Block undesirable content on sign in page

2024-04-12 20:50:41

Hubzilla Support Forum

adminsforum@hubzilla.org

citc wrote the following post Fri, 12 Apr 2024 20:50:40 +0200

Block undesirable content on sign in page

@Zotum
How to disable public content on the hubzilla sign-in page _before_ sign-in to an account?

2024-04-12 21:21:45

*_jayrope

jrp@hub.kliklak.net

What's undesirable content?

2024-06-02 13:24:03

citc

citc@zotum.net

This #hubzillabug continues to be problematic.
Are there any hubzilla servers that do not show any content _before_ sign-in?

2024-06-02 13:41:21

*_jayrope

jrp@hub.kliklak.net

If you go to https://hub.kliklak.net/ (not being signed into zotum i suppose) you can see how to configure the main content to you liking with the help of a home.html file. The html file lies in your main directory and should not use head or body tags - that means it'll only contain the content of the body tag.

2024-06-02 22:03:24

citc

citc@zotum.net

> The html file lies in your main directory
This looks as if sign-in is required.
If the hubzilla server does not know you, how can configuration of the main content be achieved and does the administrator have priority to determine the "land page" of the hubzilla server?

2024-06-16 13:20:51

*_jayrope

jrp@hub.kliklak.net

Terrible, that person should be banned. @𝓒𝓱𝓻𝓲𝓼 do you know if or how moderation works on Hubzilla?

2024-06-16 13:42:27

citc

citc@zotum.net

@_jayrope

moderation works on Hubzilla

The concept cannot work if server administrators activate public stream content. The option should be removed; never existed in previous software versions

2024-06-16 14:06:26

Harald Eilertsen

harald@hub.volse.no

@citc It's been there since feb 2018, commit 465d89129c.

% git blame view/tpl/admin_site.tpl|grep open_pubstrea
465d89129c view/tpl/admin_site.tpl (zotlabs           2018-02-14 15:32:33 -0800  58)    {{include file="field_checkbox.tpl" field=$open_pubstream}}

Seems like it was always public before this.

But I agree with you that it's a bad idea. I don't have an opinion on whether we should remove the option or not, though. But we could add some more description to discourage site admins from turning it on.

2024-06-16 18:40:15

*_jayrope

jrp@hub.kliklak.net

@citc I think, moderation concerns mainly posts from the same server. Of course, nothin else can even be moderated.

Kessel 2024-12-24 02:56:57

Carter Braxton

techriot@hub.natehiggers.org

@_jayrope just banned? I think this calls for a hanging. It's what real men like the Taliban would do.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

2024-06-16 13:33:24

Harald Eilertsen

harald@hub.volse.no

@citc Is the option "Allow anybody on the internet to access the public streams" enabled in the site settings? You could try to turn it off.

2024-06-16 17:11:16

Marshall Sutherland

dwatney@hub.farthinghalearms.com

I've never used the public stream option before and don't know how it fits in. Who sees that content? Do users on the site always see it or have the option to see it? Do unlogged in users visiting the site see it?

2024-06-16 17:16:48

Marshall Sutherland

dwatney@hub.farthinghalearms.com

I see there is an option to "Allow anybody on the internet to access the public streams" which answers my question in regard to unauthenticated users.

2024-06-16 17:49:12

Marshall Sutherland

dwatney@hub.farthinghalearms.com

OK, so it sounds like exactly what I would expect from Hubzilla -- the ability for everyone to opt out of the content.

2024-06-16 22:33:28

𝓒𝓱𝓻𝓲𝓼

chris@im.allmendenetz.de

on may hub i limit the public stream to only show content originating from my own site. I.e. the public posts of the sites channels.

AND

i want this public stream also visible to the public.

so please do not remove this option

2024-06-16 22:44:08

𝓒𝓱𝓻𝓲𝓼

chris@im.allmendenetz.de

in the admin setting there is already a waring that imported public posts are not moderated ...

and admin can block a single channel ... and an account holder can block an other channel by the superblock addon ...

so this superblock addon does not work for the imported public steam?

2024-06-17 08:56:29

Ema エマ

ema@utasansh.in

@citc
zotum.net is open for registration and thus an exception of a Hubzilla hub.
Most hubs are not open for registration. Most hubs have 1 to 5 accounts, where the holders of the accounts know each other in real life and where respectful behavior due to mutual responsibily is standard.

