There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

pewgar_seemsimandroid ,

there’s a delete button

ttmrichter ,
@ttmrichter@lemmy.world avatar

You know, I think I’m going to make some software that just siphons every ActivityPub message (ignoring delete requests except to log them) and call it “GDPR THIS”. The amount of mysticism and confusion around two very basic concepts (ActivityPub works by copying profusely, and the GDPR has no weight outside of the EU) just leaves me baffled here.

thefactremains ,

This is a lot like spray painting a message on a public wall in a neighborhood and then complaining because the community won’t paint over it (or destroy photos they took of it) when you realize how dumb it was.

You’re writing on a public space for free with no business behind it. You’re not the customer in this scenario.

KISSmyOS ,

That’s the beauty of the fediverse. There are no customers, there is no product, this is no business.

scrubbles ,
@scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech avatar

From their history, maybe their comment is this one they wanted deleted:

“software engineer” is such a stupid, shallow and arrogant description. I’m not an engineer and neither are you. I’m a software developer, developer for short. All these fake “engineers” and “scientists” tend to be arrogant stuck up pricks.

Idk OP, maybe step one is to be less of a jerk to people. If you do that you won’t have to worry as much about if things are deleted

kglitch , (edited )

OP is simply incorrect.

I'm coding a Lemmy alternative right now and have been testing this functionality out extensively. Deletes of posts and comments certainly federate, I've seen the AP traffic to make it happen. Also, the docs: https://join-lemmy.org/docs/contributors/05-federation.html#delete-post-or-comment

I haven't tested what happens when the 'delete account' button is clicked... Mastodon solves this by sending a 'delete this user' Activity to every fediverse instance so there's nothing about ActivityPub that makes removing an account and all it's posts in one go impossible.

ttmrichter ,
@ttmrichter@lemmy.world avatar

Deletion of entities is optional in ActivityPub. That, by definition, makes known-removal of an account and all its posts in one go impossible, because a server can just ignore the deletion activity.

kglitch ,

Yes, although the server will not ignore the deletion activity if that server is running Lemmy. We're talking about Lemmy here, not the fediverse as a whole. OP singled out Lemmy in the post title and said "lemmy devs are not concerned with..."

I'm sure there is more to be done in this area. It'd be great to know for sure which software treats deletion activities properly (I'm really unsure about Kbin, I think it does not) and which does not so instance admins can make informed decisions about who they federate with. Perhaps this information could be made available right within the UI that Lemmy admins use to control their instance, rather than an obscure documentation page somewhere...

IMO having deletes federate should be part of a minimum standard all fediverse software has to meet (plus mod tools, spam control, csam filters, etc) before it is allowed to federate but obviously we're nowhere near having that sort of social organisation.

ttmrichter ,
@ttmrichter@lemmy.world avatar

How would you even know if deletes federate?

“Does your server respect delete activities?”

“Yeah. Yeah. Delete activities. Definitely. We totally respect them. Scout’s honour.”

Tell me: how much closer are you to knowing if the server is caching or not?

This is likely why deletion is optional. The people making the protocol know there’s no way to enforce it.

kglitch ,

As long as a deleted post is no longer visible in the publicly-accessible parts of the site, that would be enough verification for me.

I don't know how the GDPR authorities verify compliance with mainstream proprietary closed source apps, do you?

r00ty Admin ,
r00ty avatar

I think in terms of gdpr, if you notify a site that is providing service (allows users to register from I guess) to EU countries you want something deleted, they need to comply.

But I think in terms of federated content, you cannot be expected to do more than send information about the deletion out. If other instances don't respect it, it's not the originating instance's job to police it.

Now the user could go to these other instances and chase it up. But I wonder if a third party instance doesn't allow users from EU countries, if they'd be required to comply? Federated content opens up a an interesting set of scenarios that will surely test privacy laws.

I also wonder what the EU powers are to sites in non EU countries that allow EU users but don't respect GDPR. what can they even do? Companies like twitter, Facebook, reddit etc have presences in EU countries that can be pursued, but John Smith running a lemmy instance on a $5 vps might be out of reach.

HKayn ,
@HKayn@dormi.zone avatar

But I think in terms of federated content, you cannot be expected to do more than send information about the deletion out. If other instances don’t respect it, it’s not the originating instance’s job to police it.

It actually is.

