we aren’t holding back on lemmy updates due to sublinks.

a moderator on another instance than the community instance

that was a logic flaw for the selection of which reports are considered for alerting. a fix is currently being deployed, but you should be good for the next 2 days anyway.

yes, but for admins, at least on LW scale, this isn’t something that is well usable for admins with built-in tools.

community mods and instance admins can see reports on the instance that reports are sent to, and they are currently only sent to the reporters instance, the community instance, and the reported users instance. community mods on another instance won’t see the reports.

The animal abuse alleged at the time was that there was supposedly no healthy vegan cat food.

While the section of the rules was the same (violent content), animal abuse was a separate sentence, not the one about visual depictions:

No visual content depicting executions, murder, suicide, dismemberment, visible innards, excessive gore, or charred bodies. No content depicting, promoting or enabling animal abuse. No erotic or otherwise suggestive media or text content featuring depictions of rape, sexual assault, or non-consensual violence. All other violent content should be tagged NSFW.

This is the exact same paragraph we have today and we had before these changes.

If there was no healthy vegan cat food then this would be considered content enabling animal abuse.

The ToS had no rules on misinformation at the time.

it still had rules about animal abuse, which this misinformation, had it actually been misinformation, would have lead to. while the removal reason could have been more clear, the justification was still covered by our ToS.

new rules created to back their talking points

the additional rules provided more clarification on what we intend to achieve with them, but they would not be required. based on what we know today the removal was neither justified by the original ToS nor by the updated ones.

you may have been thinking of https://poliverso.org/objects/0477a01e-1166-c773-5a67-70e129601762, which was neither lemmy devs, mastodon devs nor lemmy.world admins

the bot has been marked as bot since the very beginning and is also clearly marked as bot in the screenshot, so your comment does not apply here.

no, the join was bad

2FA has been restored for all LW users that had it enabled before and didn’t reactivate it on their own since.

There will be an announcement posted later on explaining what happened.

edit: announcement is out: https://lemmy.world/post/18503967

This was unfortunately an error on our end.

Please bear with us while we work on resolving this situation.

image proxying is currently not usable for us anyway, see e.g. https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/pull/4874

correct.

we don’t have an eta currently. we’re still keeping an eye on issues reported by other instances.

which features are you looking for?

@PugJesus@lemmy.world, you might have been posting only for LW users for a while :-/

this is unfortunately correct for the time being.

while we still have aggressive rate limits in place to limit federation impact from kbin bugs, which started with the measures that @sunaurus@lemm.ee mentioned, this wouldn’t impact activities coming from lemmy.world towards kbin.social.

while kbin.social used to break down every now and then based on what i saw people comment, service was typically restored within a short period of time. more recently however, any time i’ve looked at kbin.social in the past couple weeks, it’s only been showing an error page. i suspect it may have been unavailable the entire time, not just at the times i looked at it. looking at our federation stats, the last successfully sent activity from lemmy.world to kbin.social was dated 2024-06-18 00:12:25 UTC, although the actual send date may have been later. successful is also not necessarily guaranteed, as some error codes might be misinterpreted as success due to how servers can be set up and how response status codes are interpreted on the sending side.

if activities sent from lemmy.world don’t reach kbin.social then the posts and comments won’t be relayed to other instances. this is generally an issue in activitypub when instances are down, as such “orphaned” (at the time) communities effectively become local-only communities, isolated islands on all instances that already know about them.

at this point, the last time we’ve received an activity submission (federation traffic) from kbin.social as on 18th of June, so it seems like it was working for some time on that day and has been broken since.

at the start of this month, @ernest@kbin.social (kbin.social owner, main kbin dev) said that he was going to hand over management of kbin.social to someone else, as he’s currently unable to take care of it. presumably this hasn’t happened yet.

cough

we’ve switched from using multiple federation sending containers (which are supposed to split receiving instances across workers) to just using a single one.

maybe I misunderstood your comment, I read your Texas AG example as asking for information about users. did you mean Texas AG asking for the removal of comments where people are stating they’re trans?

as I’m very tired right now, I only want to comment on one of the arguments/questions you brought up.

you’re asking for the difference between taking down content and providing information about users.

its very simple actually. sharing non-public data is a very different story than removing access to otherwise public information, whether it’s originally coming from Lemmy.World or elsewhere.

when we take down content, even if it’s more than legally strictly necessary, the harm of such a takedown is at most someone no longer being able to consume other content or interact with a community. there is no irreversible harm done to anyone. if we decided to reinstate the community, then everyone would still be able to do the same thing they were able to do in the beginning. the only thing people may be missing out on would be some time and convenience.

if we were asked to provide information, such as your example of a Texas AG, this would neither be reversible nor have low impact on people’s lives. in my opinion, these two cases., despite both having a legal context, couldn’t be much further from each other.

Lemmy.World is legally primarily bound by the countries listed here.

If we get a request, of course we will evaluate that request.

When it comes to taking down content, such as copyright infringing content, we may err on the side of caution to reduce the legal risk we’re exposing ourselves to.

When it comes to handing over data that is not already publicly accessible, such as (not-really-)private messages or IP addresses of users, we will not “err on the side of caution” and hand out data to everyone, but we must follow the laws that we’re operating under. See also https://legal.lemmy.world/privacy-policy/#4-when-and-with-whom-do-we-share-your-personal-information.

The execution should have been better, but the decision itself was a team decision, not an individual admin decision without talking to the rest of the team.