I see your point, but instead of removing the public stream as a functionality, wouldn't it be good for the health of the entire Fediverse if instance admins think carefully about how to bring mutual responsibilty into the web and think about strategies how they can allow only users who value respectfulness highly to use their instance.

That said, to save lifes of politically persecuted and whistleblowers in autoritarian countries, we also need instances which have no restriction to registering. But an open instance requires moderation, which, from my point of view, should be done by deleting the account. A task for which a team of people needs to spend their free time. Now one could ask: Is the Fediverse the right place for politically persecuted and whistleblowers in autoritarian countries? What would be the alternatives?

2024-06-17 09:21:11

Ema エマ

ema@utasansh.in

@citc
Let's assume we would change the software so that if the admin sets registration to "open", then the setting for pubstream would be overwritten automatically. What setting should be used then?

~~pubstream visible to no logged in users~~ This obviously, you don't want
pubstream visible to logged in users via OpenWebAuth
pubstream visible to users of the same hub
no pubstream at all

2024-06-17 13:28:27

*_jayrope

jrp@hub.kliklak.net

@citc @𝓒𝓱𝓻𝓲𝓼 @Ema エマ Essentially it seems good already, what we have.

What we don't have, is a proper way to mark a post for moderation, so that an admin can easily be notified directly from the post in question.

2024-06-17 18:53:18

Marshall Sutherland

dwatney@hub.farthinghalearms.com

Getting rid of the feature seems to prioritize random people, who are not members of a hubzilla site, (the only ones who see public content without the ability to disable it) over hubzilla admins who find the feature useful.

2024-06-17 22:02:17

Mario Vavti

mario@hub.somaton.com

@citc if you are not happy with how https://zotum.net is configured, why not clone your channel to a hub where the public stream is disabled? https://hub.hubzilla.de and https://hub.netzgemeinde.eu come to my mind...

2024-06-18 13:07:13

*_jayrope

jrp@hub.kliklak.net

@citc I am running HZ on a shared host just for myself, if you go this way you'll have any control you want. In any other situation you'll be subject to admin tastes and decisions, however that isn't a HZ specific situation. Given the desires you voiced I'd strongly recommend self-hosting.

2024-06-18 21:05:53

citc

citc@zotum.net

> spam can be banned by HZ but that needs also admins and channel owners who cares

False. If you do not expose yourself to public content and the hubzilla server disables public content, by definition you will see only content that _you_ approved, because of the original design of hubzilla. For this reason personal experience is that hubzilla found to be the safest use of social media.

The latest bug, to introduce spam (unsolicited content, public content, whatever you want to call it. Stuff that you did not ask for!), now requires people "who care".

2024-06-18 22:15:12

Marshall Sutherland

dwatney@hub.farthinghalearms.com

No one who is actually logged on is forced to see the public stream. How does that require people who care? Since the default at both the server and the channel level is not to show it, it seems that it is seeing it that requires people who care (to see it).

2024-06-18 23:37:05

Der Pepe (Hubzilla) ⁂

pepecyb@hub.hubzilla.hu

There are probably very different perceptions of "social media" here. The idea of @citc (and perhaps some others) is a closed social community as a safe space without the influence of third parties. Hubzilla can be used for this if you set the permissions accordingly. A closed internet forum would be better for such purposes. This is a great way to create a closed social bubble.

The others, including me, understand social media to mean the possibility of social exchange, even with initially unknown users, and the experience of other opinions, not just from your own, closed bubble. With Hubzilla you can have both... or a little of both... just as you like... according to your own needs.

If a hub doesn't meet your needs in this respect, you are free to choose another one or run your own without losing contacts, for example. That's great. I would never presume, because I belong to the "second group", to demand that Hubzilla or all hubs should remove the option of closed, non-public communities from the code. In the same way, I expect tolerance for members of the first group. I find demands to restrict Hubzilla in order to completely avoid unwanted content to be overbearing.

Unwanted content can be deleted. As the admin of a hub, you can even delete it instance-wide if it contradicts the community standards of your own instance or is legally relevant and, in extreme cases, block channels that spread such things instance-wide... up to blocking entire instances. For the user-only user, Superblock is the perfect way to keep unpleasant users out of the timeline... or, as a "lesser intervention", to keep the content free of unpleasant posts by means of filter rules for such users.