When delegating the processing of PII to someone else (like another instance), you’re supposed to initiate a data processing agreement with them: gdpr.eu/what-is-data-processing-agreement/

Unless Mastodon has somehow automated this process in inter-instance communication, they are just as liable as Lemmy is.

r00ty Admin ,
r00ty avatar

But pii isn't being sent. A user's nickname and the domain of their instance plus any content they create is. If they choose to put their pii in public posts or user info, that's their choice but is not pii solicited in order to operate the service, it was volunteered.

It's a crucial difference. I considered this when writing the terms and data retention information for my own instance. Federation is very frugal about the information shared.

ttmrichter ,
@ttmrichter@lemmy.world avatar

Short of having someone inspect the databases, they can’t. The GDPR is a threat, basically, that says “if (or, rather, when) the truth outs, we can nail you later”. Which is why it’s really only effective on big players anyway.

FaceDeer ,
@FaceDeer@kbin.social avatar

And it's only effective on players that have some kind of EU presence, otherwise there's nothing the EU can put that nail into.

0xtero ,
@0xtero@kbin.social avatar

Effect of ActivityPub, not Lemmy. All federating systems function similarly, because it's a feature of the protocol.
If instances want, they can ignore delete requests and your content stays in their cache forever (remember Pleroma nazis from couple of years ago?) - now, that is an instance problem that might be a GDPR issue, but good luck reporting it to anyone who cares. At best you can block and defederate, but that doesn't mean your posts are removed.

The fediverse has no privacy, it's "public Internet". Probably a good idea to treat it as such.

ttmrichter ,
@ttmrichter@lemmy.world avatar

GDPR is international now? Do I need to break out Nelson Muntz when some Euro type thinks European law is extraterritorial?

Don’t make me break out Nelson Muntz, please.

Sheeple ,
@Sheeple@lemmy.world avatar

It’s mostly important for when you wanna do business in the European markets.

The alternative is to be blocked by most of Europe entirely. Happens usually to tabloid news sites as they are often in violation of anti misinformation and hate speech laws. It’s also why they could sue Facebook so easily as otherwise Facebook would be non-GDRP compliant and be blocked there.

Lemmy however isn’t exactly for profit, so sees much less scrutiny. This is primarily for business after all. Lemmy doesn’t have ads, doesn’t take users money, nor does it sell products. It also does not actively distribute illegal media either.

(it should be noted that it’s usually not the EU doing the blocking but rather so websites choosing to block viewership from the EU because they’d rather do that than get sued to hell)

ttmrichter ,
@ttmrichter@lemmy.world avatar

“Lemmy” doesn’t do ANYTHING. Lemmy is server software. It has no agency whatsoever.

Individual Lemmy sites might be beholden to the GDPR (or not, if individually run). But any site hosted outside of the EU can wave its ass in the faces of EU officials trying to enforce the GDPR.

skullgiver , (edited )
@skullgiver@popplesburger.hilciferous.nl avatar

deleted_by_author

    •
    ttmrichter ,
    @ttmrichter@lemmy.world avatar

    India? China? Japan? Vanuatu? …

    Know what? I think I’ll just link instead of list because I can’t be arsed to type out all the names.

    So it’s “international” as a technicality, but the context he was using it in implied he meant “universal”. And it barely qualifies even as international against the sheer weight of non-EU, non-US states.

    skullgiver , (edited )
    @skullgiver@popplesburger.hilciferous.nl avatar

    deleted_by_author

    •
    ttmrichter ,
    @ttmrichter@lemmy.world avatar

    I have a ridiculous judgement against me in Germany. (Complicated shenanigans around an inheritance where the authorities’ legal representatives did shady shit specifically to unload an estate that would have cost them.) Technically I owe the city of Frankfurt something like 50,000€ in fines.

    I’m comfortable with this.

    Why?

    Because good fucking luck enforcing a European fine on a Canadian citizen resident in China. Even if they catch me out when I visit Germany (which I have done a couple of times without incident since the judgement was levied against me), watch the judge make grumpy-faces at attorneys who sent legal documents in German to a Canadian in China whose repeated requests for translated versions was denied. Their case will vanish in a puff of legal sanctions and I’ll make fucking sure on top of it that it becomes a press circus.

    EU types are almost as bad as American types for thinking their laws are extraterritorial. I love rubbing the fact that they aren’t in their faces.

    r00ty Admin ,
    r00ty avatar

    It's not really as simple as that. Businesses in countries outside the EU have to follow the gdpr rules if they have or want customers from the EU because the EU can hit them financially in their EU operations.

