LemmyNet
Extend instance blocking to block all users/content from there
Requirements
- [x] Is this a feature request? For questions or discussions use https://lemmy.ml/c/lemmy_support or the matrix chat.
- [x] Did you check to see if this issue already exists?
- [x] Is this only a feature request? Do not put multiple feature requests in one issue.
- [x] Is this a backend issue? Use the lemmy-ui repo for UI / frontend issues.
- [x] Do you agree to follow the rules in our Code of Conduct?
Is your proposal related to a problem?
More often than not, the idea of defederation from some instances is always floating around. A lot of these arguments are 50/50, with some good and some bad. And some instances (lemmy.sdf.org) don't defederate from anything at all, which can be quite a big problem.
Describe the solution you'd like.
Lemmy has primitive instance blocking, but i propose that this be extended to block all users and content from that instance. So that user sees nothing from there, and vice versa. It would be a win-win for both sides, since the disgruntled user doesn't have to see content they dislike (nor force their opinions on everyone else) and the instance wouldn't have to deal with a person that dislikes them, anyway.
Describe alternatives you've considered.
There's no good alternative to this, really. You could take it upon yourself to block a huge amount of users from that instance, but new users are constantly joining so it's a never ending struggle. And, your block list would be huge.
Defederation is not a good fix either, since: it needs admin approval, and if you got that approval, a lot of users would dislike being defederated from an instance they like.
Additional context
Piefed implements this feature perfectly, imo. See an instance you don't like? Just press the dropdown button on a post/comment/user etc, and press block.
Example:
I think Lemmy's instance blocking is like this on purpose, it's meant as a batch community block since people might want to block a lot of communities at once from that instance, to block all users from that instance would be undesirable if it is a large instance.
Plus we do not want people to simply user block instances to pretend they don't exist in the case of problematic instances. Having instance wide standards is important, and instance blocking should not be seen as an alternative or replacement to defederation or moderation, kind of like how user blocking is often seen as an alternative or replacement to banning a troll (which is how the most prolific trolls have thrived without being banned as long as they have).
I think blocking on Lemmy is problematic because a lot of admins and mods on lemmy have an assumption that more reports or concerns are opinionated and subjective than they actually are. I think that it would be problematic to give people a way to pretend that problematic instances don't exist.
a lot of users would dislike being defederated from an instance they like.
This sounds good in its abstract and undescript form but at the end of the day Lemmy is a platform with policies, it's not meant to be a free speech platform, speech is limited by rules and acceptability and interoperability should be too. If a server is approved for defederation by the admins it doesn't meet those rules laid out by that community. Let's not pretend that frivolous defederation is something common, or that defederation should happen less. It is an important tool for keeping communities healthy and keeping bad actors out of safe spaces. If many people think a server should be defederated, that should be looked into, they shouldn't just be told that they should block it because they're sensitive, and if it is blocked and some people are upset, they just need to deal with it or move elsewhere, do you really want to cater to people who want access to content that doesn't abide by your community's rules?
Sorry, but I think you have misunderstood (correct if wrong) this is not meant for problematic instances (but you are right that this needs to be thought of). This is meant for users to curate their feeds, and is meant for the case where they dislike an instance, but it is not problematic enough to warrant a defederation. I agree that instances can defederate from any other instance that breaks their rules, but I am talking about when it doesn't break their rules. So you have two groups of users and opinions between them about each other are mixed to negative.
Defederation is a useful tool, and I am not aiming to replace that. You are right in that users might block an actually problematic instance without reporting it, in this case there should be some note, telling users this is for disliked instances/optional report field to report problematic instances.
Defederation aren't very common, but they're talked about a lot; and most of the time the arguments are about personally disliking it, not that it is problematic enough.
In my personal opinion, I think a block feature should do exactly as written. I'm open to corrections, suggestions and criticism about this though.
It makes sense to block communities from a given instance, as well as blocking users. At the moment only the former is implemented as instance_actions.blocked, but the latter can also be added (eg instance_actions.users_blocked). With that db field added its mainly necessary to adjust the queries in post_view.rs and comment_view.rs.
Sorry, but I think you have misunderstood (correct if wrong) this is not meant for problematic instances (but you are right that this needs to be thought of). This is meant for users to curate their feeds, and is meant for the case where they dislike an instance, but it is not problematic enough to warrant a defederation. I agree that instances can defederate from any other instance that breaks their rules, but I am talking about when it doesn't break their rules. So you have two groups of users and opinions between them about each other are mixed to negative.
Defederation is a useful tool, and I am not aiming to replace that. You are right in that users might block an actually problematic instance without reporting it, in this case there should be some note, telling users this is for disliked instances/optional report field to report problematic instances.
Defederation aren't very common, but they're talked about a lot; and most of the time the arguments are about personally disliking it, not that it is problematic enough.
In my personal opinion, I think a block feature should do exactly as written. I'm open to corrections, suggestions and criticism about this though.
I think that having people blocked using the block instances function limits its usability for people who would want to use it to block communities, and also I do believe that it enables lazy or centrist admins and moderators to defer moderation of problematic servers by telling users to just block them. It already happens with user blocks and admins or mods telling users to block other users or servers, instead of looking into it.
