Thanks for the reply. I see the request has been posted by someone else and has been acknowledged/tagged. I guess it is just waiting for the feature to be implemented now.
no, just that I’ve read that it is discouraged to put the compose files to “latest” so they get updated periodically. I updated a day or two before 0.19.2 came out I believe.
I have started changing the compose file to upgrade but the changes are more extensive than I thought, more commands and other additions so I had to pause until I have more time (tomorrow or the day after I hope). Thanks for asking though. :)
So I performed the upgrade and it bricked my install completely. The reason seems to be that something cant handle png icons and after about 4 hrs of working on it, searching and trying different approaches, the site is now back online. Now I need to take an extended break and tomorrow I might check if the error messages are gone. I did find some of the same in the log just a couple mins ago so I dont think this has helped. I might have to turn off backtraces so its less convoluted.
This was probably intentional, they don’t really need to say that somebody unlike or undisliked something. You just need to know that their vote is no longer valid. This is probably easier with Mastodon as well because they can and just erase whatever about it was, plus one or minus one, and essentially they don’t have a vote anymore.
Because if you really think about it, do you really need to know if somebody undisliked versus unlike something? Or do you only need to know that their vote is now removed?
Internally it’s even stored as a vote of either +1 or -1, so sending an undislike of a like probably also results in the vote’s removal. Lemmy just sums up all the votes and you have the score.
A like and a dislike activity are also contradictory, so even if you don’t unlike something, if you send a dislike it replaces the like as well.
Well, for my own nefarious purposes, I would’ve preferred to have all the info in one place. I’m not using Lemmy or Mastodon, just messing around with ActivityPub, so it’s be easier not to have to rely on past data about who voted for what that I haven’t necessarily kept.
I don’t think that’s the architecture of ActivityPub though. It’s not meant to be a queryable thing, or a datastore. It only sends deltas, and it’s your job to keep the data you care about and apply the changes as they come through. It’s why when an instance subscribes to a community it never has before there is no history, because it doesn’t have any. (I think Lemmy goes and gets one page though)
I would argue that I’m not asking it to be a queryable thing or a datastore. I wouldn’t expect a community’s ‘Accept’ of a ‘Follow’ to contain loads of data about past activity because that’s not a logical or practical thing to encapsulate. For an Undo though, there’s already a small, fixed-length encapsulated object inside, consistent with how ActivityPub is used for other circumstances. Since it’s there anyway, I don’t see the value in it containing incorrect, made-up data, when it may as well have the correct data.
the cross-post button is the correct way to do it, but sometimes I do delete the > at the start of each line to remove the quote block
currently the “cross-posted to:” thing is based on the link URL, so text-posts don’t have that for now, but any link post will get it automatically if you used the cross-post button
(easy solution is to have a url for every post, even if it’s just a simple image)
I don’t think there’s a problem with posting it here. I didn’t do that initially because I wasn’t trying to draw attention to the post as much as I was trying to understand how it all worked.
And in answer to your question, no the automod is not a moderator on the community.
Yeah, but from what the good folks in this thread have said, their automod deleted the post only on their instance. It’s untouched on lemmy.ca, and any others that federate with us.
That’s a very good point. What may be a neutral (or biased for that matter) community ‘at home,’ can be invisibly skewed on another instance by their administrators. That’s actually a bit concerning.
Lemmy is young. Some of the consequences of a federated and distributed social media are still falling out, and we would be better off if the mods and owners of different federated instances work together - actually communicate - to resolve these issues instead of shutting each other down in a cold war scenario.
Federation NEEDS to happen and be (relatively) consistent in order for this great mess to work. “Hey, did you see that Lemmy post on motorcycles@lemmy.world?” “Nah man, I’m on a different instance than you - it must have been blocked by our mods.” That is NOT going to make a good experience for users, and they’ll give up very quickly.
You are banned because you tried to upload CSAM. How does anyone really think that CSAM is allowed anywhere here? You are either so ignorant that you dont understand how much of a pedo you are. You ASKED on multiple instance if you could upload CSAM.
You are NOT welcome in the fediverse. Pedophiles are in general NOT welcomed. You are a liability risk of every instance admin, just by your presence.