Most Hubzilla users love the freedom and the many possibilities of Hubzilla... including the extremely fine options for customising content, keeping it free of unwanted content and also creating completely private and secure spaces without locking themselves away completely... and they appreciate the possibility of really free exchange without the intervention of others. Anyone who wants to ban the latter completely from the system is not creating freedom, but wants a self-chosen lack of freedom. You can choose that for yourself, but you can't demand it for others.

Sorry for the somewhat clearer explanations, but I think the discussion goes round in circles all the time precisely because of these different understandings of freedom and social media.

2024-06-19 02:33:46

Ema エマ

ema@utasansh.in

I think most people here are missing („überhören“) the reason @citc was stating several times:

he‘s worring about the reputation of hubzilla.

He‘s not looking for a solution to change his own daily user experience.

Most people respond here as if this thread was a support request. When you read attentively, you‘ll realize that it‘s initiating a discussion about the direction in which Hubzilla should develop. It‘s a Hubzilla development thread.

2024-06-19 05:39:20

Der Pepe (Hubzilla) ⁂

pepecyb@hub.hubzilla.hu

I certainly understood that (the fears that it could harm Hubzilla's reputation). But: What is different about Hubzilla compared to other services... especially the "elephant" in the room as the largest representative of the Fediverse?
Just as an example: mastodon.social. I can switch to the global stream with two really obvious and prominently visible clicks directly on the start page and get everything from all the instances with which the service is federated packed into a timeline without being logged in. The probability of stumbling across something "disturbing" is very high.

With Hubzilla, I would have to find an instance that 1. explicitly allows the public stream and 2. also allows unregistered visitors to view this stream. In addition, this public stream is nowhere near as "global" as the one on Mastodon because it is limited by the actual import of content (i.e. everything that users of the instance and possibly their contacts have published after sharing).

With many Pleroma instances, it is similar to Mastodon. Here, a single click ("Known network") is often enough to get a "wild" timeline.

Hubzilla is really "harmless" in this respect. Especially because the admin has to explicitly switch on the public stream and explicitly release it for visitors. And the visitor then also has to come up with the idea of looking in the hamburger menu and selecting this stream.

And @citc also expressly demands that this option, which the administrator has and can use according to their own considerations and conscience, but does not have to, be switched off and Hubzilla be returned to its "pre-2018" status in this respect. All so as not to risk jeopardising Hubzilla's good reputation. Removing a function completely because a few admins choose this option for their instance is absolutely exaggerated in my opinion. You can't completely switch off all possible and conceivable "violations". And what may seem "offensive" to one person may not be to another and they may also want to see such content.

2024-06-19 06:20:21

Alexander Goeres 𒀯

jabgoe2089@hub.netzgemeinde.eu

@Ema エマ i think you're right. the original post is not a support request. the poster disagrees with the existence of unmoderated public streams with unlimited visibility and wants the developers to take this option out of the hubzilla software. so that hubmins don't have the possibility anymore to do things it disagrees with.

2024-06-19 10:26:22

*_jayrope

jrp@hub.kliklak.net

@Alexander Goeres i agree, that's how @citc 's request comes across - which is why i'd recommend self-hosting to him. Eventually they just want better filtering options for themselves?

• When comparing content & sheer number of posts of a federated Mastodon stream to the public stream on Hubzilla - connected to only one external directory server - the HZ public stream is tiny.

• The sheer volume of the federated Mastodon stream can easily be user-filtered there, exceed filtering options offered by HZ by far, in terms of flexibility, scope, ease of use.
Better filters for HZ were outlined by @Jupiter Rowland and myself several times before. Sadly i can't offer sufficient coding skills myself, though, just user experience.

• Filtering the public stream on HZ is possible via /admin/site/Only import Public stream posts with this text - ergo upon keywords. It works okay here, but is only available to admins and hard to find. User has /settings/display/Content settings though without an option to filter the public stream specifically.

• At a vote about cancelling the public stream in HZ development I'd voice a clear NO.
A public stream allows me to find completely unrelated, similarly interested humans. A network of "all" human contacts is always bigger, than your own. It's great to have the option to navigate this. HZ isn't a software made exclusively to support closed-opinion networks - however possible to be used like this, when running your own installation.

