this post was submitted on 08 Aug 2023
336 points (94.9% liked)
Fediverse
28518 readers
456 users here now
A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, KBin, etc).
If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to [email protected]!
Rules
- Posts must be on topic.
- Be respectful of others.
- Cite the sources used for graphs and other statistics.
- Follow the general 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), Search Lemmy
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If communities have agreed to federate with each other, mod status should federate and mods of any of the federated communities should be able to moderate any content.
If it's one way (e.g. [email protected] absorbs content from [email protected] but not the other way around) then the absorbing instance lemmy.world can moderate all content but it doesn't federate to lemmy.ml.
The problem with this was given by one of the lemmy devs—imagine @news on a tech focused instance and @news on a star trek focused instance, they are not going to have any crossover of content as they're effectively entirely different communities.
Similar would happen with local language differences like @football or @chips on an American vs a British instance
Although as a Brit I would completely be here for the chaos of that second scenario
No, this is completely solved by my suggestion.
I 100% agree that we shouldn't push communities together. Instead, give the option for a community to nominate other communities where the content should be aggregated into the community.
Add an option as to whether the mods of those remote communities also get mod powers on the local community.
Behind the scenes, keep everything separate, but when generating the list of posts, aggregate posts across any listed community.
I guess that would mitigate most issues if that's possible within the activitypub protocol.
Though I wouldn't be surprised if that kind of mutually approved relationship between non-people doesn't exist as a concept out of the box. Possibly using the hashtag concept under the hood to do this, but that would not require the mutual approval in the rest of the fediverse even if Lemmy enforced it
I think there are less hurdles than you'd think. Having content from another community served up when the feed is requested for the local community is a server feature not a federation feature. Moderators are the hard part, but in version one you don't need their powers to be federated.
It's the kind of thing you kinda have to just start trying (in a fork, say), then work out the kinks before putting the functionality into Lemmy. However, there are a lot more pressing issues at the moment, so it's probably something better left for down the line.
i can't decide if a one-way-moderation-scheme-type-thingy like that is beautifully simple solution, or one fraught with annoying hidden complications lol that's a sick idea.
I think it would work if you didn't overcomplicate it.
I don't know that one-way solves the problem...you could "Absorb content" with an overzealous user or a bot. It wouldn't subscribe the .world and .ml users to the same community.
Ideally you want someone to be able to subscribe to !technology@all or something.
It would be a frontend thing. Track separate communities behind the scenes but show them together in the frontend if the community settings tell you to.
I guess the problem here is there is no central server. Different instances know about different communities. You could have an instance side setting to show all communities with the same name together. However, this messes up location based communities (!politics[email protected] is for New Zealand politics, and merging with [email protected] would be a bad idea). It would also mean the control is taken away from thw community itself. Doing it in that way would make moderation complicated.
I think having the ability for a community to opt to join with others is a better idea, though I admit I don't know all the implementation details.