Unruffled [they/them]

Ok, I won’t try to drag you into it. But if you feel you can support this alternative proposal or some (enhanced) variation of it, then I think we can work to find common ground, if the devs are open to it.

Hi Snoopy, please see my recent comment for another suggestion on how to manage the issue of modlog removals: https://anarchist.nexus/post/643502/comment/3833833

Edit: I realized it was missing an arrow.

I 100% agree modlog abuse is something that needs to be addressed. But I’d much prefer for admins and users to be consulted about such changes, because Rimu’s currently “solution” undermines trust, breaks transparency, and breaks normal federation. That’s why one gung ho developer doing whatever he pleases can be a liability on occasion instead of an asset.

I’d like to suggest an alternative approach that could work for both Lemmy and Piefed, while maintaining normal federation.

Proposed process for “Restricting” visibility of a modlog entry:

Type 1

• Person: The originating instance admin/moderator
• Action: During admin or mod comment/post removal, enable a toggle to set the modlog entry as “Restricted”

Type 2

• Person: The originating instance admin only
• Action: If admin user, enable on/off toggle for “Restricted” flag for a modlog entry which will override any previously set flag. The updated flag status would then federate out to all federated instances.

Type 3

• Person: federated instance admins only
• Action: If admin user, enable on/off toggle for “Restricted” flag for a modlog entry which will override any previously set flag. The updated flag status would only apply to the federated instance and would not federate out.

Explanation

For type 1 scenarios, once a mod or admin at the originating instance performs a comment or post removal, they would have the option to restrict public access to the modlog entry. There should be a clear warning, “This option should be used very sparingly, and only for defamatory comments, CSAM, or personally identified information.” The default should be for “restricted” status to be off, as is the case currently. This alone would deal with a great many of these issues.

For type 2 scenarios, instance admins would be able to override the status of the “restricted” toggle for all modlog entries. That will enable admins to override the status set by mods within their own instance. If set by an admin of the originating instance, then then updated “restricted” status should federate to all federated instances. This will allow us to deal with the occasions where internal mod actions need to be overruled.

For type 3 scenarios, this allows for any instance to have the freedom to override the federated status of the modlog entry at the admin’s discretion. That allows for whistleblowing in event an instance is abusing the “Restricted” flag, and maintains the independence of each instance to make that choice for themselves. Of course, doing so may invite a defederation or other sanctions if other admins disagreed with changing the “restricted” status. So I think this is a reasonable checks-and-balances approach, which provides necessary info to federated instance admins, so we can all trust that the function is not being abused.

What I would really like is some serious engagement from the developers of PieFed and Lemmy on this issue, since it is clearly something that we would all like to see resolved as a priority item. Currently I believe the software platform itself is likely non-compliant with GDPR requests due to the current modlog implementation.

Rimu’s “solution” really fixes nothing because there is a simple and obvious workaround. A user creates an account on piefed.social or another “trusted” instance, creates a community on that instance, then weaponizes the modlog from within the trusted circle.

And in addition to not addressing the fundamental issue, the “solution” also introduces the concept of two-tiers of federation. The “trusted” instances get “first-class” federation, but anyone the admin feels are not trusted gets assigned a “second-class” version of federation, including much less visibility. That is simply shadow banning under another name, and it feels like a way too Reddit-like for comfort, imo. The user should be in full control of their own feed preferences, not the instance admin.

I also think that by default, all moderation actions and content should continue to be public as a core principle. A removal from the modlog should be the exception, not an instance-wide rule that is set at the whim of one person.

Does this not seem like a more reasonable and sane approach to take? Rimu’s approach appears to have been unilaterally decided, poorly thought out, and quite honestly just makes me want to step away from the PieFed project altogether. Why was community feedback not sought before this change was implemented? And why was Rimu’s particular implementation decided to be the best path forward for PieFed? I’d like to understand whether other developers and admins actually using PieFed are actually being consulted about these changes in advance, or are these ultimately unilateral decisions being made by one person with a short fuse?