Like said in the Support Ticket, you will NEVER be unbanned any of your alts ( even this one ) will be banned.
I hope you understand that CSAM is illegal and you will get in trouble to even ASK to upload it anywhere.
I didn’t post any “CSAM”! I’m just trying to protest something I’m seeing that I think is unfair!
But many subreddits or forum sites don’t accept URLs, pictures, specific website URLs, or even a combination! Thereby hindering my ability to fully explain what I’m witnessing!
In this case, the sentences “It’s one thing to say a girl’s outfit is ‘too revealing’, it’s two things to photoshop out a girl’s cleavage to make her look ‘modest’ for a yearbook.” actually corresponded to several videos I beared witness to on Inside Edition’s YouTube channel.
You may disagree with it and may even be right, I didn’t bother watching all those videos. But the thing is, it’s always a potential liability for admins, and we’re at the mercy of what the law says and what a potential judge or jury would rule if brought to court.
And we all know how that goes when underage people are involved: everyone goes “but the children!”. Therefore, admins side with caution, because nobody wants to deal with legal trouble if they don’t have to. Just blur it and make everyone happy.
Plus, in the current AI landscape, the mere availability of nude children imagery even if it’s not sexually suggestive at all means someone can alter it to become so. People have already been arrested for that.
Nothing to do with people being too prude to see naked children. It’s about consent and what nasty people will inevitably do with it. Does that girl really want videos of her naked all over the porn sites even through heroic actions? Probably not.
But censoring a topless preteen girl who thought up an ingenious strategy to stay cool like her friends in the same stuffy room while at the same time not caring who’s around her? THAT’S REALLY CROSSING THE LINE!
Many subreddits or forum sites don’t accept URLs, pictures, specific website URLs, or even a combination! Thereby hindering my ability to fully explain what I’m witnessing!
In this case, the sentences “It’s one thing to say a girl’s outfit is ‘too revealing’, it’s two things to photoshop out a girl’s cleavage to make her look ‘modest’ for a yearbook.” actually corresponded to several videos I beared witness to on Inside Edition’s YouTube channel.
I actually tried to post that URL with that blurred 9yo girl in a subreddit in the past and you won’t believe this: I actually lost my reddit account for 2 days for “promoting nudity involving a minor”! Other sites like the adult video forums who accept uncensored nudity-based images I mentioned just delete my thread! Another site I recall banned me for 1 year for “spam” - even though I only made this protest post twice (after they removed it once).
So that meant I had to approach this from a different angle: after that experience, I got a little paranoid from using that said video URL to illustrate. So I tried explaining this protest without the URLs - and this is in conjunction with certain sites restricting my ability to post images, URLs, certain site URLs, or a combination. It seemed to end up making things worse! Because without the visual evidence, it makes it much harder to fully explain what I’m witnessing.
So without the URLs included - that visual illustration, on the sites I tried along with Lemmy World, it actually made things worse! That’s what lead Lemmy World mods to ban me for life for “CSAM” or made other people think I watched child porn when I clearly didn’t. The lack of visual evidence (due to my past reddit experience combined with the site’s posting restrictions) is what lead to this “pedophile” confusion.
I felt after Inside Edition uploaded that blurred 9yo girl video… I thought to myself “That’s the last straw!” Someone needs to protest these absurd censorship laws that they apply to the female human!
Why can males show most of their body but females can’t? - In most cases that is?
Children should have the same… rights to do things as any adult! It’s about possessing the knowledge capacity and I.Q level to safely execute this action. E.G, on those “Family Day” episodes of The Price is Right and Let’s Make a Deal; those kids made smart choices when picking the correct numbers to items to win a prize.
I’m not joking around here! This type of treatment towards the female human needs to stop - this includes race and age. - It’s like racist people, but in age form.
Does it look like I’m laughing for fun? Of course not! Since no one else is protesting this, and YouTube has a flawed comment moderating system hindering my ability to post on even random videos, I have to take more drastic measures to protest by stepping up to the plate and shouting out “Can’t we all be equal in terms of a huge variety of traits?”
We need to learn to appreciate or accept how the female body appears regardless of race and age!
Stop trying to blame it all on me! Remember what Joe King said?
