See THIS POST

Notice- the 2,000 upvotes?

https://gist.github.com/XtremeOwnageDotCom/19422927a5225228c53517652847a76b

It’s mostly bot traffic.

Important Note

The OP of that post did admit, to purposely using bots for that demonstration.

I am not making this post, specifically for that post. Rather- we need to collectively organize, and find a method.

Defederation is a nuke from orbit approach, which WILL cause more harm then good, over the long run.

Having admins proactively monitor their content and communities helps- as does enabling new user approvals, captchas, email verification, etc. But, this does not solve the problem.

The REAL problem

But, the real problem- The fediverse is so open, there is NOTHING stopping dedicated bot owners and spammers from…

  1. Creating new instances for hosting bots, and then federating with other servers. (Everything can be fully automated to completely spin up a new instance, in UNDER 15 seconds)
  2. Hiring kids in africa and india to create accounts for 2 cents an hour. NEWS POST 1 POST TWO
  3. Lemmy is EXTREMELY trusting. For example, go look at the stats for my instance online… (lemmyonline.com) I can assure you, I don’t have 30k users and 1.2 million comments.
  4. There is no built-in “real-time” methods for admins via the UI to identify suspicious activity from their users, I am only able to fetch this data directly from the database. I don’t think it is even exposed through the rest api.

What can happen if we don’t identify a solution.

We know meta wants to infiltrate the fediverse. We know reddits wants the fediverse to fail.

If, a single user, with limited technical resources can manipulate that content, as was proven above-

What is going to happen when big-corpo wants to swing their fist around?

Edits

  1. Removed most of the images containing instances. Some of those issues have already been taken care of. As well, I don’t want to distract from the ACTUAL problem.
  2. Cleaned up post.
  • HTTP_404_NotFound@lemmyonline.comOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    We need a better solution for this, rather then mass-bulk defederation.

    In my opinion- that is going to greatly slowdown the spread and influence of this platform. Also IMO- I think these bots are purposely TRYING to get instances to defederate from each other.

    Meta is pushing its “fediverse” thing. Reddit, is trying to squash the fediverse. Honestly, it makes perfect sense that we have bots trying to upvote the idea of getting instances to defederate each other.

    Once- everything is defederated- lots of communities will start to fall apart.

    • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      I agree. This is why I started the Fediseer which makes it easy for any instance to be marked as safe through human review. If people cooperate on this, we can add all good instances, no matter how small, while spammers won’t be able to easily spin up new instances and just spam.

        • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          First we need to populate it. Once we have a few good people who are guaranteeing for new instances regularly, we can extend it to most known good servers and create a “request for guarantee” pipeline. The instance admins can then leverage it by either using it as a straight whitelist, or more lightly by monitoring traffic coming from non-guaranteed instances more closely.

          The fediseer just provides a list of guaranteed servers. It’s open ended after that so I’m sure we can find a proper use for this that doesn’t disrupt federation too much.

            • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Actually, not a handful. Everyone can vouch for others, so long as someone else has vouched for them

              • HTTP_404_NotFound@lemmyonline.comOP
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                One recommendation- how do we prevent it from being potentially brigaded?

                Someone vouches for a bad actor, bad actor vouches for more bad actors- then they can circle jerk their own reputation up.

                Edit-

                Also, what prevents actors in “downvoting” instances hosting content they just don’t like?

                ie- yesterday, half of lemmy was wanting to defederate sh.itjust.works due to a community called “the_donald”, containing a single troll shit-posting. (The admins have since banned, and remove that problem)- but, still, everyone’s knee-jerk reaction was to just defederate. Nuke from orbit.

                • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Someone vouches for a bad actor, bad actor vouches for more bad actors- then they can circle jerk their own reputation up.

                  There’s a chain of trust. If a bad actors lets in all their friend, withdrawing the guarantee from that bad actors, withdraws it from all their friends.

                  Also, what prevents actors in “downvoting” instances hosting content they just don’t like?

                  There’s no “downvote”, but even if I add it, I would add filter so you can ignore “downvotes” from people you don’t agree with, or only see “downvotes” from instances you agree with.

                  • HTTP_404_NotFound@lemmyonline.comOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I dig the idea. Let me know when we have a good method for getting it setup, and a reasonable GUI for viewing/managing the data.

                    I can help build tools if needed, but, anything I would build would more than likely be in .net.

        • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          For contributing, it’s open source so if you have ideas for further automation I’m all ears.

    • towerful@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Is this finally an application for a Blockchain?
      Some sort of decentralised registry of instance reputation?

        • towerful@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Which is awesome.
          I actually have no idea where Blockchain tech could exist.
          A reputation could be an excellent example. But if it can be manipulated or gamed, it kinda makes it pointless.
          At which point a centralised registry makes sense.
          As long as the central registrar can be trusted.
          But I don’t think Blockchain solves that point of trust.

          So, once again, turns out Blockchain tech is pretty useless.

          • HTTP_404_NotFound@lemmyonline.comOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            The blockchain would just add the ability to verify somebody said, what it says they said.

            Ie- if I say, hey, towerful is a great person. A blockchain could be leverage to ensure that that was said by me.

            It does have a use- but, there is a big price to pay for using it, in terms of complexity, performance, and sized used.

            In this case, I would call it unnecessary overhead, unless we determine there is foul play occuring at the point of centralization.

            Edit- Although, it is still possible for users to sign messages, and still use a centralized location. That gives the best of both worlds, without the needless added complexity.