this post was submitted on 11 Mar 2024

54 points (93.5% liked)

Lemmy.world Support

3134 readers

44 users here now

Lemmy.world Support

Welcome to the official Lemmy.world Support community! Post your issues or questions about Lemmy.world here.

This community is for issues related to the Lemmy World instance only. For Lemmy software requests or bug reports, please go to the Lemmy github page.

This community is subject to the rules defined here for lemmy.world.

To open a support ticket

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

ruud

MrKaplan

Lemmy.world blocks VPNs (self.support)

submitted 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) by DeadNinja to c/support

27 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Basically the title. I use MullVad, and recently discovered that Lemmy.world is not allowing me to submit new posts or commenting on others' posts if I have my VPN on.

For now I have excluded my Lemmy client of choice (Voyager) from my VPN, so things are back to normal.

As a reason behind this, I read elsewhere that this blocking of VPN is intentional as certain people posted CSAM while behind VPN. This is pretty despicable, so I totally support shutting those people out.

However, on that same note, I think it is fair to assume that every post and comment on Lemmy is stored along with the IP address of the User. Is that right?

Edit : Some readers are confirming that they can write posts and comments in Lemmy.world while on a VPN - and I wholeheartedly thank them. I only posted what I personally (and some other lemmings as well) experienced. I still do not know if this is a widespread problem or only happening to a few.

all 31 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 33 points 3 months ago

There are plenty of valid reasons to use a VPN that don't involve illegal activity. I hope they figure out a better way of addressing this issue.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I disagree with the VPN ban, but I understand the purpose.

Isn't there a better way? Is there a back end that can be added to scan uploads for matching CSAM hashes?

[–] [email protected] 35 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Admins are doing both. (Am an admin of another instance, not lemmy.world).

Fact is is that the people who ask for privacy behind the VPN are very flippant when it comes to actual attacks. Everyone is pretty quick to forget the CSAM and spam attacks that were happening only a couple of weeks ago.

I used to think "Yeah go privacy, go anonymous", but the fact is that bad actors ruined that for everyone else, so yeah, had to clamp down. For anyone who disagrees, I welcome them to host their own instance where they can allow anyone and anything. They can take up the fight with their respective governments, I'm going to focus on the people who are just here to hang out and chill.

[+] [email protected] -15 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Hmmm, should we universalize that argument? Say, nazis ruined free speech, no more free speech? Criminals ruined the 5th amendment and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, so now cops can beat confessions out of you?

[–] elbarto777 12 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You win today's Godwin.

[+] [email protected] -8 points 3 months ago (2 children)

X ruined Y, so lets take Y away from everyone because the small number of X ruined it.

Better?

It's a dumb argument. It would be like saying that one person had an elective abortion with a viable fetus, and therefore we need to ban all abortions. Despite the fact that it's a very, very rare occurrence, and can be handled in different way.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)

No, its more like "i own a library. I dont want people shouting in my library. Anyone shouting in my library will be kicked out"

Someone that shouts in a library is more than welcome to start their own library where shouting is allowed, even welcomed, encouraged or mandatory

[+] [email protected] -3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago

Its not illegal to use a VPN nor is it illegal to use a VPN to access lemmy.world, nor will anyone hold lemmy.world accountable for people accessing it via a VPN.
Lemmy.world has chosen to block access via VPNs.
That is their choice.

Lets swap the metaphor around a bit.
Its not illegal to enter a library via a window.
I could build a staircase to the window of my hypothetical library, and use that as the main entrance.
I wouldnt get arrested. The people using it wouldnt get arrested. Everything would be fine, might even be a great selling point to get more business.

The reason people arent allowed to enter libraries via a window is because there is a perfectly good front door, and its likely people that continue to try and access a library via a window are probably up to no good.
Maybe they are there to burn books, deface books, or just steal the computers that have been running for the last 20 years without any maintenance. Or maybe they might plant extremely inappropriate content amongst other books, or even illegal content amongst other books. Or maybe they have an aversion to main entrances, cant get to a library during normal business hours and desperately need something new to read, or are worried the person at the front desk will recognise them.
Who knows. Could be innocent, could be excentric, could be nefarious.
Its easier to prevent people entering via the windows, have monitoring to ensure people dont enter via the windows, and have a general social norm of "someone trying to get through a window is bad, and should be reported to authorities to make sure they arent up to no good" and just have everyone use the front door.