• Limiting or cancelling access to a public stream to a diverse user base on a public server - rather than offering excellent, user-configurable content filtering options - requires all users to agree with that policy (possible, but unlikely in non-totalitarian systems ;).
Otherwise this would basically constitute top>down censorship.

• I couldn't look into a Mastodon admin backend, as unlike HZ it doesn't install on shared hosts without root access just via git, without requiring Docker images, Rust and what have you.
Can anybody explain the technical differences in public streams generation between HZ and Mastodon?

I am asking because I personally I'd love for the HZ public stream to expand rather than to minimize or even cease.

+++

@Ema エマ Our user base is a fraction of the Fediverse, yet diverse and with diverse interests. Obviously this can conflict, however not HZ-specifically. I that regard i don't see a HZ-specific reputation issue.
On a broader note conflicts are a normality and personally I (normally ;) welcome the opportunity to question or sharpen my own view points. Here we have sources of wisdom so to say, introducing the necessity of compromise, creating a base for societies rather than unconnected individuals living in parallel to each other. Meow.

2024-06-19 14:49:04

Der Pepe (Hubzilla) ⁂

pepecyb@hub.hubzilla.hu

In principle, I am of the opinion that the option to show the public timeline to unregistered users, i.e. visitors, should remain the decision of the operator/admin and should not be dictated by the software developers.

However, this can lead to the kind of effects that probably prompted @citc to raise his concern here. I hadn't noticed the example he gave because the "techriot" channel is one of the few that I have blocked instance-wide on all my hubs for years. And that was back in the days when the posts were much more harmless at first glance. The reason for this was the "homepage" of the channel operator, which was given quite early on and strongly indicated racist attitudes.

Now your post, @citc , has made me aware of this channel again... and... also to zotum.net. And I have to say that the real problem is not with Hubzilla and the options for admins, but rather with abusive (or completely thoughtless) use of such features by a few instance admins.

To be honest, I was very shocked when I visited zotum.net as a visitor. The public timeline currently consists almost exclusively of posts by "techriot". THAT doesn't really reflect well on Hubzilla itself. I will contact the operator (hub@zotum.net , if it really is him) about this. You should also do this, as your channel is on this hub. Unfortunately, the hub offers neither a contact address nor any other information about the hub. No data protection information... nothing. When looking at the local directory (which is possible with remote authentication), I noticed a lot of "dodgy" channels. I have the suspicion that either there is no moderation at all or the hub is intended exactly as it is. I'm currently considering adding the hub to my instance-wide blocklists. I'm very sparing with this because I also consider the freedom of dissenters to be worth protecting... but even freedom has its limits... especially when it disregards the freedom of others.

Soryy for this OT excursion.

2024-06-19 18:27:53

Bill Statler

billstatler@forum.statler.ws

There are at least 4 parties involved here:

Techriot.
Hubzilla.de, which is willing to host Techriot, but has no public stream. (I am surprised that a Germany-based instance is willing to take this legal risk, but I don't know exactly how much antisemitism and white supremacy is permissible under German law.)
Zotum.net, which has a public stream not limited to zotum.net users, and visible to the public. It looks to me like ALL of their public stream is Hubzilla users. (How is this done?) And since Techriot is one of the most prolific Hubzilla posters, he owns this space.
Hubzilla itself, which allows this.

I blame the first three on the list. Hubzilla should retain its capability to create a shit-filled public stream, because it's also possible to create a good public stream with the same tool.

2024-06-19 18:56:06

Der Pepe (Hubzilla) ⁂

pepecyb@hub.hubzilla.hu

@Bill Statler I can agree with that. Any "tool" can be used or misused. That's not the tool's fault.

2024-06-19 20:56:38

citc

citc@zotum.net

Thanks to all for the discussion and to learn others' perspectives.

Personal opinion: the under-appreciation of the power of reputational risk, will reduce significanty the potential ablity of hubzilla to be even better.

With spam nullified as in the design concepts of the original programmer, people grew their personal networks of connections much like traditional "real world" scenarios. People made polite, respectful introductions and time was taken to develop into relationship, acquaintances, or simple: "nice talking to you, go well, we won't meet again, etc. etc..".

