Lemmy admins: we designed Lemmy to speak truth to power.

  • Socsa@sh.itjust.worksOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    Ah ok I appreciate the information. Seems like kind of a shit way to handle federating bans.

    Just out of curiosity, does that mean your instance could choose to not enforce bans from other instances or am I misunderstanding how ban federation works? Before it seemed like the home instance would accept votes and comments and they would be rejected by the remote instance, but had a chance to successfully federate with third instances. Now it seems as if the home instance is doing that enforcement directly. Is that correct?

    • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      No the site ban still worked. This ban per community is mostly to be able to remove their content when banned as it otherwise doesn’t trigger.

      • Socsa@sh.itjust.worksOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        On several occasions I have held conversations with third instance users on .ml threads while I was site banned from .ml. I am trying to drill down into the technical changes whereby bans now actually “reject” comments and votes, seemingly from the home instance, compared to the previous behavior

        • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          So if you’re banned by a third party instance like ml, you should only be able to interact with other users on your own instance in ml. Instances other than you own would not see your comments as ml would reject them instead of federating them out. At least iirc with how it works