam. You do it at scale. And you can't shut down all signups on all instances if you want to provide the service at scale.
There is no systemic solution to malicious use. If there was, commercial social media would have deployed it to save money, at least when they were still holding to the pretense that they moderate things to meet regulations. Moderation is hard and expensive, and there are no meaningful federation-wide tools to manage it in place. I don't even know if there can be. The idea that defederation and closing signups will be enough at scale is clearly not accurate. I don't even think most of the big players in making federation apps would disagree with that. I think the hope is the tools will grow as the needs for them do. I'm not super sure of how well that will go, but I'm also not sure things will get big enough for that to matter at any point soon.
I don't see how your statement applies to a Beehaw type response. Who cares how many bad actors there are if you're allowing zero signups at your own instance, and you are defederating from instances that do? I don't know the bowels of Lemmy code well enough to know if there is an "instance federation allowlist" opt-in as opposed to a "defederate from X instance" opt-out. If the former doesn't exist yet, then it would likely be added to Lemmy code to combat the exact example you give of an infinite number of spam instances being spun up.
I agree with this.
I'm arguing there doesn't haven't to be federation-wide tool. There are instance level tools that give enough control depending on how extreme a response the instance wants to enact.
I agree. I argue a systemic solution isn't a requirement. You're looking for one thing that solves the problem for the entire Fediverse. That's a rather un-fediverse concept. The point of the fediverse is decentralization allowing instances to enact their own rules that work for them.
I don't know how old you are, but decades before giant social media existed, internet forums were a common community posting system. This is an old and known problem. There are a number of approaches that apply from those days to modern Lemmy instances. Yes, many of these would require raising the walls of the garden, but again, these approaches exist. Is it perfect? No, but if thats what it takes, then that will be the result, and the tools exist in Lemmy to do that.
I am old enough to remember that IRC had more in common with 4chan than modern social media and that moderation of atomized, non-interoperable forums was either just as bad or handled at much smaller scales by people with commercial interests.
You care about how many bad actors there are if they are enough to be in every instance. Again, you're presuming that bad actors will choose a specific instance to populate. You can't defederate from every instance that allows people to sign up or you end up with a group chat instead of a social network.
That's the Fedi-wide problem to solve if it ever gets truly popular. If I put together a bot farm or a sweatshop tomorrow that targets every instance of every Fedi app with multiple spam signups per minute how would you stop that? Especially if I'm not immediately posting spam and instead generating bad content slowly over time.
What if instead of one person doing it it was thousands? How high are the garden walls at that point? Is there anybody left inside them?
"There are tools to do that" is a bold assertion, but nobody has been able to explain to me what those tools are or how they'd work at scale. I'm all ears. Even if I don't think it'll be needed I'd love to know what the plan is, if there is one.
You can. Beehaw did. Perhaps that is the future of Lemmy. I don't know.
Beehaw did. I think you're still looking for a solution that allows the full Fediverse-wide system of communication with control of bad actors. I'll agree that doesn't exist and likely won't. I'm arguing that it doesn't need to for certain use cases of Lemmy to operate.
You're still thinking about it as an asymmetrical problem. Taking one portion that has a problem and isolating that from the rest. I'm saying if every part has the same problem that doesn't solve it AND it means the entire network is no longer interoperable, which was the entire point from the start.
What you're ultimately saying is that you can have a small interoperable network or a large centralized network, but not both. Which, if you're right, begs the question of why try to decentralize and federate in the first place if you don't have a solution to secure that arrangement.
And, to be clear, even in that scenario now you have an isolated, self-run social network that has exactly the same moderation issues and running costs as Reddit or any other alternative.
I am. I don't believe there is one version of success nor one version of failure. That's one of the beauties of the Fediverse. While there can be fully integrated interaction between instances, there doesn't have to be.
Bolding is mine. That is an opinion, but not a fact. I'll agree it was one of the biggest features, but it is by no means the only reason for Lemmy or the Fediverse's existence.
I'm citing those as the two extremes but I'm not saying those are the only two options.
I reject that premise. If decentralization and federation were inexorably linked to Lemmy (and the Fediverse as a whole), the authors of Lemmy would not have built in the functionality to defederate, nor to block other instances. They did though. This tells us that while they envisioned the benefits of sharing, they also recognized those that wouldn't want to and endorsed it with methods to cut out the sharing.
Not quite. From an operators point of view, sure. However from a consumer's point of view, a social media application stack is a massive undertaking to write as whole cloth. Lemmy software simply existing means that anyone can stand up their own social media network with their own rules (and yes, costs). This, in itself, is a better evolution over Reddit as a private platform. If you don't like that "reddit" you can stand up your own "reddit".
If you're looking for me to say Lemmy is the perfect platform without any flaws, you won't find me saying that. I will say however that it is better than the alternatives we have today. We'll see if it has enough autonomy and control to its operators to stand the test of time. Irrespective of where we each stand on this discussion, I think we'll both be hoping it does.
I just don't think that's a reasonable view, and it's certainly a marginal one in the community. Nobody is out there claiming that the core feature of Fedi apps is self-hosting a tiny social network for your friends, disconnected from every other piece. The selling point is supposed to be that your tiny, self-hosted instance is still connected to this distributed, crowdsourced larger network.
Building a social network sure is hard and requires a building a lot of software, but unlike other pieces of software, social networks carry a LOT of additional costs to run at scale and make no sense to run without the scale. You can host Jellyfin for your small group of friends. Maybe a chat server or a list service, not a forum or a link aggregator.
In any case, even if you are an outlier and see that as a valid use case, that's definitely not a majority view, and the Fedi community has both ambitions to get larger and an expectation that this will be done with effective moderation baked into the service. You and I agree on the existence of that problem, we just disagree on the resulting state after it surface.
Decentralization provides a lot of important benefits, such as protection against worsening the whole system for profit, or imposing unpopular network-wide rules. I like it here; it's fun in the way the old web was and the corporate web isn't.
I think we're in agreement that preventing moderators of popular communities from being assholes and handling large-scale abuse as OP asked about are not among those benefits.
Agreed, for sure. If anything, decentralization makes those things harder, I'd say. And also agreed that there are benefits to decentralization along the lines you mention. Those two things can be true at the same time.
I think it'd be cool to figure out what the toolset to handle those issues is before they become a problem. Or, honestly, just because figure it out would be a meaningful challenge and may move the sorry state of social media in the right direction just in general. That said, there is a LOT of overcomplacent assumptions, at least in the userbase, regarding decentralization being a magic bullet. I think the development side is a lot less... I don't want to say naive, but a lot more realistic about the challenges, in any case.