    Normal people offering a free service that are not based in the EU probably cannot be pursued at all. I doubt the EU considered people that might not be some business wanting to profit from EU citizens.

    BloodSlut ,

    GDPR is for companies/corporations to “respect” user’s requests about their data.

    Lemmy (ActivityPub, actually) isnt a company.

    What you are saying is the equivalent of saying that the concept of writing is in direct violation of GDPR.

    What you probably can do is request that an instance remove your content… And then do the same for every single other instance of any platform that implements ActivityPub (and not all of them will even have data coming from you) and is federated with your instance. And the only ones that would really need to comply are those that are based or operating in the EU.

    This is still the internet, not some magical place.

    Use some of the most basic fundamental internet safety rules and don’t provide potentially compromising information for no reason whatsoever. Especially since this isnt a corporation such as Facebook or Google who require you do so in order to use their service.

    skullgiver , (edited )
    @skullgiver@popplesburger.hilciferous.nl avatar

    deleted_by_author

    •
    ttmrichter ,
    @ttmrichter@lemmy.world avatar

    It’s on the server admin to ensure that all exchanged data is taken care of appropriately.

    “It’s on the server admin to do the literally impossible.”

    skullgiver , (edited )
    @skullgiver@popplesburger.hilciferous.nl avatar

    deleted_by_author

    •
    r00ty Admin ,
    r00ty avatar

    No. I think we mostly want federating instances to respect delete requests. But only the instance actually contacted has any onus to delete on their own instance and maybe, maybe try to send requests to delete elsewhere.

    There's no way there's an expectation that the originating instance has a legal requirement to remove it from anywhere else.

    ttmrichter ,
    @ttmrichter@lemmy.world avatar

    It is impossible. Flatly impossible. Because you cannot see if they’ve really deleted it or not. You can rely on a “data processing agreement” which, together with $50, will buy you a small cup of coffee at Starbucks.

    I federate with you here from China. I will agree to anything you like. And I will just attach an array of 16×16TB hard drives to slurp up all the data you send me. How will you know this is happening?

    You can’t. It is impossible for you to know until it’s too late and I’ve used it for whatever purpose profits me.

    An individual server admin can only ensure the data’s existence or lack thereof on their own server. Anything else presumes (rather stupidly) that bad faith actors don’t exist.

    AlteredStateBlob ,
    @AlteredStateBlob@kbin.social avatar

    You are slightly wrong. The GDPR applies to everyone dealing with personal data on the regular, which you always have to assume with open text boxes. There have been plenty rulings already imposing fines on individual, private citizens for their misconduct in violation of the gdpr.

    While Lemmy as a system might be exempt, anyone running Lemmy for sure isn't, as long as it regularly processes data of EU citizens, which it does.

    As for the devs, the gdpr does require privacy by design. One could argue the Devs themselves aren't running it at all, so their software doesn't have to adhere to it, but individual instance hosts could still be hit with fines for running it as is.

    BloodSlut ,

    thank you for the correction

    otter ,

    There are some great replies here

    I think it’s also worth putting in extra effort to educate users so they know early and not when they’re expecting otherwise. The system has a benefit, and it’ll be smoother if users aren’t surprised

    Data deletion and public vote records are the two big things that come to mind

    burgersc12 ,

    Oh no, that’s not even the half of it. The admin for your instance has access to literally anything on their server, including passwords afaik. If you want privacy, this ain’t it chief.

    SnotFlickerman ,
    @SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

    including passwords afaik

    Nobody has access to passwords. They have access to password hashes, which are not the same thing. It would be the absolute most half baked of solutions to still be saving passwords in cleartext.

    kpw ,

    Every website has access to the password you use on that website. ALWAYS use unique and randomly generated passwords for every service.

    russjr08 ,

    They have access to your password hash, effectively the “infrastructure” admin(s) as I’ll call it (not admins of the site - they need to have access to the actual system that is running the instance) have access to the same things that infrastructure admins of another site would have.

    burgersc12 ,

    Ah, guess i misunderstood a comment on here.

    lily33 , (edited )

    I don’t know where this myth came from, but you don’t have a right to erase your public posts from there internet under GDPR. See, for example, law.stackexchange.com/…/does-a-user-have-the-righ…

    If anything, you might have such rights under copyright law, if your posts cover the threshold for copyright. In that case, you can ask server admins to delete them, and they will have to comply. But the request has to reach them (if they’re defederated, the delete button won’t teach them, and you’ll have to contact them separately).

