cross-posted from: https://quokk.au/c/fediverse/p/887450/piefed-flagship-instance-shadowbanning-instances-from-discoverability-other-questionable-upd
This morning while checking if Quokk.au's new instance logo was federated out, I discovered that overnight we had been shadowbanned from the PieFed.Social Instance Chooser (This is a tool to help spread out users across the platform and help avoid funnelling users into the largest.)
Knowing that Rimu was happy to explain, I just asked for some clarification as we were visible on every other PieFed instance except his.
Apparently for ' obvious reasons ', of which I can only assume is our left leaning anarchist/pro-trans stance we were chosen not be advertised on the PieFed flagship instance and first point of contact for many potential new users. Seeing as a large portion of our new users found us via this method, it will have a tangible effect on a small instance such as ours.
This was a pretty sad sight to see, and reflects the sort of petty drama that is emanating from the PieFed project lately. It's now the third such move to discredit and harm left leaning instances by PieFed's lead developer. This also shows a trend towards autocratic unilateral decision-making on Piefed.social, of which is starting to be run as a personal fiefdom without consulting the team or users.
I must commend Lemmy.ml for remaining neutral and not letting its own political leanings influence join-lemmy.org, while simultaneously condemn PieFed.social for this immature move that is harmful to the health of the Fediverse.
Following this exchange, Rimu announced a new update to PieFed allowing for some rather concerning things.
- Modlog: Reason for the action is only shown from trusted instances, so abusive mods won't have an audience. Admins can still see the reason though. Which instances are trusted is set in the admin UI.
This feature means problematic users can now go undetected, and will harm moderators ability to view their past moderation history. For example PieFed.social runs a 'trusted' list of only 34 instances, meaning any mod action taken by any of the hundreds of instances outside of this will not show up. So for example if Quokk.au was to ban a user for transphobia (our most common ban), this will not be reflected for piefed.social users potentially leading towards more hate speech on the Fediverse.
- Instance silencing similar to Mastodon. A silenced instance is not defederated from but their posts do not show in the Popular or All feeds and their communities are not shown in Starter packs aka Topics. Their communities can still be found in the communities list and joined in the normal way. Once joined, posts in there show up in the subscribed feed as usual.
This is another way to shadowban instances and not 'advertise' them. Surely if an instance is problematic enough that a defederation would be in order rather than this reddit-like move.
I 100% agree modlog abuse is something that needs to be addressed. But I'd much prefer for admins and users to be consulted about such changes, because Rimu's currently "solution" undermines trust, breaks transparency, and breaks normal federation. That's why one gung ho developer doing whatever he pleases can be a liability on occasion instead of an asset.
I'd like to suggest an alternative approach that could work for both Lemmy and Piefed, while maintaining normal federation.
Proposed process for "Restricting" visibility of a modlog entry:
Type 1
Type 2
Type 3
Explanation
For type 1 scenarios, once a mod or admin at the originating instance performs a comment or post removal, they would have the option to restrict public access to the modlog entry. There should be a clear warning, "This option should be used very sparingly, and only for defamatory comments, CSAM, or personally identified information." The default should be for "restricted" status to be off, as is the case currently. This alone would deal with a great many of these issues.
For type 2 scenarios, instance admins would be able to override the status of the "restricted" toggle for all modlog entries. That will enable admins to override the status set by mods within their own instance. If set by an admin of the originating instance, then then updated "restricted" status should federate to all federated instances. This will allow us to deal with the occasions where internal mod actions need to be overruled.
For type 3 scenarios, this allows for any instance to have the freedom to override the federated status of the modlog entry at the admin's discretion. That allows for whistleblowing in event an instance is abusing the "Restricted" flag, and maintains the independence of each instance to make that choice for themselves. Of course, doing so may invite a defederation or other sanctions if other admins disagreed with changing the "restricted" status. So I think this is a reasonable checks-and-balances approach, which provides necessary info to federated instance admins, so we can all trust that the function is not being abused.
What I would really like is some serious engagement from the developers of PieFed and Lemmy on this issue, since it is clearly something that we would all like to see resolved as a priority item. Currently I believe the software platform itself is likely non-compliant with GDPR requests due to the current modlog implementation.
Rimu's "solution" really fixes nothing because there is a simple and obvious workaround. A user creates an account on piefed.social or another "trusted" instance, creates a community on that instance, then weaponizes the modlog from within the trusted circle.
And in addition to not addressing the fundamental issue, the "solution" also introduces the concept of two-tiers of federation. The "trusted" instances get "first-class" federation, but anyone the admin feels are not trusted gets assigned a "second-class" version of federation, including much less visibility. That is simply shadow banning under another name, and it feels like a way too Reddit-like for comfort, imo. The user should be in full control of their own feed preferences, not the instance admin.
I also think that by default, all moderation actions and content should continue to be public as a core principle. A removal from the modlog should be the exception, not an instance-wide rule that is set at the whim of one person.
Does this not seem like a more reasonable and sane approach to take? Rimu's approach appears to have been unilaterally decided, poorly thought out, and quite honestly just makes me want to step away from the PieFed project altogether. Why was community feedback not sought before this change was implemented? And why was Rimu's particular implementation decided to be the best path forward for PieFed? I'd like to understand whether other developers and admins actually using PieFed are actually being consulted about these changes in advance, or are these ultimately unilateral decisions being made by one person with a short fuse?
This is a great idea, we need a public forum to discuss the fediverse development that is not only devs but also users having a voice.
When one person does something on their own without consideration into how everyone else interacts it causes huge problems. It's one of many issues with authority types.
Thank a lot ! I need more time to understand it better. That's the kind of concept i enjoy the most. :3
I'm saving your post for slowly reading :)
As for Rimu...he did ask for anonymous vote, scoring moderators...i also tought he would talk to Luminous on Matrix...for now it is better to wait.
I'm just a wiki editor and french translator. Sometime i suggest ideas for Piefed's development (accessibility) or the fediverse (defederation charter, right to reply...). but that's all. That's just what i want to do.
There is !piefed_dev@piefed.social where you can follow piefed's dev.
There are part i disagree with Rimu, you, MrKaplan...There are also part i agree with you three.
Honestly this is a mess, i prefer staying far from it and focusing on building my communities with people i love. I need that. Otherwise, i wouldn't be here anymore.
Fedizen give me lot positive energy to continue. They have interesting story. :3
Anyway thank a lot for this reply :)
Ok, I won't try to drag you into it. But if you feel you can support this alternative proposal or some (enhanced) variation of it, then I think we can work to find common ground, if the devs are open to it.
Not to mention that rimu's """solution""" is only available to admins who are victims of modlog abuse (which I'm not convinced is really a big problem) us regular users that might get slandered with e.g. "stalking and harassing" for no reason still only get YPTB, which, ironically, has been silenced by piefed.social, making posts there not visible on their feed anymore.
Edit: I realized it was missing an arrow.