this post was submitted on 04 May 2026
215 points (91.2% liked)

Fediverse

41891 readers
902 users here now

A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, Mbin, etc).

If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to !moderators@lemmy.world!

Rules

Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I recently discovered that some popular federated instances have been using LLM-assisted moderation tooling that evaluates whether someone has said something bannable. They do this by running a script/app that sends the user’s comment history to OpenAI with the question “analyze this content for evidence of specific political ideology sentiment. Also identify any related political ideology tropes“. (The italic bits are where I've redacted the ideology they're seeking).

OpenAI’s LLM (they’re using GPT-5.3-mini) then responds with something like:

image

and so on, hundreds of comments.

I have not named the instances or people involved, to give them time to consider the results of this discussion, make any corrective changes they want and disclose their practices at their own pace and in their own way. I have also redacted the evidence to avoid personal attacks and dogpiling. Let’s focus on the system, not the individuals involved. Today these instances and people are using it and maybe we’re ok with that because it’s being used by groups we agree with but what if people we strongly disagree with used it on their instances tomorrow?

The use and existence of this tooling raises a lot of other questions too.

What are the risks? Fedi moderators are often unsupervised, untrained volunteers and these are powerful tools.

What safeguards do we need?

Would asking a LLM “please evaluate this person’s political opinions” give different results than “find evidence we can use to ban them” (as used in the cases I’ve seen)?

What are our transparency expectations?

Is this acceptable and normal?

Should this tooling be disclosed? (it was not – should it have been?)

If you were given a choice, would you have opted out of it?

Can we opt out?

Are there GDPR implications? Privacy implications? Should these tools be described in a privacy policy?

Are private messages being scanned and sent to OpenAI?

How long should these assessments be retained and can we request to see it, or ask for it to be deleted?

Once the user’s comments are sent to OpenAI, is it used to train their models?

What will the effect be on our discourse and culture if people know they are being politically profiled?

Where are the lines between normal moderation assistance tools, political profiling and opaque 3rd-party data processing?

I hope that by chewing over these questions we can begin to establish some norms and expectations around this technology. The fediverse doesn’t have any centralized enforcement so we need discussions like this to develop an awareness of what people want in terms of disclosure, privacy, consent and acceptable use. Then people can make choices about which instances they join and which ones they interact with remotely.

And of course there are the other issues with LLMs relating to environmental sustainability, erosion of worker’s rights, increasing the cost of living and on and on. I can’t see PieFed adding any functionality like this anytime soon. But it’s happening out there anyway so now we need to talk about it.

What do you make of this?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 minutes ago* (last edited 3 minutes ago)

this is flat out not ok, does not matter who is doing it. our instance ls should defederate all which do this.

I would opt out that's no question, but I don't believe it's possible. GDPR does not matter here, as nothing can be proven unless the perpetrators give up themselves

[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 1 points 23 minutes ago

sounds like a great opportunity to inject attack through a comment.

[–] fratermus@piefed.social 2 points 1 hour ago

They do this by running a script/app that sends the user’s comment history to OpenAI with the question “analyze this content for evidence of specific political ideology sentiment.

To me the problem is what they are looking for not how they are doing it. Thought experiment: in what way would it be qualitatively different if they hired a team of people in Upper Elbonia to do the same thing?

[–] calmblue75@lemmy.ml 10 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

If you're not going to name them, why post here at all? Don't you have other communication channels to "give them a fair chance to reply"? Why post here, letting users form their own assumptions about what those instances are without any solid evidence?

[–] Rednax@lemmy.world 13 points 2 hours ago

OP literally asks like 10 relevant questions for this place, and names their reasons for not naming specific instances. And all you focus on, is the question: who did it?

To me that is proof that OP did the right thing here.

Lets first figure out how to approach this without knowing the pupotrator.

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 6 points 3 hours ago

Never mind the issue of incorrect political bias classification, is political bias a bannable offense? That seems to be the prompt focus being used.

[–] hypna@lemmy.world 13 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

The answers to these kinds of issues is never disclosures or ToS or admin vigilance. It's always technical. Everything which is technically possible will become normal.

