There is a dedicated site which will be announced on the date - creator is adding a way for kbin users to authenticate and join in.
Lemmy.zip admin
Contact me via hello@lemmy.zip
There is a dedicated site which will be announced on the date - creator is adding a way for kbin users to authenticate and join in.
Yeah they’re kept in the database.
A sufficiently complex captcha might do it. I’ve seen something else that verifies you’re not a bot based on PoW calculation, although I don’t know how reliable that would be personally.
A split verification method might be a good way forwards for the privacy conscious instances.
Thanks again - when the bots came for my instance, they were stopped because all the email addresses were fake and they couldnt pass validation. I’m hoping the combination of email and manual verification helps to stop the wave. Seeing what you’ve posted in the image is really useful, im going to look back at our applications and see if any are similar, which would mean they may have got around the email validation.
Thats incredibly helpful, thank you. Do you have email verification turned on on your instance?
Can you share some of the generic messages in the applications are so we can compare?
Was mostly a reddit lurker, have tried to change that by hosting my own lemmy instance and actually get involved in something!
Just set up lemmy.zip today using Hetzner cloud, 2vcpus, 4gb Ram and 40gb storage. You could definitely get the smaller one there, the whole thing takes very little space. Disable pictures and you’d probably never have storage concerns.
Came here looking for a new home too!
Why not take this approach to simplify it then?
Asking the user to specify who they think should receive a report feels like it will add confusion (not to mention is subjective anyway), and could create delays in responding to important stuff if the user picks the “wrong” option. If a user picks the mod option on csam report then it might get missed by an admin? At least the option between “this community” or “site rules” is a bit clearer.
As an admin I should be able to respond to a mod report on a community if I’m there first and its urgent, i.e. csam. This is a policy/discussion point between mods and admins on any given instance and shouldn’t be enforced in the software. Separation for clarity’s sake is fine, I even encourage that as I don’t tend to touch a report for a community anyway as it stands, but I should be able to mark a report complete if I have dealt with it. Otherwise I’m just going to go to the post and sort it out anyway, so its just adding complexity.
Barriers/extra steps to administration is not the way forward here. Continuing with Admins being able to mark reports resolved just makes sense.
No. This is a step backwards in transparency and moderation efforts. Granularity and more options is not always a good thing. If you’ve ever had the misfortune of using Meta’s report functionality you’ll know how overly complex and frustrating their report system is to use with all their “granularity”.
Simplicity of use and getting a report to someone who can do something about it quickly should always be the priority, adding options and functionality should be secondary and support this. If you don’t want to be stepping on moderators toes, make that clear in your guidelines and processes.
I am legally on the hook for content on my instance, not the moderators, and proposing changes that make it harder to be an admin is a touch annoying.
To add: I would suggest thinking about expanding this to notify the user a report has been dealt with/resolved, optionally including rationale, because that feedback element can sometimes be lacking.