Demigodrick

Most other social networks allow users to select whether they are reporting a violation of community rules, or site rules as whole.

Why not take this approach to simplify it then?

Asking the user to specify who they think should receive a report feels like it will add confusion (not to mention is subjective anyway), and could create delays in responding to important stuff if the user picks the “wrong” option. If a user picks the mod option on csam report then it might get missed by an admin? At least the option between “this community” or “site rules” is a bit clearer.

This is to prevent cases of admins accidentally preventing mods from moderating according to their own community rules

As an admin I should be able to respond to a mod report on a community if I’m there first and its urgent, i.e. csam. This is a policy/discussion point between mods and admins on any given instance and shouldn’t be enforced in the software. Separation for clarity’s sake is fine, I even encourage that as I don’t tend to touch a report for a community anyway as it stands, but I should be able to mark a report complete if I have dealt with it. Otherwise I’m just going to go to the post and sort it out anyway, so its just adding complexity.

Admins can still always explicitly take over communities by making themselves mods, in this way, they are able to handle mod reports for any abandoned communities, etc

Barriers/extra steps to administration is not the way forward here. Continuing with Admins being able to mark reports resolved just makes sense.

Alternatively, we could make reporting even more granular. It would be possible to allow users to select only a specific instances admins as the intended report audience, for example.

No. This is a step backwards in transparency and moderation efforts. Granularity and more options is not always a good thing. If you’ve ever had the misfortune of using Meta’s report functionality you’ll know how overly complex and frustrating their report system is to use with all their “granularity”.

Simplicity of use and getting a report to someone who can do something about it quickly should always be the priority, adding options and functionality should be secondary and support this. If you don’t want to be stepping on moderators toes, make that clear in your guidelines and processes.

I am legally on the hook for content on my instance, not the moderators, and proposing changes that make it harder to be an admin is a touch annoying.

To add: I would suggest thinking about expanding this to notify the user a report has been dealt with/resolved, optionally including rationale, because that feedback element can sometimes be lacking.

This incorrectly lists Lemmy.zip as federated - we’ve been defederated for months.

I dont think this site is accurate.

Have only seen the clip of the LMG employee saying what they said from GN’s video, but seems quite an over-reaction from GN and the other company IMO. Definitely some form of baiting for views, even if parts of the video are valid.

Keep it up db0, a lot of us across the fediverse appreciate what you’ve built!

And yet they insist on keeping registrations open and tarnishing the lemmy name with their shit uptime and terrible, terrible decisions like this. Fuck them.

Its been deleted now, but that person has successfully trolled every lemmy.world user and is obviously full of hate and intolerance.

same account name (different instance) is also posting transphobia on https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/c/nomoretroons

https://lemmy.world/post/3175920

100% spot on. I got called all sorts of names for pointing this out, but maybe my own fault for pointing it out on one of their posts! 😅

There is a dedicated site which will be announced on the date - creator is adding a way for kbin users to authenticate and join in.

Yeah they’re kept in the database.

A sufficiently complex captcha might do it. I’ve seen something else that verifies you’re not a bot based on PoW calculation, although I don’t know how reliable that would be personally.

A split verification method might be a good way forwards for the privacy conscious instances.

Thanks again - when the bots came for my instance, they were stopped because all the email addresses were fake and they couldnt pass validation. I’m hoping the combination of email and manual verification helps to stop the wave. Seeing what you’ve posted in the image is really useful, im going to look back at our applications and see if any are similar, which would mean they may have got around the email validation.

Thats incredibly helpful, thank you. Do you have email verification turned on on your instance?

Can you share some of the generic messages in the applications are so we can compare?

Hard agree also - and the sign up button on each instance should just link to that randomised list, and people can join from there. Too many people go to “big” communities on the two or three big servers and want to be part of that - its a misunderstanding of how federation works and the UI needs to teach people that it doesnt really matter.

I feel like i go around in circles saying this - there are literally hundreds of servers. If servers had caps, i.e. user caps and community caps, then people would be forced to spread out, rather than relying on two or three big servers. Otherwise we just have a central server, which is Reddit with extra steps.

Came here looking for a new home too!