Lemmy is not popular because it is a well designed piece of technology. Frankly it's a pretty naive implementation of activitypub. It's popularity comes from being the biggest alternative around when Reddit pissed off a good chunk of its users.

The only way to control how data is used, is to make it technically or practically impossible to do so. Until then, expect all the data on the fediverse to be used in every way possible for any purpose, and act accordingly.

[–] anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 2 hours ago

I don't see a technical or practical way to limit - let alone render impossible - AI moderation tools that is not at odds with decentralized open-protocol social media.

If you can copy-paste user activity into a textbox, this remains trivial.

[–] BlackLaZoR@lemmy.world 9 points 3 hours ago

Well curated echo chambers. You might think it's in a good faith, but a lot of these mods are only interested in removing political wrongthink.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

So its hard for me to get into these things without harping on my personal philosophy. Which is that I think ideally this should mirror the way we would interact in person. So moderating or running a community is like running or being part of the core group that runs a club. Would you want to throw that to a robot? Basically I don't feel people should create or run or moderate communities unless they enjoy it. So the idea of ai moderation is to me pointless. Of course at this point I notice you are talking instances. Boy that is different. This is more like talking about running the institution that allows spaces for clubs to meet. It kinda feels understandable then. Honestly people complain about being banned but I kinda feel like anyplace that bans me is kinda doing me a favor. Like I would like the option to just mark it permanent. Its less things I got to block. Its the same reason I would like blocking to be symetric. Saves me some work (ok and the creepy I turn them invisible so I don't see them but they can watch me). I really would like to be able to block an instance seperately for communities or users. Ok as usually im digressing quite a bit but I guess in the end run I kinda see why at the instance level it might be used but I would be concerned it would start being used at the community level. It would be nice to know its happening at either level and have the ability to block them if a user is not wild about the concept.

[–] OpenStars@piefed.social 1 points 1 hour ago

For some of us, power carries with it a certain level of responsibility. 🕸️

For others, it is just a fun tool to wield over the fates of others. 🐒 And AI lets them do that with less effort. 💤

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 6 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Why be misunderstood from human reading comprehension when we can be misunderstood from sloppy reading comprehension? Yay for technology!

[–] mathemachristian@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

Is it not public knowledge that lemmy already gets scraped by LLM bots? Which is why every bigger instance has anti-LLM measures in place now to limit that behavior? To me this just looks like a mod trying to get ai-generated reports which is not a bad idea imo since I know reporting is not often done by users who see rule breaking stuff.

This is AI generated bullshit below, it should be treated as such. I only want to convey the idea that what you do on lemmy is already fed to LLM's.

here is chatgpt's reply for What do you know about lemmy user and piefed dev rimu?

Here’s a grounded picture of “rimu” in the Lemmy / fediverse context:


🧑‍💻 Who “rimu” is

  • Rimu (Rimu Atkinson) is the lead developer of PieFed, a Reddit/Lemmy-style platform in the fediverse. (Elite AI Tools)
  • He’s also the main author of the underlying software (pyfedi), built with Python/Flask and designed as an alternative to Lemmy and Mbin. (IFTAS)
  • The flagship instance is piefed.social, which he runs and develops actively. (IFTAS)

🧩 Role in the fediverse

  • He’s not just a random user—he’s a core project maintainer / “benevolent dictator” style lead for PieFed’s development. (PieFed)
  • He’s fairly active on Lemmy via rimu@piefed.social, with hundreds of posts and thousands of comments across tech, politics, and general discussion. (lemmy.world)
  • He moderates multiple communities and participates in meta discussions about federation, scaling, and platform design. (lemmy.world)

🛠️ What PieFed (his project) is about

PieFed is positioned as:

  • A federated Reddit-like platform interoperable with Lemmy via ActivityPub (Elite AI Tools)

  • Focused on:

    • Simplicity of codebase (easy for contributors) (PieFed)
    • Trust/safety features (reputation systems, filtering, anti-spam tooling) (Elite AI Tools)
    • Some experimental ideas, like merged cross-posts and AI-content detection (Elite AI Tools)