In the hubzilla world, the above perhaps could be similar to the 'directory' module. Maybe someone's avatar or their introduction was sufficient to add to your connection, gain an idea of the posts then, (see paragraph above).

Apparently, such scenarios are not exciting enough for some who of course haVe their own personal agenda (see previous posts within thread).

In the real world, it is suggested that people should be satisfied to accept gratuitous abuse, commentary, opinions, etc., as they walk the street, sit in a library, etc., because such protagonists should be free do so. There is no need for civilised behaviour in the real world, because we have freedom and so on. In the computer world, such scenarios are of course, spam.

Before modern day immature programmers decided to apply their dubious concepts. it was evident that a blank sign-in/registration screen would nullify spam. If someone would like to claim a blank sign-in/registration screen is gratuitously abusive, please explain.

The consensus of this thread is clear. The majority prefer excitement. They prefer "choice", "freedom" to generate a response of instant attraction, gratification, repulsion, for the reasons explained previously.

A default blank screen will never offend a child, or a business customer, or a valued family, or a special friend. It will be impossible to say the same when the reputation of hubzilla will be determined by the random,, incoherent decision(s) of numerous hubzilla servers.

2024-06-19 22:15:53

Der Pepe (Hubzilla) ⁂

pepecyb@hub.hubzilla.hu

I'm considering whether I still want to participate in this discussion! I'm afraid I won't have any other choice, because I don't want the Hubzilla code to be mutilated because of fringe issues. If you want artificially restricted services, maybe you should get used to Mastodon ;-) :-P

The demand is clear: The option to show visitors the public stream should disappear from the code. The admin should not have the option of deciding this himself (and possibly ensuring a "clean" stream himself).

This can be discussed. However, I find it impertinent to label the developers of Hubzilla, who introduced the option after 2018, as "immature programmers of today" and to brand concepts such as the possibility of public streaming as "dubious concepts" is also not the finest way of discussing them.

The option has nothing to do with favouring excitement. In any case, a gnat is being blown up into an elephant here. Hubs that present the public stream to visitors are really not in the majority (because it is an opt-in and not an opt-out for the admin and the risks are also mentioned in the options).

Screenshot 2024-06-19 at 21-33-55 Whoville.png

And I have no idea which hubs @citc is permanently watching so that he notices "random, incoherent decisions of numerous Hubzilla servers". I've travelled far and wide in the "Hubzilla"-Fediverse. I have been for eight years and I don't have the feeling that such unwanted postings are very common.

What he is right about is that a blank screen with a registration mask will not "hurt" anyone. But I think it is very likely that a blank screen will discourage many people from registering. If it is not at all clear what Hubzilla looks and feels like, many people who are initially interested will lose the desire to try it out. For me, the possibility of displaying the public stream is a way of giving visitors an idea of what Hubzilla looks like.

And I don't even think it's harmful to show the public stream to visitors, as long as it's a hub with a small number of users and sufficient capacity for moderation. With larger hubs (such as hub.hubzilla.de with over 1,000 users or hub.netzgemeinde.eu with over 1,800 users) it is of course no longer so easy to keep the stream clean, unless you have sufficient capacity (in terms of time and personnel) for moderation.

In general, as an independent and responsible person, I refuse to allow my options to be restricted because there are others who don't care about "hygiene".

Furthermore, Hubzilla itself offers every opportunity to take action against such "sloppy" hub operators or to counteract the effect (it doesn't have to be intentional if such "unwanted" posts end up in the stream). You can contact the admin and point this out (preferably this should be the first step). If such incidents occur more frequently at a particular hub and there is no reaction from the person responsible, then it is easy to block the hub instance-wide. If many hubs do this, then the hub loses importance (especially because even "decent" users of the hub are cut off from parts of the fediverse... which is not even a drama for these "innocents" at Hubzilla, because we have the nomadic identity and the possibility to clone).

2024-06-21 12:29:41

Der Pepe (Hubzilla) ⁂

pepecyb@hub.hubzilla.hu

I'm out of the discussion...

<(((º>

2024-06-21 17:52:32

Ema エマ

ema@utasansh.in

Discussion has been cultivated for years by the community on this forum. Thank you everybody for keeping this culture alive with another good example in this thread here, even when being provoked.

@citc you're provoking, not by challenging design decisions, which is welcomed, but with your communication style. Some participants of the discussion showed you already that this is out of place, and you crossed a red line here.