Anyone that actually includes non-vpn access to something like lemmy.world in their threat model are hopefully smart enough to get a VPS with a clean IP address.
Because a VPN doesnt add any extra headers or data to the traffic. VPN traffic is often blocked by looking up the origin IP (ie the VPN exit node's public IP address) against a database of known malicious IP addresses. Thats it. Get a clean IP address, and move on with your life

[–] elbarto777 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

This is wildly off-topic, but define "rare occurrence." Because I'm sure it's more common than you and I think.

Edit: I stand corrected.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

First, pretty much every state in the US has banned elective abortion past the point of fetal viability, even the dark blue ones that have liberal Democratic supermajorities. That means that past 24-26 weeks--which is generally the point of fetal viability--an elective abortion is already illegal. That's six months for earliest viability. How many people do you think get up to seven months pregnant and say, "nope, changed my mind"? The answer is, almost none. The few people that get that far without wanting a baby are women that didn't realize they were pregnant because they never gained much weight, they had wildly irregular periods before pregnancy, and had spotting during pregnancy, etc. Almost all of the women that have abortions later than 13 weeks only have them because the fetus is not viable. 94% of all abortions are at 13 weeks or earlier. So right there, only 7% of abortions--which makes it at least uncommon--are even past 13 weeks, much less right up on the 24-week limit.

Anecdotally, my ex-wife had a later term (about 18-20 weeks) abortion when she was a teen. She didn't know she was pregnant because she wasn't gaining weight, and was still spotting. Her doctor told her that she had twins, that it was highly unlikely she would be able to carry to term without miscarrying, and it would be significantly detrimental to her health to try.

[–] elbarto777 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Thanks. I had the wrong definition of fetal viability, and what you say of course makes sense. I stand corrected.

Also, I'm sorry your wife had to go through that experience.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

Ex-wife. From what she told me, the worst part was having to tell her mom that she'd gotten pregnant.

My current--hopefully final--wife has also had an abortion, and she too has zero regrets about it. IIRC that was a birth control failure with her 2nd husband.

I had a vasectomy about 20 years ago, when I first got real, grown-up adult health insurance, because I've known for years that I didn't want to pass my genes on. :)

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

None of that is relevant to my server. All I care about is that I host my own server, and that means I'm responsible for it. If you care so much you go host your own server.

[–] Paragone -1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Define "free speech":

Mass-shooters exercise mass-murder as their free speech, even though that style of free speech is illegal.

The denser the population, the more each expression deforms other's lives.

Tribal villages can just move elsewhere, to create space, but NYC can't.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Mass murder isn't free speech, because it directly infringes on the rights of other people. To wit, your freedom to swing your fists around in the air ends at my face. Expressions that do not cause direct harm, by their nature, are generally covered under 1A. Calls to commit genocide that don't rise to the level of incitement, for instance, are covered by free speech protections (e.g., nazis marching in the heavily Jewish city of Skokie, IL). Outright lies and yes, defamatory comments, are covered by 1A protections. (In the case of defamatory speech, the government has no course of action; Trump lost a suit brought by E. Gene Carrol for defamation, not a criminal prosecution by the gov't.) Child pornography is not covered by 1A protections, because child pornography can't be created without committing acts that are otherwise illegal. Generally speaking, when the gov't has a legitimate interest in controlling certain forms of speech that are likely to cause harm--such as incitement--principles of strict scrutiny apply; the laws restricting 1A rights are supposed to be as narrow as possible to achieve the stated goals. Prior restraint is also usually not a thing without being very, very narrowly crafted.

Generally, it's authoritarians and reactionaries that want to intentionally blur the lines between speech and actions.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago

That's incredibly trivial to bypass

[–] 9tr6gyp3 9 points 3 months ago

Posting this while using Mullvad and Voyager

[–] dontwakethetrees 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Is it only some Mullvad servers that are flagged/blocked? I’ve used quite a few different servers (across North America and the EU) through Mullvad VPN and lemmy.world hasn’t blocked me afaik.

[–] DeadNinja 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Good question.

[–] NateNate60 2 points 3 months ago

@[email protected]

It's an old comment, but yes. I'm using NordVPN and it seems the San Francisco server is also blocked from commenting. It results in a 401.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

Not a lemmy.world user but Mullvad yes.

[–] EarWorm 1 points 3 months ago

This comment was posted using Voyager and a VPN (SurfShark).

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Wow, I feel more justified than ever in leaving World.

First they blocked the piracy communities, then the mushroom/psychedelic communities, and now vpns? No thanks.

[–] hal_5700X 14 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

they blocked the piracy communities

~~To be fair, they added them back.~~

Nevermind. They did it again.