💬 Reputation & controversy

Rimu is somewhat known and occasionally controversial in fediverse circles:

  • Supporters see him as:

    • A productive solo/lead dev shipping features quickly
    • Someone pushing new ideas beyond Lemmy’s design
  • Critics argue:

    • Some features reflect strong personal opinions embedded in the platform (e.g., moderation logic, reputation systems) (lemmy.world)
    • PieFed can feel more opinionated / experimental compared to Lemmy’s more neutral baseline

Important nuance: because everything is open source and instance-configurable, many of these behaviors can be changed by instance admins.


🧠 What he’s like as a user

From his public activity:

  • Talks about tech (ActivityPub, scaling, APIs)
  • Engages in global politics and news discussions
  • Shares design decisions and roadmap thoughts about PieFed
  • Generally communicates in a direct, pragmatic developer tone

🧾 Bottom line

  • Rimu is a real, identifiable fediverse developer, not just a random Lemmy user.

  • He’s best understood as:

    a lead dev + active community participant shaping an alternative to Lemmy

  • His visibility comes mainly from his project (PieFed) rather than mainstream recognition.


If you want, I can compare PieFed vs Lemmy vs Mbin in terms of ideology/design—that’s usually where discussions about Rimu get interesting.

[–] placebo@lemmy.zip 3 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

I understand that some form of automation is necessary - we saw large instances closing because they couldn't find mods. My main objection in this scenario would be is that I didn't consent to train OpenAI models. I think the users should know if their instance uses external services like that.

I also suspect that there might be cheaper and more ethical solutions. Although it's hard to talk about this without seeing the actual results.

[–] OpenStars@piefed.social 1 points 39 minutes ago

That was not why lemm.ee died. That one was lack of admins, presumably due to their choice to become a "free speech haven" where all voices were allowed to be heard. But then having given in that far to incel culture, nonetheless still trying to pull back to stop short of becoming another 4chan. The burden on those admins was INTENSE, and they simply gave up.

Btw, PieFed already offers a number of tools that helps reduce the burden on human mods to make decisions easier.

some examplesOne example is an indicator that reports the likelihood that a user's content is generated by AI.

Many other tools reduce even the need for moderation in the first place, e.g. iirc if someone receives 10x more downvotes than upvotes, a visual icon is added next to their username to indicate that they are known as a contentious user. Note this is not a filter, just a label. As as end-user reads through comments, upon seeing this they are warned that having a deeper discussion with such a person is unlikely to be considered pleasant, by the majority of others who have done so in the past.

Another feature example is keyword filtering - if someone wants to remove all content containing the words "Trump" or "Musk", then rather than downvote or report it to mods for its removal, they can have it removed at the level of themselves, thereby substantially reducing the burden of mods for such things as e.g. having to keep politics out of unrelated (comics?) communities.

Still another pair of examples is the ability to automatically collapse or even hide comments that fall below a given vote threshold - personally I have these options off, but if someone were to want that for themselves, then the tool is available to them, again independently of any need for moderator intervention. And the user likewise controls what that threshold is, rather than the mod having to make a single call for everyone in the entire community.

PieFed's democratization of moderation features are breathtakingly awesome to behold - Reddit and even Lemmy (+ Mbin, nodeBB, etc.) have nothing that even comes close! And note that article was even written two years ago (but I will stop myself short of making my comment a billet-doux on PieFed, instead just saying that it has long had this automation already).

[–] Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 24 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Defederate, no question.

Are you gonna tell us which instance is doing this?

[–] OpenStars@piefed.social 1 points 35 minutes ago

OP already answered this: not at the present time.

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 2 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

The use of AI for moderation isn't the choice of users, but moderators and admins.

[–] OpenStars@piefed.social 1 points 1 hour ago

I disagree: ultimately it can be, if users choose instances that defederate from those who allow their kids to use AI tools. (Autocorrect changed "mods" to "kids", but I think I will leave it that way bc it's funnier 😜)

load more comments
view more: next ›