Lemmy

2172 readers

23 users here now

Everything about Lemmy; bugs, gripes, praises, and advocacy.

For discussion about the lemmy.ml instance, go to [email protected].

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Are the new local-only communities also private by default? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

14 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I'm sure this will get clarified in the release notes for 19.4, and I'm probably annoyingly jumping the gun ... I'm just curious.

Otherwise, I find it cool to see this feature come out!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

I mean it's fine on paper. But like... imagine that a popular instance - lemmy.world, let's say - has a community that's very popular and, for whatever motivation, decides they want to push people to move to their instance (or at least create accounts there), so they change one or more of those popular communities to be local-only.

Best case, they fracture the community. Worse case, a very large number of users start making accounts there to use those communities, and abandon other instances. Worst case, they use the large influx of signups they get from such a move to promote themselves, grow even further, and eventually do something malicious.

We can already create private instances that don't federate for those niche communities; I don't really see what this feature is adding other than specifically having communities dedicated to that specific instance (With instance-specific information like donations, financials, outage notices, that sort of thing.)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

We can already create private instances that don’t federate for those niche communities;

That being said, creating a private instance is a relatively difficult hurdle. By providing private communities, an admin can take care of the hosting, along with all of the other communities, while those who want something more controlled and closed can have an easily accessible option. Plenty of people want their social media to have options for being relatively closed or relatively open, and I think it's healthy to provide those options.

I hear you though on the lemmy-world community closing possibility (and similar) ... that would easily be an abuse IMO and it's not entirely clear what would or could happen.

To be fair though, the whole lemmy-world instance (or any other for that matter) could simply turn federation off at any point to the same effect you fear, so it's arguably just part of the federation flexibility. In this case, any community mod has their hand on the switch for their community, which means we'll probably see it get used in controversial circumstances at least once. But for any given community, going either private or local-only is sure to drop user engagement or be a PITA regarding managing the "approved users" list, so I can't see it being a popular action TBH.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

That being said, creating a private instance is a relatively difficult hurdle. By providing private communities, an admin can take care of the hosting, along with all of the other communities, while those who want something more controlled and closed can have an easily accessible option.

That's fair, and I'm honestly probably just thinking about worst-case scenarios that won't actually happen. There's plenty of ways malicious actors could already be doing some pretty bad things and they don't seem to be, so it's probably fine.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

Still, I think you raise a relevant malicious path. Like I said, I wouldn’t be surprised if something contentious happens however infrequently.