-53
Mastodon and today's fediverse are unsafe by design and unsafe by default
(privacy.thenexus.today)
This place only unsafe for trolls. And that's a good thing.
this post was submitted on 15 Nov 2023
-53 points (15.6% liked)
Fediverse
28496 readers
306 users here now
A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, KBin, etc).
If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to !moderators@lemmy.world!
Rules
- Posts must be on topic.
- Be respectful of others.
- Cite the sources used for graphs and other statistics.
- Follow the general Lemmy.world rules.
Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration), Search Lemmy
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Not even just trolls, I have yet to come across a clearly-bad post that wasn't already downvoted to oblivion, or a clearly-good post that had a negative total. And the csam response? Straight up world-class defense system faster than any megacorp could've scrambled together.
Lemmy users are anything but passive when it comes to trash showing up in the feed.
Say you don’t understand the fediverse without saying you don’t understand the fediverse.
By these standards:
- The web is unsafe by default
- Email is unsafe by default
In all three cases, your safety is determined by the home you choose, and who/what you choose to interact with.
Nothing is ultimately safe, life is uncertainty. That doesn't mean one should not care about privacy, but it's apparently very difficult to tell people to use human sense and that pink mass between their ears. If I wanna use a wood planer, I should first learn at least the basics. They all want something "that just works". Newsflash, nothing "just works", paleolithic people knew that already.
I really don't know where this notion of the Internet is safe and you get privacy came from. I was taught 25 years ago that neither of those were true.
I mean, I guess the point they are making: "Keeping the fediverse an enjoyable experience is hard work by design" is kind of true.
But I would be very interested in how you can exclude hate speech "by design"
Make it impossible for people to use it?
Wherever there are people, there will be nastiness. No matter the reason, some are jerks just because they can.
Yeah that was kinda my point. There isn't a "by design" solution to people being people
You could build something that prevents people from being offended. Let them answer simple questions like are you offenden by . If they answer yes, no allowed to join.
I get the feeling that more and more snowflakes are easily offended and the nastiness is partly trolling as they like to offend. (and sometimes the offended like to be offended)
Maybe the only solution is sulfuric acid. (or alcohol)
You could build something that prevents people from being offended. Let them answer simple questions like are you offenden by . If they answer yes, no allowed to join.
That would still require posts or communities to reliably label their contents correctly right?
Maybe the only solution is sulfuric acid. (or alcohol)
I strongly belief that if we all strived to get the maximum amount of alcohol into our bellies instead of the maximum amount of money into our accounts society would be much nicer.
I'm not sure about the latter. I get drowsy when drunk and fall asleep. Others have a 'bad drunk' and get violent.
Keeping society enjoyable/safe/functional/etc is hard work by design. That's just the way humanity is. Sucks it has to be this way, but we're fundamentally flawed.
You patch one hole in your defenses against destabilization and another one will spring up eventually. It's always a work in progress.
I'll get to that in a followon post, but one straightforward way to make progress is to change some of the defaults
The exact opposite is true. I am part of a very small minority and I made my own fediverse instances. Everyone who tries to go ableist/racist/misogynist or whathaveyou gets the boot. Very easy solution indeed.
The issue right now is how hard it is to set up an instance. In my opinion, every router on the world should have instances running (and tunneled to not dox themselves) so people are not dependent on big instances.
I would downvote this since it’s misleading af but it also sparks debate so I‘ll refrain.
In my opinion, every router on the world should have instances running (and tunneled to not dox themselves) so people are not dependent on big instances.
That would be a security and moderation nightmare. Moderating an instance is a tough job, and not everybody wants to take on that job.
load more comments
(3 replies)
As I say in the article:
Despite these problems, many people on well-moderated instances have very positive experiences in today's fediverse. Especially for small-to-medium-size instances, for experienced moderators even Mastodon's tools can be good enough.
However, many instances aren't well-moderated. So many people have very negative experiences in today's fediverse.
