this post was submitted on 25 Jun 2023
13 points (100.0% liked)
/kbin meta
6 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 2 years ago
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't agree with this.
We should work towards better tools for letting people tailor make their own feeds to show the content they want to see, not call for defederation based on content or ideology.
It's not there. Even the admin of lemmy recommends to not federate everyone:
There will always be malicious instances, if you allow every instance by default then you will have to fight against an infinite amount of child porn. Non stop. It will last 24 hours until the admins of respectable instances like KDE or Mozilla defederate everyone by default and only federate on-demand, after vetting.
We have to decide where kbin.social stands in term of federation. But I can tell you one thing is that KDE and Mozilla will never, ever tolerate the slightest nsfw on their instance.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but external content that gets federated to your server is entirely based on the subscriptions of users native to your server? So as long as no native users of kde subscribes to NSFW content it shouldn't really end up on their servers. As far as I know, content is not synchronized between servers just because they know of each other.
Assuming paragraph one is correct, then KDE can achieve a NSFW free server by merely limiting who gets accounts on their own server; as they should. This is just like Google not handing out @google.com addresses to every gmail user. Federation would still allow users from any instance to interact with the kde communities without problem. This means no one can make magazines/communities on the KDE server not related to KDE and any content moderation of KDE's communities would just like any other.
Malicious instances are more likely to be talking about instances abusing the federation apis in order to spam or otherwise cause havoc, not about that instances content policy.
No. There is also the profile of the user. If a remote user can post on your instance then you can see his profile. Just click on the link that I pasted in my top comment, (you downvoted it btw), click and see by yourself:
https://kbin.social/u/iluvroris
Tell me that this is acceptable content on an instance from Mozilla for example. This is the profile of another user who also downvoted me. Just open his profile and tell me.
True for the magazines, but not true for the profiles for example. It's leaking. It is the attitude that matters, and the accountability. The big groups will never play this mouse and cat game, they will make it a club.
That is correct, I did downvote your comment!
Damn, I had not considered this angle. I can see that being a problem, wonder why we've done it this way with Lemmy/kbin and not just redirect to the host instance like mastodon does. Surely, for instances that don't want to federate certain kinds of content, this would be the way to bypass this whole issue.
My initial thought that prompted this entire chain is that I think we should try our damnest to ensure that the fediverse as much of a coherent network as possible, it will have problematic communities and servers and surely we are going to have to expel the absolute rotten apples, but accepting the diversity of the system and dealing with it locally.
I am not advocating for tolerating illegal content here, just to be clear. I'm all for moderating them on a community level or server level if needed be, should they not fix the underlying issue.
In essence, the less likely any outside entity can demand we change in order to benefit them, the better. KDE/Mozilla/Meta whoever should do their down due-diligence and decide how they want to approach the fediverse, blemishes and all in order to make the site they want to make.
I don't think it is unreasonable for the KDE instance to have to redirect profile as an example if they find content in them to be possibly questionable.
Is this the reason why my single-user instance can't subscribe to any https://kbin.social magazine? I'm not even getting an error, just "Subscription Pending". That sounds kind of broken and different to how Mastodon is dealing with that issue.
Do I somewhere need to apply to be able to subscribe to any /kbin magazines? If so where do I do that? Is there a email I can sent my application to? Or is the idea that if you have a single user instance you create a new user on every instance to find some meta-magazine where you can ask to be able to subscribe to a magazine on that instance?
Or are small instances not part of the design?
Federation is done via content mirroring. That means in order to see sonething from remote sites, it needs to be hosted locally.
That makes instance admins ethically responsible for what's viewable from their site. And, depending on legal jurisdiction, it may make them legally liable for them.
If you want unfettered access to everything and anything, prioritize finding a site that puts that first and foremost, or host your own. This "let me choose what I want to see without limitations" stance is actually demanding something from the people who bare responsibility for running the sites you're using.
Big corporate sites are ok with this, because as an active user you're a potential revenue source. Here? You're not, and you shouldn't expect anyone to cater to you.
Yes, content mirroring is involved but not unprompted, or am i wrong here? In a hypothetical situation where I host my own, single user instance, I would only mirror content that I have subscribed to?
Wouldn't this then better be considered a problem between an instance and its own native users, more than an issue between instances?
If I am completely wrong in how the Fediverse works, then I rescind my previous comments.