I as the secretary of the Hubzilla Association use this opportunity to introduce the Code of Conduct of Hubzilla.org, which we, the Executive Commitee of the Association, prepared some months ago. It is valid for this forum as well. Read it on the top of this forum channel, by visiting https://hubzilla.org/channel/adminsforum.

As written in the Code of Conduct, we, the Executive Commitee of the Association, are moderating this forum.

Let's close this thread here.

We ask you to read the Code of Conduct, @citc. If you're willing to act accordingly, you're invited to reformulate your worries about the fate of the project Hubzilla, which is driven by an open, welcoming, diverse, inclusive and healthy community.

2024-06-25 14:55:09

Tetris Life

tetrislife@zotum.net

2024-06-26 01:07:13

Der Pepe (Hubzilla) ⁂

pepecyb@hub.hubzilla.hu

An unmoderated public stream for unregistered visitors is also available at Pleroma, for example (well-known network).
This "problem" is therefore more widespread and the responsibility lies in the hands of the corresponding administrators.

2024-06-28 07:39:54

Bill Statler

billstatler@forum.statler.ws

I see that at least one Hubzilla instance has appeared on the Threads blocklist -- and it isn't Hubzilla.de or Zotum.net. Congratulations to:

hub.netzgemeinde.eu
No publicly accessible feed, violated our Community Guidelines or Terms of Use

Has @Jupiter Rowland been posting his collection of Zuckerberg nudes again? 😸

2024-06-28 08:09:15

Alexander Goeres 𒀯

jabgoe2089@hub.netzgemeinde.eu

this threads blocklist is great!

archaeology.social

they are protecting their products from the dangers of history .... :-)

2024-12-23 17:11:05

Hubzilla Support Forum

adminsforum@hubzilla.org

The comment of today which violated of the code of conduct (as well as the responses to this comment) have been deleted by the moderation team.

2024-12-23 22:59:30

tombeau

tombeau@ein-hub-von-vielen.de

@citc

therefore let us self-proclaimed priviliged people assert our patriarchal dominance to close un-palatable criticism

You could fight "patriarchal dominance" or "rape culture" (this comment by You seems to be deleted or changed meanwhile). In this case it is a rather low hanging fruit to become a "self-proclaimed privileged" member of the society yourself. You could, for example, stop talking and START ACTING:

- self host a hub (cheap and no rocket science)
- configure a hub (no cost at all and no rocket science)
- even fork the repository (no cost at all and no rocket science)
- ...

In this case it seems, the privilege is quite easy to achieve, just small money, time and brain.

Why don't you DO it? What is missing exactly!

I really admire some people in this threat for their patience and calm and thoughtful comments.

2024-12-24 16:03:11

Marshall Sutherland

dwatney@hub.farthinghalearms.com

"Someone inserting something I don't want to see into my personal feed is rape culture" and "seeing something I don't want to see in a public feed is rape culture" are two completely different things.

2024-12-31 13:44:44

Der Pepe (Hubzilla) ⁂

pepecyb@hub.hubzilla.hu

Sorry, but of the 87 hubs listed on FediDB plus 20 (i.e. 107 in total) that can also be found on pubsites, 16 have activated the Pubstream (just under 15%). However, only four of these hubs (3.7%) display it to the visitor without prompting. For the other 12, the visitor must first authorise Javascript in order to access the app menu and explicitly search for the public stream there. This is a mosquito being blown up into an elephant.

It astounds me how you can have your channel on a hub that belongs to the absolute minority who show the public stream to visitors without being asked... and then complain about this feature.

And there is also a misunderstanding about Hubzilla's philosophy. Hubzilla was not created to provide only closed networks with carefully selected participants, super sensitively moderated content, taking into account all conceivable personal sensitivities. The speciality of Hubzilla is that you can build such a network and exclude the big bad world for yourself (‘what I don't see doesn't exist’) if you want to.

As part of the Fediverse, however, one purpose is also to interact publicly with other people. It can happen that you see things that you don't like. Hubzilla offers the perfect tools to protect you from such content if you want to. If you want something totally protected, you should stay away from Hubzilla and try to find a place at ‘Islands’ rather than arguing for the removal of functions in order to get your paradise.

