Blaze (he/him)

Other accounts:

  • 0 Posts
  • 40 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
Cake day: August 9th, 2023
  • Blaze (he/him) @lemmy.dbzer0.comtoFediverse@lemmy.ml•lemm.ee has shut down for good
    1·
    27 days ago

    Like I said, I can’t force you to see it. The fact that you think it would mean re-engineering the whole platform means you aren’t getting it. It’s almost literally the suggestion of least effort, it’s largely an organizational change that encourages instances not to cope with more responsibility than they can deal with by encouraging decoupling the current structure into two more specialized ones.

    You make this about me, but nobody else sees it. As you said, content instance are possible today (admins just have to disable their registrations), but nobody does that.

  • Blaze (he/him) @lemmy.dbzer0.comtoFediverse@lemmy.ml•lemm.ee has shut down for good
    1·
    28 days ago

    Being a dedicated content instance provider would also inherently imply dedicating that instance to a certain, more controlled type of content. An authentication instance might want to cater to a geography, which will probably decide to interact with the rest of the world and to provide adequate verification and certification mechanisms. A content instance might want to cater to a geography or a subject, resulting in specialized participation, with certification and verification based on the content, not the user.

    Those control mechanisms were available to lemm.ee. There’s a reason most active instances mostly defederate from certain instances.

    You keep seeing monolithic instances that congregate the most communities as a plus. That’s a negative in my perspective on the fediverse. It shouldn’t be competing reddit clones with the one having the most communities winning out.

    I don’t, I’m the one regularly pushing for more decentralization of communities (https://reddthat.com/post/20197120 , e.g. [email protected] vs [email protected])

    But I would rather have instances use the tools they currently have (and hopefully more will come with Piefed development catching up) rather than trying to re-engineer the whole platform when some instances don’t use the existing moderation tools.

  • Blaze (he/him) @lemmy.dbzer0.comtoFediverse@lemmy.ml•lemm.ee has shut down for good
    1·
    30 days ago

    lemm.ee told you the reason they were shutting down - not enough people to keep the place running and burnout. I can’t force you to see how minimizing and distributing responsibility helps those issues if you don’t want to. Less responsibility, easier for people not to ditch projects or end them.

    Lemm.ee had the option to close their registration at any time. But registrations are only one source of user management.

    In a scenario where Lemm.ee would have become a content instance, but kept their federation policy, they would still have received all the reports about posts on the communities they hosted, wherever the reported user comes from.

    Lemm.ee was the instance with the most active communities after LW, there’s no way to avoid a certain level of responsibility.

  • Blaze (he/him) @lemmy.dbzer0.comtoFediverse@lemmy.ml•lemm.ee has shut down for good
    1·
    30 days ago

    I addressed a few of your points in the parallel thread with @[email protected] (actually, it seems like you read it as you commented below)

    As I stated in one of the comments

    At that point, the content instances would be merely storage. This model is already possible now, but the vast majority of instances host both users and content, because it is more interesting to have users to build a local community than just being a storage server.

    If some admins were interested in only being storage servers, you would see more instances not allowing user registrations, but all the 35th most active instances allow them: https://lemmy.fediverse.observer/list

    I had a second look, and instances not allowing sign up are either going to shutdown (lemmy.one) are false positives (https://bookwormstory.social/signup) or are single-person instances:

    Your vision is possible now, but it seems like almost no one wants to implement it.

  • Blaze (he/him) @lemmy.dbzer0.comtoFediverse@lemmy.ml•lemm.ee has shut down for good
    1·
    30 days ago

    The reason I’m in lemmy.ml and not some smaller instance is because of problems like the ones showcased here.

    Quite a few instances are managed by non-profits which are much less prone to service disruptions, like https://fedecan.ca/en/ for lemmy.ca.

    The local account would continue being the primary source of access to the content…

    Isn’t that contradictory with the users - content separation?

    note that having a separate hosting service doesn’t mean that the hosting service must be the one managing access to the content.

    That seems contradictory with the previous point. My understanding was that

    • users would use Lemmy.user accounts to browse content (this is the recommended way to avoid user management for the content instance admins)
    • mods would use Lemmy.content accounts to moderate communities (users would have to switch to those type of accounts from the first type if they want to start / mod a community)

    Is this correct, or am I missing something?

  • Blaze (he/him) @lemmy.dbzer0.comtoFediverse@lemmy.ml•lemm.ee has shut down for good
    1·
    30 days ago

    Exactly. That means instances would not longer have that responsibility. It would be responsibility of the hoster, meaning less pressure for the instance. Once they ban the user, the content would not be shown.

    At that point, the content instances would be merely storage. This model is already possible now, but the vast majority of instances host both users and content, because it is more interesting to have users to build a local community than just being a storage server.

    If some admins were interested in only being storage servers, you would see more instances not allowing user registrations, but all the 35th most active instances allow them: https://lemmy.fediverse.observer/list

    The interesting part is that after it’s triggered, then the process is pretty much automatic.

    There have been cases where federation deletion was not processed correctly, so it would add an additional layer of potential issue

    Why would it be any different for a content hosting server?

    As I stated above, it is currently recommended to mod from local accounts, as report federation will be fixed in Lemmy 1.0, not released yet:

    What that means is that on top of your Lemmy.user account, you would need a Lemmy.content account that would be able to fully moderate the community as a local account. Users don’t like to juggle between different accounts to moderate and participate.

  • Blaze (he/him) @lemmy.dbzer0.comtoFediverse@lemmy.ml•lemm.ee has shut down for good
    11·
    30 days ago

    the only thing the content provider would do is hosting

    Hosting involves removal of content, which is triggered by actions performed by users.

    At the moment, if a Lemmy.world user spams CSAM content everywhere, other admins can reach out to the LW admins, they ban the users and purge the content.

    In a users/content model, with Lemmy.users and Lemmy.world still being the content, other admins have to reach out to the Lemmy.users instance, get them banned, then to the Lemmy.world admins to trigger the purge of the content on the communities.

    On top of that, it is currently recommended to mod from local accounts, as report federation will be fixed in Lemmy 1.0, not released yet: https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/issues/3781

    The main part of the “admin burnout” comes from the management of users. There isn’t really that much to manage on the content part that isn’t linked to users.

  • Blaze (he/him) @lemmy.dbzer0.comtoFediverse@lemmy.ml•lemm.ee has shut down for good
    21·
    30 days ago

    Complete bans (at the home instance level) would require synchronization between the content provider instance and the authenticator instance.

    Mod actions are caused by users comments on content, so the two aspects are closely intertwined, you can’t dissociate the content from the users.

    At the moment, admins synchronize in a group to deal with toxic users, usually leading to the ban of those users on their home instance. Having a split between two types of admins adds an additional layer that could actually increase the admins workload.