this post was submitted on 04 May 2026
229 points (91.6% 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 3 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

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

[–] mathemachristian@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

What do you think of lemmy being searchable via search engines, since that's how most of the training data is generated? Or that lemmy.world data is already in the OpenAI training sets?

[–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

I know that not much prevents ai crawlers to collect all the content, but I think it is very different when an admin feeds data to it. partly because it's a different legal situation (sadly that does not mean much)

[–] mathemachristian@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 56 minutes ago* (last edited 2 minutes ago)

Firstly it's apparently not an admin but a mod(s?) and I don't think OP reached out to the admin of the instance before making this post otherwise they would have said as much

Secondly from a legal standpoint I don't think there is much difference between an admin signing the instance up for a search engine (aka volunteering the data to be collected) and a mod feeding bits of data to an LLM piecemeal. If anything the former is worse than the latter.

[–] fratermus@piefed.social 4 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

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?

What if the specific ideology is something like nazism or zionism? What if that instance in already very open about not allowing that type of content?

[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

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

[–] hypna@lemmy.world 13 points 5 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 6 points 3 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.

[–] calmblue75@lemmy.ml 9 points 4 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 14 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] calmblue75@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 hour ago

The posts/comments on the fediverse are already public. The privacy questions are better answered here by another commenter:

Scrubbles' comment

My issue is that OP is not providing any solid proof. They are just giving 'wink wink's about some 'popular' instances doing it. When asked whether they have proof, OP says they has proof of some mods doing it. Mods don't handle instances, admins do. They haven't yet provided any concrete proof, yet creating an impression that some instances are banning en masse using LLMs based on "political ideology".

[–] BlackLaZoR@lemmy.world 9 points 4 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.

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 5 points 4 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.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 6 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

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

load more comments
view more: next ›