Thats part of a fair assessment. As I said, the issue is people flocking to one place. It is human nature, not the fediverse that is fallible. We need better routines, not changes in the (particular) code.
load more comments
(4 replies)
I was hoping for an article about the various massive technical and legal issues it has, but oh well.
If you're looking for more of a technical deep dive, check out Threat modeling Meta, the fediverse, and privacy
Maybe I'm part of the problem, and if so, please educate me, but I'm not understanding why blocking is ineffective...?
And block lists seem like an effective method to me.
The security improvements described seem reasonable, so it would be nice to get those merged.
I understand that curation and block lists require effort, but that's the nature of an open platform. If you don't want an open platform, that's cool, too. Just create an instance that's defederated by default and whitelist, then create a sectioned-off Fediverse of instances that align with your moderation principles.
I feel like I've gotta be missing something here. These solutions seem painfully obvious, but that usually means I'm missing some key caveat. Can someone fill me in?
I’m not understanding why blocking is ineffective…?
As I understand it, because it requires harm to be experienced before the negating action is taken.
A parallel might be having malware infect a system before it can be identified and removed (harm experienced -> future harm negated), vs proactively preventing malware from infecting the system in the first place (no harm experienced before negation).
Which is exactly how the real world works. Harm has to be identified to suggest solutions. Otherwise you‘re becoming the helicopter parent that denies their kid every opportunity to learn and cause allergies and other bad outcomes. Translated back to the fediverse: it is great the way it is and improvements are always encouraged. We have much bigger and more pressing issues. This is not it.
Which is exactly how the real world works. Harm has to be identified to suggest solutions.
According to the submission, some harms have been identified, and some solutions have been suggested [that could reduce the same and similar harms from occurring to new and existing users] (but mostly it sounds like a "more work needs to be done" thing).
I imagine your perspective on the issues being discussed are different from those of the author. The helicopter parent analogy makes sense in a low-danger environment; I think what the author has suggested is that some people don't feel like it's a low-danger environment for them to be in (though I of course -- not being the author or one such person -- may be mistaken).
Edit: [clarified] because I realised it might seem contradictory if read literally.
This makes sense, especially considering the features the author cited. The by design parts may just be for clickbait purposes
At some level you're not missing anything: there are obvious solutions, and they're largely ignored. Blocking is effective, and it's a key part of why some instances actually do provide good experiences; and an allow-list approach works well. But, those aren't the default; so new instances don't start out blocking anybody. And, most instances only block the worst-of-the-worst; there's a lot of stuff that comes from large open-registration instances like .social and .world that relatively few instances block or even limit.
Welcome to the fuckin internet and humanity in general, for that matter.
Firstly, WTF is LGBTAIQ2S+?. Secondly, I haven't experienced any more bigotry here than I would on any other social media platform.
From the article:
I'm using LGBTQIA2S+ as a shorthand for lesbian, gay, gender non-conforming, genderqueer, bi, trans, queer, intersex, asexual, agender, two-sprit, and others (including non-binary people) who are not straight, cis, and heteronormative. Julia Serrano's trans, gender, sexuality, and activism glossary has definitions for most of terms, and discusses the tensions between ever-growing and always incomplete acronyms and more abstract terms like "gender and sexual minorities". OACAS Library Guides' Two-spirit identities page goes into more detail on this often-overlooked intersectional aspect of non-cis identity.
Crap, we're actually supposed to read the article?
This is the first time I’ve seen this one. Best result I saw from 30 seconds of googling:
In 2020, the National Runaway Safeline (NRS) began using LGBTQIA2S+ to recognize those who identify as “Two-Spirit.” This phrase refers to people who identify as having both a masculine and feminine spirit, and is used by some Indigenous and Native communities.
“Two-Spirit” describes the cultural-specific understanding for the diverse gender traditions of Indigenous and Native people. Historically, Two-Spirit people were among the most respected in their communities, often serving as community healers, ceremonial leaders or caregivers to the elderly or orphaned children. This is consistent across many cultures who experienced extreme oppression and intergenerational trauma through periods of colonization. Today, young people who identify as Two-Spirit may suffer from inequalities perpetuated by a legacy of discriminatory laws and policies.