I think that having people blocked using the block instances function limits its usability for people who would want to use it to block communities
Then those should be two different things. Blocking an instance should do exactly as said, block an instance. When i block a user, i don't just want their page to be hidden; i want everything to be, since that's what blocking is supposed to do/be.
In the above example, it showed "block everyone from X" could there not be a "block all communities from X"? To address your issue.
and also I do believe that it enables lazy or centrist admins and moderators to defer moderation of problematic servers by telling users to just block them. It already happens with user blocks and admins or mods telling users to block other users or servers, instead of looking into it.
I haven't heard of these cases happening. Even then, i would find it hard to assume an admin would have such a blind spot to such a big problem. And just because there's a chance that it might be abused, doesn't mean it's a bad tool/feature either. in your case; since moderators being able to lazily tell users to just block others, that blocking users is a bad feature? Respectfully i disagree.
It makes sense to block communities from a given instance, as well as blocking users. At the moment only the former is implemented as instance_actions.blocked, but the latter can also be added (eg instance_actions.users_blocked). With that db field added its mainly necessary to adjust the queries in post_view.rs and comment_view.rs.
If we do this, lets also rename the current one from blocked -> communities_blocked also.
While I don't like helping to fracture the fediverse, I think adding this is a better alternative than the current site-wide instance block that a lot of larger servers are using. Bringing functionality only available at the admin level, to users.
While I don't like helping to fracture the fediverse, I think adding this is a better alternative than the current site-wide instance block that a lot of larger servers are using. Bringing functionality only available at the admin level, to users.
I think this will hurt MAU by a little in the short-term, but overall will increase healthy user interaction. And [hopefully] will largely put the instance tension and conflict to rest. I know a lot of users on my instance dislike other instances, and a big part of users also don't mind them either; defederation would be too extreme a case here, i think it would be better left to the users to make their own choice.
I think Lemmy's instance blocking is like this on purpose, it's meant as a batch community block since people might want to block a lot of communities at once from that instance, to block all users from that instance would be undesirable if it is a large instance.
Plus we do not want people to simply user block instances to pretend they don't exist in the case of problematic instances. Having instance wide standards is important, and instance blocking should not be seen as an alternative or replacement to defederation or moderation, kind of like how user blocking is often seen as an alternative or replacement to banning a troll (which is how the most prolific trolls have thrived without being banned as long as they have).
I think blocking on Lemmy is problematic because a lot of admins and mods on lemmy have an assumption that more reports or concerns are opinionated and subjective than they actually are. I think that it would be problematic to give people a way to pretend that problematic instances don't exist.
a lot of users would dislike being defederated from an instance they like.
This sounds good in its abstract and undescript form but at the end of the day Lemmy is a platform with policies, it's not meant to be a free speech platform, speech is limited by rules and acceptability and interoperability should be too. If a server is approved for defederation by the admins it doesn't meet those rules laid out by that community. Let's not pretend that frivolous defederation is something common, or that defederation should happen less. It is an important tool for keeping communities healthy and keeping bad actors out of safe spaces. If many people think a server should be defederated, that should be looked into, they shouldn't just be told that they should block it because they're sensitive, and if it is blocked and some people are upset, they just need to deal with it or move elsewhere, do you really want to cater to people who want access to content that doesn't abide by your community's rules?
admins could see which are the most blocked instances and take that into consideration
and also I do believe that it enables lazy or centrist admins and moderators to defer moderation of problematic servers by telling users to just block them. It already happens with user blocks and admins or mods telling users to block other users or servers, instead of looking into it.
If you don't like your admins, there's no solution except moving to a difference instance
I'll put my 2 cents here. There is a popular instance that has blocked large swathes of Asian IPs Indiscriminately. Now I can't interact with the instance posts so I blocked it. But prolific users from that instance keep posting broken content to my feed which I'd really hoped the instance ban would've handled. Instance blocks should block users from that instance imo.
I'll put my 2 cents here. There is a popular instance that has blocked large swathes of Asian IPs Indiscriminately. Now I can't interact with the instance so I blocked it. But prolific users from that instance keep posting broken content to my feed which I'd really hoped the instance ban would've handled. Instance blocks should block users from that instance imo.
Which instance is doing that? IMO that's extremely bad practice.
Which instance is doing that? IMO that's extremely bad practice.
It's feddit.org. One of the admins I contacted said the IPs are blocked by their backing non-profit due to high abuse risk. They would work on it in the future but until then I'm SOL.
@PyroGenesis You need to block the instance under /admin to disable federation with it.
I'll put my 2 cents here. There is a popular instance that has blocked large swathes of Asian IPs Indiscriminately. Now I can't interact with the instance posts so I blocked it. But prolific users from that instance keep posting broken content to my feed which I'd really hoped the instance ban would've handled. Instance blocks should block users from that instance imo.
Ah, so that's why i can't see anything from feddit.org lol. This is another good reason for the issue, a huge part of my feed is just broken content.