    YarrMatey , (edited )

    This is definitely a con of Lemmy for me. I like to be more privacy focused but Lemmy gives you 0 privacy on whatever you do on the website. Anyone who wants more privacy on Lemmy is told you have no right to privacy, don’t expect any privacy, everything you do is public on the internet, etc. A massive boner killer for me. I think basic things like deleting your own post or comments should actually get removed from all servers, PMs should not be viewable by anyone except the recipients, and what you vote on or subscribe to should be private. Lemmy doesn’t sell your data but that’s because anyone can take the data for free. I thought this stuff was because Lemmy is still new and will get to it eventually but the push back seems to say this was a choice or is not broken. I ended up exploring different social media alternatives but I like the style of Lemmy better since it is more reddit-like with an active user base plus has different android clients. I don’t like kbin because it shows who upvoted or downvoted something to everyone - it’s not accountability when it erodes your privacy.

    I used to comment on Lemmy more but then I ran into this problem when juggling multiple accounts, Liftoff sucks ass at letting you know which account you are logged into (I use Summit now and it is better at it) so I ended up getting my accounts’ wires crossed when I thought using the drop down on your accounts changed your account but no you have to go to manage instances to switch which was not intuitive. I ended up abandoning the accounts when I couldn’t figure out how to actually delete the post from the server.

    Edit: man I wish I saw this sooner, might be time for me to either stop posting again or look somewhere else.

    Zak ,
    @Zak@lemmy.world avatar

    While I didn’t find any factual issues in a quick skim of that article, I really don’t agree with its tone.

    The Fediverse is radically public. That’s the nature of a protocol like ActivityPub, not a bug to be fixed. Using it for anything you’re not comfortable with being public forever is a mistake.

    Annoyed_Crabby ,

    Message your admin and ask for purging of that post/comment/user.

    ttmrichter ,
    @ttmrichter@lemmy.world avatar

    Then message every federated server’s admin.

    Then message every federated server’s federated servers’ amins.

    Then …

    The number of surprised Pikachu faces people are displaying here is actually pretty funny now.

    Annoyed_Crabby ,

    Technically, yes. If the law is of concern, if you’re an admin, purging it from your database will be the only extend your power can reach. If privacy is of concern, while purging will not federate, delete/edit will, so edit all comment into gibberish before deleting your own account, and then ask for it to be purged. If that’s unacceptable then best not use social media at all.

    maegul ,
    @maegul@lemmy.ml avatar

    All your posts on the fediverse are effectively a public blog of your thoughts that will be scraped and stored in servers you have no control over.

    If you care about privacy, which I understand, you probably want to leave quickly.

    Here’s a rundown from someone who got fed up with the fediverse and kinda rage quit: blog.bloonface.com/…/the-fediverse-is-a-privacy-n…

    Another example of this is that it’s not just about lemmy. One way in which lemmy actually federated well worth microblogs like mastodon is that users can be followed from mastodon etc.

    So any number of servers running a number of open source easy to run platforms could be taking up everything you specifically post.

    donio ,

    If you care about privacy, which I understand, you probably want to leave quickly.

    Just because you care about privacy it doesn’t mean that you have to stay indoors all the time. You can still hang around on the town square you just have to be conscious about what you do where.

    A big part of caring about privacy is understanding how the platforms you use work and using them accordingly. With proprietary platforms this is often opaque and the rules can change. Open platforms are transparent and you can actually understand them - if you make the effort.

    FaceDeer ,
    @FaceDeer@kbin.social avatar

    It's not like deleting your comments or posts off of Reddit would magically remove them from all the various Reddit archives that exist around the Internet, either. Reddit only controls what happens on Reddit, and that problem is now generalized across the whole Fediverse.

    skullgiver , (edited )
    @skullgiver@popplesburger.hilciferous.nl avatar

    deleted_by_author

    •
    FaceDeer ,
    @FaceDeer@kbin.social avatar

    That difference doesn't make a difference to the point I was explaining. It doesn't matter how or why those public posts are being replicated into archives from which deletion will be difficult or impossible. All that matters is that it is getting replicated.