Source: National Runaway Safeline
A terrible idea by the LGBT community to expand the definition, when they thought they already "won" the battle and wanted to expand their scope, completely ignoring how marginalized the trans community was at that point, and how much was still left to fight for LGB rights. People quickly objected and most threw away the dumb acronym.
I kinda thought the ever-expanding acronym problem was being informally solved by a gradual transition to just saying "Queer."
I am not a member of any of the groups that would fall under that categorization though, so I may be wrong.
It's tricky ... many people do use "queer" as an umbrella term, but a lot of trans people don't like being lumped under that, and some lesbian, gay, bi, and agender people don't consider themselves queer. There aren't great answers.
As a trans person, I feel far safer on Lemmy and mastodon than I ever did on any other social media.
That's great! And a lot of trans people I've talked with on Mastodon say similar things, which is also great. But a lot don't. It depends a lot on the instance you wind up choosing. So the people who stay wind up as a self-selecting sample.
wait what??~~ what??!! the fediverse has been nothing less than supportive of a lot of these marginalised groups. as soon as I saw the headline my jaw dropped. where.is.your.evidence.?
If you read the article and follow the links you'll find plenty of evidence. The Whiteness of Mastodon, A breaking point for the queer community, and Dogpiling, weaponized content warning discourse, and a fig leaf for mundane white supremacy are three places to start.
ok, but what about the fact that most of the instances have policies meant to protect these groups, which happens to be most of them if not all of them? Since it is a federated service alot of the instance most users use, will usually defederate from other instances not moderating to their standards once they are aware, but sadly not all of them. That's the point of federation so that one person can't control every single detail of what happens for their own gains. That's why the users on Mastodon broke away from Youtube, Twitter and Facebook.
Sure there are going to be instances that just so happen to exist that might not moderate for or even, appreciate these groups as much, at that point if you were to sign up to such an instance, you might want to switch instances to avoid such content.
Would I go as far as to say, that it is unsafe by design? No i'd say that the fediverse is meant to be safer by design for all people from all sorts of backgrounds with different viewpoints. and depending on where you join, then that will determine how safe the fediverse is for you as a person.
Did you know that if you find an instance that's not within your local instance while prowsing and searching say Mastodon, that you can block that instance from showing up entirely?
also that marginalized groups of people had even had better experiences on the fediverse than on Twitter and other places as some seem to even claimed on your own post here.
What marginalised groups? I can assure you Black people wee not included in that group
Total bullshit article.
If anything, I've seen more LGBT people here and on Mastadon than anywhere else on the entire internet.
I think the community doesn't particularly care if you are LGBT or whatever else you are. Does not matter.
Total bullshit response. Yes, there are a lot of LGBT people on the fediverse. There's also a lot of homophobia and transphobia on the fediverse. And the instances run by nazis and terfs very much care if you're trans and will harass you just as much on the fediverse as anywhere else.
Yes the fediverse is like society in general since it's people here. That doesn't mean it's unsafe any more then real life is unsafe if you do stupid things, like go into unsafe areas of the city at night.
You need to find an instance that is friendly, which is not hard to do.
Thanks, enlightening text. I think, the biggest problems w/ blocklists are "guilt by association" (you lose all your connections because someone on your server was being problematic - I feel oftentimes account-based blocking should be the first choice) and these lists being created and maintained by a small group of people who are all more or less friends. On the other hand - as you pointed out - for now, they seem the most feasible option to provide at least some kind of protection. Not sure, if there will ever be a solution that fits all. Probably not.
Thanks, glad you liked it. Agreed that blocklists (while currently necessary) have big problems, it would really be great if we had other good tools and they were much more of a last resort ... I'll talk more about that in a later installment.
view more: next ›