Joe King: None of the stuff in the vids posted, is that. If it was, inside Edition would be the guilty party, and Youtube for not having already deleted them.
If it doesn’t violate Youtube’s TOS, it should be fine to post anywhere. If there was even a hint of impropriety to it, at the minimum the vid would have been age restricted.
Ok, there’s your instance, instance A, that hosts your personal account. There’s the instance that hosts the community, instance B, and a random instance that your content has federated to, but doesn’t host you or the community directly. This is instance C.
If an admin on A (instance A mods can’t remove this post) removes your post, it gets removed on other instances too, including B and C.
If an admin or community mod on instance B removes your post, it gets removed on other instances too, including A and C.
However, if an admin on C removes your post (a moderator on C can’t), then it is only removed on instance C. Instance A and B and any other instances the content has federated to aside from C, continue to see replies, edits, votes etc
One final point. My example above only works if there are no mods for the community on instance C.
If there is a community mod on instance C, that moderator can remove the post and the removal will federate, even when an admin removal on instance C will not (unless that admin is also a community mod for the instance B community)
Right, so a user on C could be a moderator for !community, and could then remove it on instance B and it would federate; but if they deleted it only on instance C, it would not.
Not quite. An account on instance C that has moderator privileges on a community hosted on instance B can’t take any direct actions against instance B content.
All that can do is remove it in instance C. However, because they’re a moderator, that removal will federate to instance B, which will remove it there, and then federate that removal to any instance that the post federated to originally.
I think the best way to visualize it is in terms of who owns what and who has the authority to perform moderator actions.
As a user, you own the post, so you’re allowed to delete it no matter what. That always federate.
An admin always has full rights on what happens on their instance, because they own the server. The authority ends at their instance, so it may not federate out unless authorized otherwise.
An admin can nominate any user from the same instance to moderate any of its communities, local or remote. That authority also ends at that instance. In theory it should work for remote users too, but then it’d be hard to be from lemmy.ml and moderate lemmy.world’s view of a community on lemmy.ca.
The instance that owns the community can also do whatever they want even if the post originated from elsewhere, because they own the community. That federates out.
The instance that owns the community can nominate anyone from any instance as moderator. They’re authorized to perform mod actions on behalf of the instance that owns the community, therefore it will federate out as well.
From those you can derive what would happen under any scenario involving any combinations of instances.
(a) Yes. Instance admins have the ultimate say in what’s on their server. They can delete posts, entire communities, ban remote users and delete remote users. At least they had the decency of notifying you!
Since lemmy.ca owns the post, lemmy.world can’t federate out the removal, so it’s only on lemmy.world.
(b) You have to go appeal to lemmy.world. Each instance have its own independent appeal process.
That’s the beauty of the fediverse: instances can all have their rules to tailor the experience to their users, and it doesn’t have to affect the entire fediverse. Other instances linked to lemmy.ca can still see and interact with your post just fine, just not lemmy.world.
From what I understand, yes, moderation is not federated. That’s good in that instances can enforce their own mod standards, but it also means spam/harmful content has to be removed by each server individually.
No idea if there’s an appeal process but you could ask on the lemmy.world support community.
Moderation does federate out, but only from the originating instance, the one that owns the post on question.
If someone post spam on lemmy.ca and lemmy.world deletes it, it only deletes on lemmy.world. If a mod or admin on lemmy.ca deletes it however, it federates and everyone deletes it as a result (unless modified to ignore deletions, but by default Lemmy will accept it).
There’s some interoperability problems with some software, notably Kbin where their deletions don’t federate to Lemmy correctly, so those do need to be moderated by every instance. But between Lemmy instances it does federate.
Looks like this is just wrongly named, maybe it was copy pasted from the community ban. Probably not worth the trouble to fix it, as it would be a breaking change for clients.
mail requires reputation to work properly and not land in spam. i don’t have mail services for now but that can configured by the user to work with something like mailgun or personal gmail account.
am working with oss saas like lemmy, mattermost, matrix for now
oh, that kind of thing is handeled in the basic lemmy config file. I have a smtp server container deployed along with pict-rs, postgresql lemmy and lemmy-ui so you can use email verification and deploy full featured lemmy install :)
lemmy_support
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.