The main suggestion isn’t simply verification of Matrix accounts but being able to use a Matrix account instead of email to sign-up to servers. Also to be able to use Matrix in addition to Email for account recovery. Would be an alternate method of verifying the account, as well as enforcing usage of Matrix usage if Lemmy admins desire that.

The verification of Matrix account ownership isn’t really the primary goal, it’s just a nice side effect. It wouldn’t be in effect though unless the server had one of the first two options checked, if it’s the other two options it wouldn’t need to be verified to be added.

@kariboka@social.harpia.red Might be able to, but that might be a bit complex since XMPP has the same syntax as email (address@domain.tld), the way that Matrix is, it has a different syntax than email (@username:domain.tld) so the sign-up form could detect it differently than email. Which is why the requirement would be “Matrix or Email required”, not “Matrix and Email required”. Then you could have one single line in the sign-up form and it would still be familiar to most users.

I haven’t made any arguments in this thread, you are putting words in my mouth, and not really helping your credibility. All I said is that the person should defederate Lemmy instances and communities which go against the mission of their instance. Something that almost all instance operators would likely agree on.

Just for the record though, I don’t believe people should be kicked out of a project based on their nationality, that seems incredibly xenophobic. I don’t know where you got that idea that I said any of those things from.

Still worth while to do so, the trick is you need to defederate problematic instances. Not hide them, fully defederate. That stops problematic instances and communties from affecting your userbase. There’s many great Lemmy servers and communties out there. Just because a few of them aren’t great doesn’t mean you should dismiss all of them.

Also tracking protection in the browser to prevent reading browser history and such. Security and privacy practices are absolutely paramount if you’re planning on visiting services like that. Of course the best thing is to not visit them at all but some people feel they need to see it for themselves, if they choose they should be prepared and keep themselves safe.

I think it’s just very messed up, ultimately it doesn’t work against the real nasty people Reddit claims to be going up against because those people have bot armies that monitor their astroturf accounts so they know when the shadowbans happen and dump the account to move on to the next ones. No this system disproportionately affects the people who aren’t expecting it and probably don’t even deserve it.

Also for braindead spammers it’s actually a terrible strategy because spammers’ purpose is both to annoy users and chew through your resources, even if they are shadowbanned and uploading multiple gigabytes of white noise they aren’t annoying people but they are chewing through bandwidth and CDN storage. IMO that’s not feasible long term, and wouldn’t even be initially feasible for most Fediverse services, hence why most basically just don’t do it.

Don’t forget about shadowbans that attempt to make it seem like you aren’t banned when your entire account is hidden without your knowledge.

Stopping viewing on a per-account basis doesn’t make sense to me, since people don’t need accounts to view any content in Lemmy, therefore it’s trivial to bypass by logging out or fetching the discussion information without logging in from a custom frontend. What would be better is simply stopping them from interracting, just like what happens with bans, they can still view but all interractions are simply dropped or disallowed.

You should report them as trolls in any case, most instances on Lemmy have rules against trolling in general, further violations beyond that just add to the initial violation of trolling.

Hopefully fediverse admins are sensible enough to ban users who are blatantly posting advertisements. I know that a lot are, but I also know that a few of the bigger servers tend to turn a blind eye to that kind of thing.

The guy who runs the growyourownservices network despite seeming very professional is extremely emotionally biased and hates Lemmy as a software (and seemingly any instances that will choose to run that software, regardless of their affiliation towards the developers).

So he basically refuses to acknowledge the existence of Lemmy and by extension a large portion of the threaded fediverse, and when he does acknowledge it he’s talking shit about it.

Being able to support threading would be nice, a lot of clients don’t have that feature, spaces too would also be nice. Also the E2E encryption is a must since a lot of Matrix communication have it enabled by default.

It’s not nearly the same as following communities or groups, it’s just a collection of posts grouped by tags, as opposed to a space where people discuss or post about a more broad topic. Also Communities and groups typically invite more interaction than simply tagging posts by virtue of being a place people post as opposed to simply being a post tag category.

I should note that there are groups on Mastodon (Not really in Mastodon itself but federated Group actors from other services show up there) though they are less intuitive and thus are usually overlooked by most Mastodon users.

Maybe one of the forks or backend replacements could implement an option using it to make it compliant. I wouldn’t go with the OP’s solution since privacy is non-existent on Lemmy, but just blocking interaction seems like it would be enough to make it compliant, and prevent the harassment issues mentioned, I made an issue which addresses this in the Lemmy Github, it proposes a new feature rather than changing the existing blocks because it’s good to have mutes and blocks at the same time.

Unfortunately Lemmy isn’t like that and does not follow activitypub spec in that regard, in their current form the block doesn’t seem to do that at all and simply hides the blocked user from the blocking user as if the blocked user didn’t exist. There are no checks on interactions.

Also if you’re wondering how it works with Mastodon, Lemmy basically ignores Mastodon’s blocking system and freely allows interraction with Mastodon accounts in the thread even if they blocked the user replying, and also the community actor.

Yup this happened a lot on Reddit. As much as people complain about the newer two way blocking system on Reddit this type of harassment disappeared basically overnight when that rolled out. It largely was a good thing because for every user who was legitimately being abused by it, there were a lot who were benefiting from it by stopping harassment from others.

Now Lemmy can implement anything but nothing could ever prevent blocked/muted user to create another account in order to continue harassment.

Not a great argument because the same could also apply to community and site bans.

I think that having more tools to fight harassment is ultimately a good thing, are these tools perfect? Of course not, but they are still better than having nothing.

I think the only way to prevent such issue would be a system which would require to prove identity in some way in order to create a single account. But this is completely against the openness of a federated network.

Indeed it is, plus it doesn’t stop those malicious enough to commit a felony just to harass someone but that is neither here nor there, this discussion is about protective measures that can be done before ban evasion.

A good two way blocking system should mainly focus on preventing interaction from the blocked user (The specs of Activitypub mention interraction, as opposed to viewing), even if they don’t hide it, the interactions from the blocked user wouldn’t be federated as if they were a banned user.

I don’t think that blocking people from seeing posts really makes sense since they can just log out to see them, it’s all public. So I don’t really feel like hiding content from them is very useful since they can view it without an account. What is really needed is a way to restrict users from interacting, I made an issue addressing this it would be treated as a kind of profile ban, similar to community bans but for individual users but even when banned people can still view and read, like they always could before.

The simple fact of the matter is, the Fediverse is public. It’s a space specifically built on sharing.

You’re thinking about it wrong, a good blocking system doesn’t need to hide the content but rather block interaction from the offending user, like a softer form of a ban, but only for that specific user. They can still see all content from the user but they just aren’t allowed to interact anymore. Could they bypass it with alt accounts? Yes but they can also bypass bans as well using that same method, so it’s not a good argument against something like that.