    AlteredStateBlob ,
    @AlteredStateBlob@kbin.social avatar

    Reddit still has to ensure what is deleted on their end, is actually deleted (which they don't, as we saw during the whole protest thing with delted comments being restored)

    The fact that archive websites exist doesn't change that. A request under gdpr to such a site would have to result in deletion as well.

    Sure someone who doesn't host or specifically target EU citizens can ignore it at their leisure, but I doubt every Lemmy instance is hosted somewhere in non EU areas.

    FaceDeer ,
    @FaceDeer@kbin.social avatar

    You're misunderstanding my point, I think. A Lemmy instance within the EU can theoretically be fully compliant with EU laws and delete whatever they're told to delete, but it's not going to make a difference because non-EU Lemmy instances can retain that data. Likewise, Reddit can delete whatever the EU tells it to delete, but that won't make a difference either because of those archives outside of Reddit;s control.

    I'm not saying anything about what's legal, just about what happens. When you post something in public, be it on Lemmy or on Reddit, that public post is not going to easily "go away" when you try to delete it regardless of whether your instance is following EU law. Arguing "but it should go away" isn't going to make a difference, it isn't going to go away. It's important to understand this when making use of a forum like the Fediverse or Reddit.

    AlteredStateBlob ,
    @AlteredStateBlob@kbin.social avatar

    Yes, and my point is, that the person running an instance has to comply with the gdpr if they are within the EU.

    It doesn't matter if data has already been propagated somewhere else. On that instance, data needs to be able to be fully deleted. For the matter of deletion, it is irrelevant where the data might have been pushed or mirrrored to, that is a seperate issue, which still needs to be dealt with. But one cannot argue that deleting is pointless or needn't be implemented, just because "public" data is already mirrored elsewhere. The people running "elsewhere" have their own compliance to deal with.

    FaceDeer ,
    @FaceDeer@kbin.social avatar

    that is a seperate issue, which still needs to be dealt with.

    And my point is that expecting this to be "dealt with" is unrealistic. It's going to continue existing on servers that are outside of your control and outside of the EU's reach. No matter how hard the EU legislates or how hard you believe it should be possible to delete that data, it's just not going to happen. Not without turning the world into a police state dystopia in the process, at any rate.

    I'm not saying "don't implement post deletion." Go ahead and do that if it makes you feel better. But making you feel better is all that it's really going to accomplish, in the grand scheme of things. If you're concerned about stuff you post "sticking around" even after you want it gone, nothing is going to actually solve that. The only option is to not post that stuff in the first place.

    AlteredStateBlob ,
    @AlteredStateBlob@kbin.social avatar

    There already is federation of deletion. It's not even something that needs to be implemented.

    I have less of a defeatist attitude about privacy. Same way I don't think absitence is the only true way of contraconception. Privacy, yes, even if public spaces is possible. It's not easy, it won't just happen, but it is achievable. Needs a lot of work from a lot of people, but it is doable.

    I don't expect you to change your mind on that.

    FaceDeer ,
    @FaceDeer@kbin.social avatar

    It's an optional feature, there's no way to ensure it actually gets respected. If it was universally implemented and it worked what would be the point of this whole thread to begin with?

    YarrMatey ,

    Thank you for posting that link. I’m not fed up (completely?) yet I suppose but it was eye-opening. I’ll have to be a lot more careful about posting, possibly not post again.

    Silverseren ,

    It's been a problem for a while. Considering major social media companies have already gotten massive fines from the EU for violating the GDPR, maybe the lemmy devs will put more effort in setting up a deletion system once the EU sends them a fine for breaking the law?

    FaceDeer ,
    @FaceDeer@kbin.social avatar

    The EU doesn't have global jurisdiction, if an instance developer or admin has no EU presence then they could just ignore them.

    Silverseren ,

    Sure. Lemmy does have such a presence though.

    FaceDeer ,
    @FaceDeer@kbin.social avatar

    "Lemmy" is a piece of software. A piece of software can't violate the GDPR, it's just a blob of data. You need to be running a server to do something that would break the GDPR. Those server-running admins are the ones that need to be concerned about their EU presence.

    Maybe some of the people developing Lemmy are in that category and might get in trouble, but it will be because they're running servers not because they're developing Lemmy. If they get arrested or whatever it has no effect on Lemmy-the-software.

    jman6495 ,

    Sure, but EU data protection laws may require EU based Lemmy instances to block instances that dont honour deletion requests.

