▲ 340 ▼ LemmyWorld forced to close shitposting community due to CSAM spammers (lemmy.world) submitted 2 years ago by gsa4555@lemm.ee to c/fediverselore@lemmy.ca 145 comments fedilink hide all child comments They also shut down registration Whoever is spamming CP deserves the woodchipper
[–] Flanhare@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago (1 child) Why? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] moreeni@lemm.ee -29 points 2 years ago (1 child) Because Lemmy is free and provided as is, nobody is obligated to do shit. It would have been different if they simply pointed this out, but they specifically aimed this at the two people doing a ton of work for free making it available for everyone. That's simply rude and ungrateful, in my opinion. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Steeve@lemmy.ca 18 points 2 years ago (1 child) Nah man, if you're building an online platform made to share content there's no excuse to lack at least basic moderation capabilities especially when it comes to this type of illegal and seriously fucked up content. It isn't the early 00s, we know how important this shit is by now. If mod tools don't make their way to the top of the dev's backlog after this I don't think I'm staying on Lemmy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Blaze@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 2 years ago (1 child) I don’t think I’m staying on Lemmy. As bad as it sounds, I was thinking about it too. The risk of something similar happening again is just too high to be ignored. What I could imagine is a temporary hold on federation (to prevent the propagation of CSAM content), and instances organizing in small clusters of trust, waiting for sufficient tools, be it mod tools, CSAM scanning or whatever, so that there can be federation again. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Steeve@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) It would totally suck for self hosting, but yeah I don't see a way around it at this point. Maybe allow federation on a selective basis? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Blaze@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 2 years ago Yes, that's what I meant with small clusters based on trust permalink fedilink source parent
[+] moreeni@lemm.ee -29 points 2 years ago (1 child) Because Lemmy is free and provided as is, nobody is obligated to do shit. It would have been different if they simply pointed this out, but they specifically aimed this at the two people doing a ton of work for free making it available for everyone. That's simply rude and ungrateful, in my opinion. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Steeve@lemmy.ca 18 points 2 years ago (1 child) Nah man, if you're building an online platform made to share content there's no excuse to lack at least basic moderation capabilities especially when it comes to this type of illegal and seriously fucked up content. It isn't the early 00s, we know how important this shit is by now. If mod tools don't make their way to the top of the dev's backlog after this I don't think I'm staying on Lemmy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Blaze@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 2 years ago (1 child) I don’t think I’m staying on Lemmy. As bad as it sounds, I was thinking about it too. The risk of something similar happening again is just too high to be ignored. What I could imagine is a temporary hold on federation (to prevent the propagation of CSAM content), and instances organizing in small clusters of trust, waiting for sufficient tools, be it mod tools, CSAM scanning or whatever, so that there can be federation again. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Steeve@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) It would totally suck for self hosting, but yeah I don't see a way around it at this point. Maybe allow federation on a selective basis? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Blaze@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 2 years ago Yes, that's what I meant with small clusters based on trust permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Steeve@lemmy.ca 18 points 2 years ago (1 child) Nah man, if you're building an online platform made to share content there's no excuse to lack at least basic moderation capabilities especially when it comes to this type of illegal and seriously fucked up content. It isn't the early 00s, we know how important this shit is by now. If mod tools don't make their way to the top of the dev's backlog after this I don't think I'm staying on Lemmy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Blaze@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 2 years ago (1 child) I don’t think I’m staying on Lemmy. As bad as it sounds, I was thinking about it too. The risk of something similar happening again is just too high to be ignored. What I could imagine is a temporary hold on federation (to prevent the propagation of CSAM content), and instances organizing in small clusters of trust, waiting for sufficient tools, be it mod tools, CSAM scanning or whatever, so that there can be federation again. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Steeve@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) It would totally suck for self hosting, but yeah I don't see a way around it at this point. Maybe allow federation on a selective basis? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Blaze@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 2 years ago Yes, that's what I meant with small clusters based on trust permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Blaze@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 2 years ago (1 child) I don’t think I’m staying on Lemmy. As bad as it sounds, I was thinking about it too. The risk of something similar happening again is just too high to be ignored. What I could imagine is a temporary hold on federation (to prevent the propagation of CSAM content), and instances organizing in small clusters of trust, waiting for sufficient tools, be it mod tools, CSAM scanning or whatever, so that there can be federation again. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Steeve@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) It would totally suck for self hosting, but yeah I don't see a way around it at this point. Maybe allow federation on a selective basis? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Blaze@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 2 years ago Yes, that's what I meant with small clusters based on trust permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Steeve@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) It would totally suck for self hosting, but yeah I don't see a way around it at this point. Maybe allow federation on a selective basis? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Blaze@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 2 years ago Yes, that's what I meant with small clusters based on trust permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Blaze@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 2 years ago Yes, that's what I meant with small clusters based on trust permalink fedilink source parent