social.sokoll.com

#reshare

#SpamAlert
#podmin #diaspora #federatedweb #friendica

Please be aware that the following accounts are from a spamer, if you want to save your time visit now and block straight away, other wise you will probably have to clean his sh** out of your posts.

@account 1
@account 2
@account 3

I wonder if we should consider if there are more automated measures we can take against that sh** or if it even should be considered to ban nodes that enable spaming.
(of course I know it's not the pod's fault!)

for my self I'm going to follow the hashtag #spamAlert right away ..
All Diaspora nodes can be used for spamming as there is no post or comment premoderation.
That's why we need to work it out ..
with work arounds and some kind of alert systems ..

The bigger the nodes/sites are the less personal attention they get I guess and the more they rely on automation.

I wasn't aware of shadow banning on YT and just ran into it, it's the worst invention since ever ..

There are several things that come to mind once we grow bigger and become interesting for spamers I guess. Even to the point where you have to admit people to comment to your public stream. In email there are spam folders, you check them every once in a while and that's it.

And as I say, if you can block entire pods it's up to the podmins to stay small and clean instead to be as big as possible and "infected". For me the most important thing is transparency. Any kind of blocking and banning has to be transparent. Even some kind of referral system is imaginable:
* XYZ is blocked by X-amount of people, do you want to block him/allow him to comment in your stream?
* Lists of recommendation you can adhere to and a profile added to that list gets blocked right away for you

Again, transparency is key.
If you get a notification "check the newbees in the blocking list" so you can do a secondary check if you want to unblock someone. We have pod hoppers out here I would right away say: "block that one if he comes up with a new profile from a different pod."

Also, how many comments can a normal person leave in a certain amount of time? If you have a profile that spams comments, maybe even automated, that should be measurable by the software I think.
Well, networks like Diaspora put freedom first.

Since anyone is free to register anywhere and then interact with everyone, it is technically possible to create even single-use accounts for every single comment. Automatically of course. It doesn't even have to be "real account", a spammer could craft a malicious pod sending messages from non-existent accounts like e-mail spammers use fake addresses.

Thus I don't like ideas of any preemptive and/or blanket blocks - as soon as spammers learn about them they won't work but they can and will be used for censorship and cause network fragmentation.

I think it should be solved at user side. For example, allowing users to allow comments from friends only or certain group only would nullify comment spam.

I am not sure if anything can be done about public tag spam. There is no way for a pod to distinguish between legitimate and spam posts. Maybe it can work similar to email spam - if too many users report a given posts, it gets marked as spam and disappears from main views.
Blinky diaspora
Zap is the only project I've found that is proactively dealing with spam and lets you decide how you want to handle it. Other projects have some catching up to do.
Yep, most projects seem to have "we will deal with it when we get there" attitude.

Networks like Diaspora and Friendica are extremely easy to spam, the only reason we are not drowning in it is because spammers don't really try it.
Since anyone is free to register anywhere ..
No, anyone is free to create his own pod and eventually change the code on it if he wishes to.
Pod's can close registry. Pod's can enable invite only, pod's can kick people out, pod's can ban profiles from other pod's and if they can't right now eventually block entirely other pods.

There are lot's of things possible and imaginable, that's why I'm doing some kind of brain storm on the issue and that's why I'm so outspoken about that it has to be transparent. One thing is to be blocked. Another not to know about it or even worth being shadow banned. I consider for example that sites should have list of blocked people or blocked pods, so people are free to decide if they want to be on that pod under that specific circumstances. Once I managed to lure my son onto a pod. I even recommended a specific pod. He hopped on that one. The pod owners started hatting me because I didn't shared their political views and started talking about the need to prevent their users from me. They didn't blocked me as for I saw but they literally could have blocked me from having contact with my family without anybody being aware of it. Unless they have a profile that publishes every blocking activity in the very moment and a page with a list.
The right to free speech doesn't mean that everybody has to listen to it or host it.
The same way you can't tolerate intolerance.
network fragmentation
I guess network fragmentation isn't inherently bad and maybe the only solution to moderation/censorship by algorithms in big networks.

If you just connect the whole world without "protections" like suitable blocking and sorting features and "diplomacy" you probably get a world war.

Human kind is not a swarm animal, we are tribal.

I do agree that all this undermines censorship resistance and I consider it crucial for example unless there is no other option to not code, publish or integrate in the core protocol blocking features that later on could be enforced by law to be enabled. Like to say, we code a pod blocking feature put it into the D* core code because of a spaming pod and dictatorial countries putt podadmins in jail because they don't activate it block "the rest of the world".
Pod’s can close registry. Pod’s can enable invite only, pod’s can kick people out, pod’s can ban profiles from other pod’s and if they can’t right now eventually block entirely other pods.
Yes, of course. However as a whole the system is pretty much unrestricted. A lot like e-mail, only with a little more verification. This ensures diversity and helps freedom but it also enables misuse.

I do agree that blocking isn't inherently bad and it has to be transparent. It is just I doubt there are any quick fixes.

Again, with e-mail you don't even need your own server to spam someone. You can just fire up Telnet, connect to any mail server and submit messages there and sign them with fake address. Sure, there are some checks in place but it is ever going battle.