    This is why mastodon was built GDPR compliant by design.

    ttmrichter ,
    @ttmrichter@lemmy.world avatar

    They can’t fine the “lemmy devs” (nor any other Fediverse devs). They can fine the operators of servers, and even there only those operating servers in the legal jurisdiction of the EU (which is checks notes the EU).

    0xtero ,
    @0xtero@kbin.social avatar

    In this case, the "lemmy devs" and the operators of lemmy.ml are the same people and it's hosted within EU.
    But - that's still a far cry from getting any kind of GDPR violation report going, much less getting it through the process to actual fines.
    People like to bring up GDPR violations as a some kind of super-moderator tool, but it isn't that easy and it definitely isn't automated.

    ttmrichter ,
    @ttmrichter@lemmy.world avatar

    You are missing theseveral points.

    1. Lemmy is software. lemmy.ml is a server. The devs of Lemmy can’t be fined unless specifically the server they operate (lemmy.ml, recall) is doing something against the GDPR.
    2. There is more than Lemmy in this picture. You’re on kbin. There’s dozens of other servers based on ActivityPub out there, all of which can be breaking the GDPR. This non-problem is not related to Lemmy. It’s the foundational architecture of ActivityPub. (And HTTP, incidentally. And XMPP. And and and and… Literally every distributed protocol ever made or that ever will be made has this non-problem.
    3. The things people are complaining about here may not actually even be covered by GDPR.
    0xtero ,
    @0xtero@kbin.social avatar

    Yeah. That's what I said

    ttmrichter ,
    @ttmrichter@lemmy.world avatar

    Yeah, sorry, man. All the ignorance was blurring together and your post was caught unjustly in the fringe.

    Nougat , (edited )

    Remind me again how things can be deleted from the internet?

    A_A ,
    @A_A@lemmy.world avatar

    Exactly, this is not specific to Lemmy as it applies to the whole internet.
    Also, Lemmy is not a website : it would be somewhat like saying the language Python doesn’t obey GDPR !

    Zak ,
    @Zak@lemmy.world avatar

    It gets worse: everything you post to Lemmy is sent to multiple other servers automatically. Those servers may be in jurisdictions that have very different privacy laws than the server you post from, or that hosts the community you’re posting to. You have no legal agreement with those servers.

    We’re not done though. The ActivityPub standard makes delete optional, and other servers could be running anything, not just Lemmy. Some of them are probably running somebody’s janky pet project that implements half of ActivityPub, poorly, on a jailbroken smart light bulb or something.

    Lemmy should implement proper post deletion, possibly with a delay to allow moderators and admins to inspect deleted posts, but expect anything you share via ActivityPub to follow the once on the internet, always on the internet rule even more than in the past.

    roofuskit ,

    Delete buttons are just a placebo on the Internet anway. At least activitypub is honest about that.

    scrubbles ,
    @scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech avatar

    Almost like the entire platform is based on the idea that one server/owner can’t be in charge of the data.

    Don’t get me wrong, not picking a fight, just what op said is kind of obvious to me. You’re picking a social media that is democratized and is federated with everyone. The natural tradeoff is that your data is not housed on one server… Which obviously means it’s not private.

    Idk, the fediverse is a great place, but I would never post anything here I ever wanted to be private. It’s not an accident, it’s literally by design.

    russjr08 ,

    Lemmy should implement proper post deletion, possibly with a delay to allow moderators and admins to inspect deleted posts, but expect anything you share via ActivityPub to follow the once on the internet, always on the internet rule even more than in the past.

    How would this be done? Like you mentioned, anyone can run a modified instance of Lemmy that does not honor delete requests. I suppose you could put something that retrieves content from other servers as a pull operation instead of a push, but that’s going to break Lemmy’s ability to work with other ActivityPub applications (at the very least).

    mosiacmango , (edited )

    There are no guarantees either way. Even if the delete was somehow enforceable in software, it can be defeated with a simple server backup/restore of any federated server.

    I think federated servers should respect any user generated delete request, but as users we need to expect that they wont.

    Zak ,
    @Zak@lemmy.world avatar

    How would this be done? Like you mentioned, anyone can run a modified instance of Lemmy that does not honor delete requests.

    Delete currently renders posts invisible to most users. Delete should actually delete the post from the server.

    It’s impossible to ensure that the post is deleted from federated servers, web caches, clients that cache things, etc…

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •