I’m going to propose a new moderation setting in mastodon.

feld

@thisismissem @jerry

> there are cases where you want the server to know “hey, we rejected your message"

That's what we thought about email too and it formed the basis for mail bomb / backscatter attacks. This is just the Fediverse making the same mistakes all over again...

I guarantee this will be abused and cause servers to have a massive backlog of Rejects in their queues. Especially the attacker can ensure the Reject can never be delivered successfully.

IMO every Reject activity should be from deliberate human interaction so it can't be weaponized.

Communicating state with Accept/Reject for Follow Requests is the only option we've got. But trying to further establish state across the Fediverse for other activities is not something I'd recommend.

We need to stop trying to make the Fediverse act like a centralized platform because it cannot and will not work that way.

edit: also the more we do things like this the harder it will be to self-host on commodity hardware as it continues to raise the hardware requirements to process the garbage that will constantly be trying to crush your little fedi server. We already suffer under Mastodon Deletes, please don't send Rejects.

@girlintech @renchap that is a good idea. I think the problem the mastodon team has is that they have far more good ideas than they have capacity to deliver, so we need to help support them

Emelia 👸🏻

@girlintech @renchap @jerry I'm also working on labelling as a moderation feature via the Social Web Community Group ActivityPub Trust and Safety Taskforce, which could enable things like this.

Bluesky Moderation Services are in a very similar implementation space to FASPs.

Renaud Chaput

@jerry @girlintech yes, thats a good idea, and should not be hard to implement. Need to think about what to display (ie a notification? A web banner? An email? A not-yet-designed-server-initiated-annoucement?)

Emelia 👸🏻

@feld @jerry we are already starting to use Accept/Reject for other purposes, e.g., reply controls: https://docs.gotosocial.org/en/latest/federation/posts/#requesting-obtaining-and-validating-approval

Aleksandra Lesya

@renchap @jerry if i where me i would so simple and put it into their notification (because many people are on application), simply the admin account of mastodon generate a notification.

but i don't know if it's possible tough

Renaud Chaput

@girlintech @jerry every client would need to implement this notification type, thats the main issue

feld

@thisismissem @jerry Stop this please. There's no need for it. If you don't want to receive replies to a post, just drop them. The senders do not need to know that the server does not want responses to a public post. There is no benefit to this.

If the server software (Mastodon, GoToSocial) supports recognizing these locked threads it should deny the ability to send the reply in the first place.

If the server software does not support recognizing these locked threads there is no point in responding with a Reject. They won't understand the Reject anyway.

Just add a new key to the activity/object and let software that understands it Do The Right Thing

️.

Emelia 👸🏻

@feld @jerry I wasn't involved in this, but this is already in production by GoToSocial — they opted to not do a FEP for this

feld

@thisismissem @jerry then please make sure Mastodon does not make this same mistake.

If GoToSocial wants to pretend that it's possible to lock a thread and keep people from having a discussion they can do that.

But it won't accomplish anything outside their bubble. The users of any other software that exists can still have a discussion under that public parent post. The trolls and harassers will continue to do what they do, you just won't see it. Which can be accomplished by simply muting the thread or silently dropping the activities.

Emelia 👸🏻

@feld @jerry cc @dansup since I know you were working on a FEP for what GoToSocial did with interaction policies.

Jaz (IFTAS)

@renchap @jerry @girlintech Unfortunately, many servers are doing this today, but in a vacuum with no broader conversation to address these issues. Stop words are often used in reclaimed language or recounted lived experience, such use would need to consider how to avoid unintended consequences.

Ideally, new accounts using stop words could be put on hold for approval, and posts containing words from e.g. https://weaponizedword.org/languages could be quietly (as in, no report) flagged for review

Jaz (IFTAS)

@renchap @jerry @girlintech
>and then decide on what to do if we present such a list

I don't think it would be in a platform's interest to present a list (other than the one used by a flagship instance), but instead to point to culturally sensitive, context-aware resources for each community and server to review for applicability to their individual use case.

Open registration servers in the global north will have very different needs than a marginalised community seeking to build safe space.

GunChleoc

@jaz @renchap @jerry @girlintech I use a bot for flagging by keyword, which is done by sending myself a DM, which is the only way to currently do this in Mastodon. This means that moderators can't share the load

mastodon-scripts

mastodon-scripts - Useful scripts for Mastodon moderation/administration

Codeberg.org (codeberg.org)

I haven't got a lot of slurs flagged up so far because my instance is small, but my configuration has become pretty good at detecting legitimate porn coming in from other instances.

GunChleoc

@jaz @renchap @jerry @girlintech
Also, catching Nazi number codes seriously overgenerates, so it's useless on that front.