Skip Navigation

Lemmy's Image Problem (Updated 02-06-2024)

Highlighting the recent report of users and admins being unable to delete images, and how Trust & Safety tooling is currently lacking.

85 comments
  • I find it very questionable that you publish this sort of hit piece against Lemmy without even bothering to ask for a comment from our side. This is not how journalism should work.

    Effectively you are blowing the complaints of a single user completely out of proportion. It is true that we didnt respond ideally in the mentioned issue, but neither is it okay for a user to act so demanding towards open source developers who provide software for free. You also completely ignore that this is an exception, there are thousands of issues and pull requests in the Lemmy repos which are handled without any problems.

    Besides you claim that we dont care about moderation, user safety and tooling which is simply not true. If you look at the 0.19.0 release notes there are numerous features in these areas, such as instance blocking, better reports handling and a new moderator view. However we also have to work on improvements to many other features, and our time is limited.

    Finally you act like 4000€ per month is a lot of money, however thats only 2000€ for each of us. We could stop developing Lemmy right now and work for a startup or corporation for three or four times the amount of money. Then we also wouldnt have to deal with this kind of meaningless drama. Is that what you want to achieve with your website?

  • Well, yeah...

    If you upload a picture to Lemmy, it's going to get saved by a shit of federated instances.

    That's how federation works, but once it happens, it's hard to get all of them to delete it.

    The fix is easy:

    Upload somewhere else (theres a bunch of images hosts) then make your post point to that image host. Federated instances just have to host the link, so it's good for them too.

    I'd love to see something like the RES feature where Lemmy can still show an expandable thumbnail for non-hosted images. RES pulled it off fine years ago, not sure how hard it would be.

    But that would fix all these issues

    • So, to be clear, the story the article links to is specifically a case of local content that didn't actually federate. It was an accidental upload, he cancelled the post, it sat in storage, and even his admin was stumped about how to get it out.

      I agree that with federation, it's a lot more messy. But, having provisions to delete things locally, and try to push out deletes across the network, is absolutely better than nothing.

      The biggest issue I have is that there's really not much an admin can do at the moment if CSAM or some other horrific shit gets into pict-rs, short of using a tool to crawl through the database and use API calls to hackily delete things. Federation aside, at least make it easy for admins and mods to handle this on their home servers.

    • I have to say, I think the article actually does address what you’re saying, in particular here:

      There are a couple of reasons as to why this is so surprising. Firstly, the Trust & Safety aspect: a few months ago, several Lemmy servers were absolutely hammered with CSAM, to the point that communities shut down and several servers were forced to defederate from one another or shut down themselves.

      Simply put, the existing moderation tooling is not adequate for removing illegal content from servers. It’s bad enough to have to jump through hoops dealing with local content, but when it comes to federated data, it’s a whole other ball game.

      The second, equally important aspect is one of user consent. If a user accidentally uploads a sensitive image, or wants to wipe their account off of a server, the instance should make an effort to comply with their wishes. Federated deletions fail sometimes, but an earnest attempt to remove content from a local server should be trivial, and attempting to perform a remote delete is better than nothing.

      I also just want to point out that the knife cuts both ways. Yes, it’s impossible to guarantee nodes you’re federating with aren’t just ignoring remote delete requests. But, there is a benefit to acting in good faith that I think is easy to infer from the CSAM material example the article presents.

    • Upload somewhere else (theres a bunch of images hosts) then make your post point to that image host. Federated instances just have to host the link, so it’s good for them too.

      Those images are still cached as well as the thumbnails.

    • Couldn't images and videos just be loaded from the instance they were uploaded to instead of getting copied to each instance? It would work almost the same as uploading it to a file hoster but it would be a lot easier usability wise and illegal content would still only have to be deleted at a single point.

    • Yeah it's like trying to delete a torrent that you created lol, deleting stuff from the Internet is not so easy. Even websites that claim to allow you to delete stuff may still be backed up by The Wayback Machine or similar, or even just a random user who liked your post and downloaded it.

      I would like improvements here, but you should probably still be careful about anything you post if you're worried about being able to delete it, no matter what site you're on.

  • Because of this, I never upload directly an image to Lemmy and others, using instead a sharing tool (FileCoffee, IMHO the best). With my account there I can easily delete the hosted image with which it disappear everywhere.

    • It's not a bad thought, but the way some Fediverse software works, it can still get proxied and/or cached locally.

      • That is a general problem in the internet, not only in Lemmy, images andother content can be copied, this you can't avoid, it would even be imposible if you could delete embedded images in Lemmy, someone could have copied and pasted it somewhere else. But by using an imagesharer where you later delete the image, you also eliminate your origin as the author, since it no longer appears in your contributions in Lemmy or other sites.

  • Moderation is obviously important, but what are the realities around deletion in a federated ecosystem?

    I feel like the push around this and GDPR are similar to the DMs situation in mastodon, where you might feel like you’ve deleted your stuff but it’s actually very much out there still.

    I’m sure there’s a middle ground where some amount of deletion occurs and it’s better than nothing. But as with the BlueSky bridge conversation, it seems to me having a frank conversation about the kind of system we’re dealing with here is just as important.

    • Yeah, I agree. I think the important thing is "was the local content scrubbed?" Because at least if that was done, the place of origin no longer has it.

      Federated deletes will always be imperfect, but I'd rather have them than not have them.

      What might actually be interesting would be if someone could figure out this type of content negotiation: deletes get federated, some servers miss it. Maybe there's a way to get servers to check the cache and, if a corresponding origin value is no longer there, dump it?

      • Well I’m sure there are a number of nice ways of arranging federated delete, including your suggestion, but it seems to me that the issue is guaranteeing a delete across all federated servers where the diversity of software and the openness/opt-out-ness of federation basically ensure something somewhere will not respect a request out of either malice, ignorance or error.

        Ultimately, it seems a weird thing to be creating and expecting fediverse platforms in the image of those designed with complete central control over all data and servers. Like we’re still struggling to break out of the mould.

        Even if one platform makes a perfect arrangement for something like delete, so long as servers running that platform push to / federate with servers that run something else, where it’s ultimately impossible to tell what they’re running because it’s someone else’s server, there will be broken promises.

        I’m interested to hear your response on this actually, because it increasingly seems to me like we haven’t got to terms yet with what decentralisation actually means and how libertarian some of its implications are once you care about these sorts of issues.

        I suspect it gets to the point where for social activity some people may start realising that they actually want a centralised body they can hold to account.

        And that feeling secure on a decentralised social media platform requires significant structural adjustments, like e2ee, allow-list federation, private spaces, where public spaces are left for more blog like and anonymous interactions.

        Also, sorry, end rant.

      • Maybe encryption can help? Instances only copy the encrypted image, and only the original instance provides the encryption key to client apps. This way, the original instance can de-facto delete the image copies by simply refusing to issue the key.

85 comments