2024-12-31 14:55:41

od@zotum.net

Without knowledge about the hubzilla servers that are open for new participants to register, the numbers quoted are meaningless. For example, four out of five _available_ hubs that consider rape culture to be legitimate, is no "mosquito".

Anyone who is the recipient of toxic content, should deserve more respect and empathy than being considered a "mosquito". Are you really prepared to tell a recipient of rape that if the experience is such a minority, you do not care?

It is noticeable that noone has yet to dispute the superior control of previous hubzilla versions: a blank screen sign-in prevents rape culture.

It is laughable to recommend the woolly mammoth weak ideas to improve safety (for a toxic system _by design_), when early hubzilla was safe _by design_.

The observation that people that may want safety, to go somewhere else, instead of a more deeper self-analysis about what may be improved upon within hubzilla, is evidence of a bias for the right of rape culture to exist.

Those with influence within hubzilla seem unable to tolerate difference of opinion, perspective, experience.

It is easy to write a claim that hubzilla is a "global" network, when the demographic of those most active hubzillians, do not represent all religions and cultures.

2024-12-31 16:10:16

Der Pepe (Hubzilla) ⁂

pepecyb@hub.hubzilla.hu

@od

There are only five available hubs with the option to register and four of them have the public steam for guests? Ok... that would be my two hubs that don't even offer the public stream to guests... and that brings us to minus one, with unsolicited display of this stream. Mathematically possible, but not in reality.

If you are looking for hubs that allow registration, use /pubsites. And there are currently two hubs in the list that display the pubstream on the homepage: zotum.net and trinidad.social. With the rest, you are ‘safe’ from unpleasant content. With zotum, I have the impression that it is the public stream that is restricted to the hub's channels... i.e. a (hopefully well) moderated stream. The other one is probably really global. That would be one in 20, so 5%. And maths is non-negotiable.

The ones listed as open on FediDB are three in total... minus Zotum with the local pubstream... so two.

If it is so extremely important to you to have a ‘Hubzilla without a pubstream’ (and without other specific features that you consider a bug), here's a tip: make a fork, call it ‘Safezilla’, release it, maintain it, promote it, offer support. You might find some supporters (I have one in mind). Good luck. That's the great advantage of open source.

Oh... and Hubzilla was not developed to represent all of mankind 😉

2024-12-31 16:39:07

od@zotum.net

The response "do it yourself" has been seen everywhere within open source world, for decades.

If hubzilla was not developed for everyone, the 'help' manual should be changed! ;)

2024-12-31 17:24:28

Marshall Sutherland

dwatney@hub.farthinghalearms.com

od wrote:

rape culture is unsolicited content

It seems that our difference is about what is considered "unsolicited content". To me "unsolicited content" is something that shows up in my inbox or personal feed. It is not random stuff on the internet that I stumble across while voluntarily poking around.

If you go into a book store, pick a random book off a shelf, and are offended by the content, was that "unsolicited content"? Is the book store guilty of "rape culture"?

2024-12-31 17:28:35

Der Pepe (Hubzilla) ⁂

pepecyb@hub.hubzilla.hu

@od That was deliberately ‘misunderstood’, wasn't it?

Of course it has been developed and made available for everyone. But if someone is not satisfied with the way it works, they have to get involved and improve it, create something more suitable themselves or look around for a suitable alternative.

2024-12-31 20:37:17

Marshall Sutherland

dwatney@hub.farthinghalearms.com

@od, I think we are talking past one another. I have been talking about HOW content is delivered. You may disagree, but I believe this is what Mr. MacGirvin's comment referred to as well. As you said, "consensual communications".

But in the very next sentence, you refer to "unsolicited content _before_ sign-in, is as safe from potential rape culture..." which is about WHAT was delivered, not NOW it was delivered.

If I am talking about HOW content is delivered and you are talking about WHAT content is delivered, this is a pointless conversation.

2024-12-31 20:58:12

Der Pepe (Hubzilla) ⁂

pepecyb@hub.hubzilla.hu

@od My last tip for you in this thread: Simply delete all web browsers on all your devices. Then you are absolutely safe from accidentally stumbling across unpleasant content.

2024-12-31 21:19:55

Der Pepe (Hubzilla) ⁂

pepecyb@hub.hubzilla.hu

@*_jayrope Danke... Du aber auch!