Yarn

Recent twts in reply to #scxyieq

@jlj@twt.nfld.uk @xuu hello! @prologic@twtxt.net and I were chatting about the question of globally deleting twts from the yarn.social network. @prologic@twtxt.net noted that he could build the tools and endpoints to delete twts, but some amount of cooperation from pod operators would be necessary to make it all work together. He asked me to spawn a discussion of the subject here, so here we are!

I don’t have enough technical knowledge of yarn.social to say with any credibility how it all should work, but I can say that I think it ought to be possible and it’d be good to do for those rare times when it’s needed.

⤋ Read More

So my thinking so far is:

  • We build a /api/v1/admin/delete API endpoint which takes {"hash": <hash>} as JSON input.
  • We build a yarnc admin delete <hash> sub-command (start a new sub-command group)

Which would delete a Twt by hash from the Pod’s archive and blacklist it (as it could come back from other pods via the Converge logic).

This would require manual operations to be performed by one or more cooperating / participating Pod operators in the network. And I think this would have to end up being a “culture” we build upon where we agree when incidents that require this happen, that we get together in some way to cooperatively agree on a Twt deletion.

A similar set of tools would have to be built for the Twtxt Search engine too, although I would probably do this by hand for now as it does not peer with pods and therefore has no way to bring back Twts from the dead from a convergence logic that yarnd has.

⤋ Read More

@mckinley@twtxt.net Yes this is “moderation” I guess, strictly speaking. Which I’m not too happy about, and seems unavoidable. Your comment raises an interesting question… Of whether we should do this at all, for risk of being abused to moderate away “unpopular” Twts across the network just because a few (a cooperative) don’t like them? (but are otherwise not in clear violation of community guidelines?) 🤔

⤋ Read More

Thinking about this some more… We could implement some kind of majority voting system whereby pods will only delete a Twt by hash from its archives there is a majority of votes within a network of peering pods? 🤔 This would avoid any kind of abuse, or mitigate it, as >50% would have to agree 😅 (oh wait where have I seen this before?! 🤦‍♂️)

⤋ Read More

@eaplmx@twtxt.net No, not really. In an ideal world, n operator of a multi-user pod would just nuke an account entirely that violates the (default) Abuse Policy – So really in hindsight that’s what should have happened I guess, but maybe I was just being nice in this instance… Problem of course is that this now opens up a can of worms…

In the past we’ve had some interesting folks swing by and post interesting stuff (to say the least) – you know the type of vulgar crap that nobody really cares for, or spam, etc. You don’t generally have to do anything about that because you as an individual can choose to “Unfollow” that feed, don’t follow them in the first place, mute them, mute the hash in question (for yourself), etc.

This is more of a case of direction violation of the abuse policy / community guidelines and more of how we want to shape things – without going too far down the “let’s moderate” everything BS

⤋ Read More

@prologic@twtxt.net If I was to run a pod, and I’d like to spin one up at some point, the abuse policy of twtxt.net (or any other pod) would be completely irrelevant. My users would be bound by the abuse policy of my pod, whether or my abuse policy matches yours.

Users on any pod should be free to mute any feed or conversation they dislike, and pod admins should be free to “mute” entire pods if they so choose.

I may be misunderstanding you here, but the motive behind this delete API seems to be to police the activities of users on other pods.

If a pod admin decides to delete a post on his pod as you have, that deletion should eventually be propagated throughout the network. It’s the same if a user chooses to delete his own post. However, you should not have any say over the deletion of a post on twt.nfld.uk. That’s @jlj@twt.nfld.uk’s decision to make.

I think @tkanos@twtxt.net and I are in agreement here, but I don’t want to speak for him.

⤋ Read More

@mckinley@twtxt.net Your understanding is correct. And there inlines the debate @lyse@lyse.isobeef.org and I had this morning. There is a conflict of “right to be forgotten” in EU GDPR law(s), what to do with clear violations of abuse (on your pod, _and how it affects other peering pods or the network as a whole)

I agree with you, I have no rights to determine what should or should not happen on say @jlj@twt.nfld.uk’s pod as much as he does mine. The default Abuse Policy is just that, the default.

⤋ Read More

@mckinley@twtxt.net

If a pod admin decides to delete a post on his pod as you have, that deletion should eventually be propagated throughout the network

The problem is this. ☝️ This is very hard to do “automatically” without having to also worry about “malicious” pods or software propagating unintended or unwanted “deletes”

⤋ Read More

Participate

Login to join in on this yarn.