Hi again,

Ok, so good news.

The user has agreed to delete the comment in the morning (it would be 3am for them now as they messaged me about an hour ago) so that should also give Mr Kaplan time to restore it.

So if you check in about 8-10 hours, hopefully it will be deleted.

It will need to be restored only so that the user can delete it themselves. I have asked them as their instance admin, so I anticipate they will comply. We will need to give them a reasonable amount of time to respond though.

I think this is the only viable way to get this done easily, given the way federation works, so I think we should give it a shot.

Just a quick update. This is more complicated than it might seem at first glance. I spoke to a couple of other admins including Mr Kaplan from LW and apparently the only mechanism in Lemmy to federate out a removal of a modlog entry is for them to restore the comment, and then have the OP on anarchist.nexus delete the comment themselves.

I have reached out to the person who posted that comment and asked them if they are willing to delete it. If not, then I think the only alternative would be to reach out to every single federated instance admin to purge the comment manually. And I don’t like your chances of reaching them all. This particular scenario has not been catered for yet in the software, unfortunately.

So, I am just waiting to hear back from the user. If they agree to delete the comment, then I will contact Kr Kaplan again to have the comment restored, and it should then be deleted shortly after that by the OP.

I’m honestly embarrassed by the comments on this post. Is this really the best advice we can offer a newcomer to Lemmy? This internecene warfare between instances is not doing us any favours.

It’s because Goat and PugJesus are continually talking out of their arses about our instance, and completely misrepresenting or just straight up lying about what we say. PugJesus even somehow managed to arrive at the conclusion I am a “genocide denier” after I posted the comment below and banned my account from all his communities. He’s been malding for weeks over his 1 week temp ban on db0. He’ll never be over it, apparently. And despite us peacably coexisting with him for years, suddenly we’re all “tankies” just because we called out his toxic bullying towards one of our users. Those two have been flaming all over lemmy about our instance for weeks now. PugJesus even set up not one, but two, personal grudge communities to whine about being moderated, in addition to dozens and dozens of invective-filled bad-faith posts. It’s funny how none of them had a problem with dbzer0 until PJ had a meltdown, right?

To be clear, if I haven’t been already, I 100% condemn China’s actions towards the Uyghurs. Is it technically a genocide? Depends what definition you’re working with, but to my mind it meets the definition.

Apparently the above statement wasn’t clear enough, so I’ll reiterate. Yes, China imo has been committing a cultural/religious genocide against the Uyghur’s, as they have done with Tibet and will likely do to Taiwan at some point. That sucks. And yes, all genocide is bad. But as the libs love to say when they are talking about the Republicans, you gotta consider which is the worse partygenocide and where to focus your efforts.

The Chinese aren’t dropping grenades from drones onto groups of innocent Uyghur civilians, shooting teenage boys in their genitals, or bombing their hospitals. It’s more like an authoritarian version of cultural assimilation. And no PugJesus, that doesn’t mean I’m denying or even minimizing what’s happening there. But to say the nature of the two genocides is the same just because they share the same label is a brain-dead take. It’s like saying the Falklands War was the same as WWII. I mean, in one sense that’s true, because they were both wars, but in a very obvious sense the scale and level of harm was much higher in one compared to the other.

That’s the point I was making about Gaza. Yet repeatedly, whenever the Democratic party’s material support for the genocide in Gaza is brought up, all the turbolibs can say is “what about the Uyghurs?” as though that’s some sort of gotcha. But on this particular topic, the Democrats are not the lesser evil. Biden had every opportunity to stop this genocide and chose not to.

And see the following link for evidence of more recent Democrat complicity in Israel’s genocide https://anarchist.nexus/post/538. The Dems will never stop supplying arms to Israel unless all the existing party leadership is kicked out.

Thank you for your service.