you may have been thinking of https://poliverso.org/objects/0477a01e-1166-c773-5a67-70e129601762, which was neither lemmy devs, mastodon devs nor lemmy.world admins

2FA has been restored for all LW users that had it enabled before and didn’t reactivate it on their own since.

There will be an announcement posted later on explaining what happened.

edit: announcement is out: https://lemmy.world/post/18503967

this is a separate issue unrelated to the 0.19 update.

this was not a Lemmy bug.

Hi,

this was unfortunately an error on our end.

Please bear with us while we work on resolving this situation.

Us not upgrading has nothing to do with making a point.

We’re aiming to run a stable instance, which can come at the cost of delayed updates.

We didn’t update to 0.19.4, and a few weeks later 0.19.5 was released with a number of critical bugfixes.

0.19.6 will have several more fixes for issues introduced in 0.19.4+, such as a fix for remote moderators updating local communities, allowing admins to filter modlog entries by moderator, as well as some performance issues reported by other instances.

We usually wait for other instances to run the latest version for some time to allow bug reports to surface before we update ourselves.

I’m a member of the Lemmy.World admin team.

Also, anyone can look at the moderation log at https://lemmy.world/modlog

It depends on who you’re trying to message.

Devs: https://join-lemmy.org/contact
Admins of Lemmy.World: see the post that @Deestan@lemmy.world linked already
Admins of piefed.social: https://piefed.social/about
Community moderators: check the community sidebar, it will show the moderator list

Your Lemmy.World account has been unbanned a couple days ago btw.

It’s not automatic, admins have the option to ban with or without content removal.

Different instances deal with this differently and admins are also humans that sometimes make mistakes. Especially during holiday season there are frequently trolls running around with racist, transphobic or other offensive content. Sometimes they’re more obvious, sometimes they try to fly under the radar a bit by being less direct. In the end you’re at the mercy of the instance admins of the instance you signed up with and many instances will provide contact information to appeal bans.

Since this account was not a Lemmy.World account it’s not up to us to decide whether or not the user should be banned and whether their content should be removed.

If you’re referring to the post Ex Redditors of Lemmy what made you come on over? What happened at Reddit that you made the switch?, their account was banned for trolling and all content associated with the account was removed.

They also had a number of other posts that seemed to be doing just fine, so it might be falling in the “stupid kid” category.

The post has since been restored by a community moderator, although the user’s account on lemmy.ml is still banned: https://lemmy.world/post/17593614

@PugJesus@lemmy.world, you might have been posting only for LW users for a while :-/

this is unfortunately correct for the time being.

while we still have aggressive rate limits in place to limit federation impact from kbin bugs, which started with the measures that @sunaurus@lemm.ee mentioned, this wouldn’t impact activities coming from lemmy.world towards kbin.social.

while kbin.social used to break down every now and then based on what i saw people comment, service was typically restored within a short period of time. more recently however, any time i’ve looked at kbin.social in the past couple weeks, it’s only been showing an error page. i suspect it may have been unavailable the entire time, not just at the times i looked at it. looking at our federation stats, the last successfully sent activity from lemmy.world to kbin.social was dated 2024-06-18 00:12:25 UTC, although the actual send date may have been later. successful is also not necessarily guaranteed, as some error codes might be misinterpreted as success due to how servers can be set up and how response status codes are interpreted on the sending side.

if activities sent from lemmy.world don’t reach kbin.social then the posts and comments won’t be relayed to other instances. this is generally an issue in activitypub when instances are down, as such “orphaned” (at the time) communities effectively become local-only communities, isolated islands on all instances that already know about them.

at this point, the last time we’ve received an activity submission (federation traffic) from kbin.social as on 18th of June, so it seems like it was working for some time on that day and has been broken since.

at the start of this month, @ernest@kbin.social (kbin.social owner, main kbin dev) said that he was going to hand over management of kbin.social to someone else, as he’s currently unable to take care of it. presumably this hasn’t happened yet.

cough

we’ve switched from using multiple federation sending containers (which are supposed to split receiving instances across workers) to just using a single one.

maybe I misunderstood your comment, I read your Texas AG example as asking for information about users. did you mean Texas AG asking for the removal of comments where people are stating they’re trans?

as I’m very tired right now, I only want to comment on one of the arguments/questions you brought up.

you’re asking for the difference between taking down content and providing information about users.

its very simple actually. sharing non-public data is a very different story than removing access to otherwise public information, whether it’s originally coming from Lemmy.World or elsewhere.

when we take down content, even if it’s more than legally strictly necessary, the harm of such a takedown is at most someone no longer being able to consume other content or interact with a community. there is no irreversible harm done to anyone. if we decided to reinstate the community, then everyone would still be able to do the same thing they were able to do in the beginning. the only thing people may be missing out on would be some time and convenience.

if we were asked to provide information, such as your example of a Texas AG, this would neither be reversible nor have low impact on people’s lives. in my opinion, these two cases., despite both having a legal context, couldn’t be much further from each other.

We do question the validity of claims, but when it comes to takedowns of copyright related content, we simply do not have the resources to throw money at lawyers to evaluate this in detail. We can apply common sense to determine if something appears to be a reasonable request, but we can’t pay a lawyer to evaluate every single request. We also can’t afford going to court over every case, even if we were to win, because those processes take large amounts of personal time and have a risk of significant penalties.

Legal advocates on Lemmy or any other platform for that matter are not a substitution for legal council.

What would be the alternative?

Moving the instance behind Tor and hoping to never get identified?

As long as you’re operating a service on the internet you’ll be bound by laws in one place or another. The only thing you can do against this is trying to avoid being identified and therefore trying to evade prosecution. This is not a legal defense.

Lemmy.World is legally primarily bound by the countries listed here.

If we get a request, of course we will evaluate that request.

When it comes to taking down content, such as copyright infringing content, we may err on the side of caution to reduce the legal risk we’re exposing ourselves to.

When it comes to handing over data that is not already publicly accessible, such as (not-really-)private messages or IP addresses of users, we will not “err on the side of caution” and hand out data to everyone, but we must follow the laws that we’re operating under. See also https://legal.lemmy.world/privacy-policy/#4-when-and-with-whom-do-we-share-your-personal-information.

Lemmy.World is legally primarily bound by the countries listed here.

if being gay became illegal in NL for example, and there would be laws to prevent talking about gay people, then we’d have to either no longer tolerate such content on our platform or ensure we’re no longer bound by dutch laws.

The execution should have been better, but the decision itself was a team decision, not an individual admin decision without talking to the rest of the team.