It looks like a new spamming tactic will be to set up your own instance and then just mass spam to other instances from there. Case in point, vive.im I’ve been noticing spam in one magazine from a user of this. I banned them, but they can still post for some reason. Decided to visit the instance and it looks like some default front page with ‘3’ active users. If you look at the user’s account on there they’ve made 12k posts already and seem to have a script set up to push their blogspam 3-4 times per minute.

  1. We need a clear process to report and get these kinds of things removed quickly.

  2. Bans need to work properly and stop these users from posting.

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
14 points
*

Seems like manually approving new instances before they are allowed to push content to Kbin would be a good idea. Shouldn’t gatekeep but blindly accepting them means playing an endless game of whack-a-mole.

permalink
report
reply
15 points

i don’t agree. I think it is important to maintain a blacklist instead of a whitelist where people would then submit what they need to add which will then will need to be approved etc. It will decrease the federated experience.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

That only works if you have a group of responsive admins who can watch that for abuse. It really hasn’t taken long for someone to figure out how to abuse that for spam.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
*

I’m inclined to say I’m not a fan of my idea on a philosophical level, but we can’t ignore the practical considerations here either. Endlessly banning spam instances is not going to be fun and takes away time and effort on the admin’s part that could be better spent on useful things. A site clogged by spam is also not going to be useful, in which case it doesn’t matter how well you adhered to your principles.

These interests are competing, but I think there’s a compromise to be found. I’m going to suggest rate limiting for new instances until they’ve produced a certain amount of content (so say until they’ve produced X comments+links with a minimum Y days), plus a system that automagically puts new instances in the timeout box if enough users report their content. Admins can manually skip the warm up period for new instances, and also review the timeout box to see if it’s actually a concern.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Can you share an example of an instance that is linked to kbin.social that has been spammy? I’m an example based learner, it will help me wrap my head around it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

IMHO: We should retain automatic federation approval but with automated de-federation for bad behavior. Thresholds could be increased for “merely very active” instances so they don’t get automatically defederated while newcomers get the threshold for “plebs” 😁

Example: If your instance has just a handful of users spamming like crazy or any number of users spamming the same content/links that would put your instance over such a ban threshold pretty fast.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

This doesn’t seem ideal though, because newer instances will be silenced and never get a chance to grow. In any case, it would be reasonably easy to create a kbin and load it up with fake accounts anyways, to get the numbers up. A more standard approach is to simply look at the traffic coming from smaller kbins and if they are sending lots of requests, automatically remove the instance. This could still be caused by one bad actor making it’s way onto a newer server though.

permalink
report
parent
reply

/kbin meta

!kbinMeta@kbin.social

Create post

Magazine dedicated to discussions about the kbin itself. Provide feedback, ask questions, suggest improvements, and engage in conversations related to the platform organization, policies, features, and community dynamics. ---- * Roadmap 2023 * m/kbinDevlog * m/kbinDesign

Community stats

  • 1

    Monthly active users

  • 1.3K

    Posts

  • 13K

    Comments

Community moderators