The main suggestion isn’t simply verification of Matrix accounts but being able to use a Matrix account instead of email to sign-up to servers. Also to be able to use Matrix in addition to Email for account recovery. Would be an alternate method of verifying the account, as well as enforcing usage of Matrix usage if Lemmy admins desire that.

The verification of Matrix account ownership isn’t really the primary goal, it’s just a nice side effect. It wouldn’t be in effect though unless the server had one of the first two options checked, if it’s the other two options it wouldn’t need to be verified to be added.

@kariboka@social.harpia.red Might be able to, but that might be a bit complex since XMPP has the same syntax as email (address@domain.tld), the way that Matrix is, it has a different syntax than email (@username:domain.tld) so the sign-up form could detect it differently than email. Which is why the requirement would be “Matrix or Email required”, not “Matrix and Email required”. Then you could have one single line in the sign-up form and it would still be familiar to most users.

I haven’t made any arguments in this thread, you are putting words in my mouth, and not really helping your credibility. All I said is that the person should defederate Lemmy instances and communities which go against the mission of their instance. Something that almost all instance operators would likely agree on.

Just for the record though, I don’t believe people should be kicked out of a project based on their nationality, that seems incredibly xenophobic. I don’t know where you got that idea that I said any of those things from.

Still worth while to do so, the trick is you need to defederate problematic instances. Not hide them, fully defederate. That stops problematic instances and communties from affecting your userbase. There’s many great Lemmy servers and communties out there. Just because a few of them aren’t great doesn’t mean you should dismiss all of them.

You’d probably need to monitor the computer’s network for a long time to get a detection, also something important is that if you’re on a System with AMT disabled/not present, you won’t ever get any, since those IntelME versions come without any network stack whatsoever.

In fact that’s one of the primary reasons why I haven’t tried it yet, almost none of the Intel computers I own even have the Intel AMT component enabled in the IntelME firmware, meaning they just won’t do it, like ever. The only one I have which supports AMT is an old Laptop with a slow AF intel Centrino, it’s so slow that it struggles with XFCE alone and no other apps running, I don’t know if I could use this computer long enough to get any readings from it because it’s just too slow to do anything really.

If you want to try it out I’d suggest building a copy of IntelMEtool and testing your Intel Machines to see if they have AMT enabled or present before trying yourself.

The same way you would do it with a black box while optionally taking as many shortcuts as one is comfortable with by virtue of assuming having a better understanding of it’s been built?

You can audit IntelME a similar way, it’s just more annoying and tedious, it’s also been done before by people. Honestly I don’t bother much with the IntelME conspiracy theory much anymore (and yes I will call it a conspiracy theory, more on why later), I did used to be extremely interested in it about 2 years ago, I researched the topic heavily. I met people and colleagues who were also interested in it. However I found when I suggested ways to study or prove the claims made about it, like where it’s communicating to or how it interacts with the system or even just disassembling the rom I would get weird answers about it knowing when it’s being probed and that I wouldn’t consider entirely rational when describing a tiny embedded system like this. Then I came across the 34C3 video and basically I realized then and there that this is a conspiracy theory, as there is a whole great study done by these guys and everyone is ignoring it.

Then there’s the fact that many of the theories out there seem to resist investigation, and people seem to come up with more elaborate ways of it resisting. Example: I presented the idea of sniffing the Ethernet connection of the computer by cutting the cable in half and probing it with a debugger and they claimed that the chip would listen with the microphone and abort, or that IntelME would skew the data collected when loaded up on another computer.

The end result is that I bought a high end PC from System76 with the capability to disable IntelME largely for nothing, which would be fine if the Laptop wasn’t so problematic, like the fact that it gets insanely hot and chews through battery insanely fast (seriously Battery consumption is worse on this laptop than my Steam Deck). Also it chews through power like this even on the iGPU, but it was way worse on the nvidia GPU, like way way worse. I wish I had gotten something AMD based, They’re killing it when it comes to performance and efficiency, more than I can say for Toasty old Intel.

I think that a lot of the IntelME stuff is what people would typically call a conspiracy theory, not like a theory of a conspiracy, but rather where the conspiracy is largely invented for the purpose of being scared or angry, or for attention from others who get scared or angry. Obviously not all of it is, and there are people who do research it, but the videos about it that you usually see on YouTube, most of them are like this.

The thing is that intelME isn’t like a government conspiracy where there isn’t much if any tangible evidence for it, IntelME is physically installed on millions upon millions of Intel PCs around the world, so it’s very easy to test the myths and claims by sacrificing some of these Intel computers. The fact though that most of the people making claims seem to not want to do that, suggests that they don’t think it’s as big a problem as they say it is. There are few people who have tested it though, a notable example from 34C3 where they found that it’s actually much more boring. Honestly the idea that people say it cracks Wifi passwords, or exchanges data home with a server, all this stuff people claim can be easily tested, even analyzing the network packets from a PC to see if it actually phones home when it’s off (can do that by probing an Ethernet cable and capturing the signals externally. The reason I claim the IntelME stiff is a conspiracy is because most of the people making the claims resist investigation, the same way that Flat earth theories and Lizard people theories resist investigation. My example of probing the network cable? Yeah I proposed that to someone already and they claimed IntelME would know the Ethernet is being probed, when I inquired how I was given many nonsensical claims, from microphone listening to talking to IntelME on another computer skewing the results, can’t make this shit up.

So to summarize, a lot of the claims are unsubstantiated claims, which could be easily proven or disproven due to easy access to IntelME based systems, but isn’t because the people making the claims can’t be bothered, and to top it all off many of them simply make arguments to resist investigation of IntelME in the first place, just like classical bad-faith conspiracy theories, and actual investigations like the one shown as 34C3 are swept under the rug. I don’t think IntelME doesn’t have issues or that it isn’t a security risk, it is like any firmware, but the sensationalized claims made about it regularly online don’t hold water, and the people making them should be called out for perpetrating conspiracy theories without merit. I’d leave some links to them but I don’t know if that’s allowed here, could be considered harassment.

Also tracking protection in the browser to prevent reading browser history and such. Security and privacy practices are absolutely paramount if you’re planning on visiting services like that. Of course the best thing is to not visit them at all but some people feel they need to see it for themselves, if they choose they should be prepared and keep themselves safe.

Stopping viewing on a per-account basis doesn’t make sense to me, since people don’t need accounts to view any content in Lemmy, therefore it’s trivial to bypass by logging out or fetching the discussion information without logging in from a custom frontend. What would be better is simply stopping them from interracting, just like what happens with bans, they can still view but all interractions are simply dropped or disallowed.

You should report them as trolls in any case, most instances on Lemmy have rules against trolling in general, further violations beyond that just add to the initial violation of trolling.

Hopefully fediverse admins are sensible enough to ban users who are blatantly posting advertisements. I know that a lot are, but I also know that a few of the bigger servers tend to turn a blind eye to that kind of thing.

I meant the kind that goes around the body even when in use, not just a carrying case, they’re different kinds of cases.

The guy who runs the growyourownservices network despite seeming very professional is extremely emotionally biased and hates Lemmy as a software (and seemingly any instances that will choose to run that software, regardless of their affiliation towards the developers).

So he basically refuses to acknowledge the existence of Lemmy and by extension a large portion of the threaded fediverse, and when he does acknowledge it he’s talking shit about it.

My god get a case for that thing, screen protector too (they have matte screen protectors for anti-glare I have one and it’s awesome, better than the 512 any day). I was holding off on it because I wanted to get the Killswitch but it expensive 😖 but I’m definitely doing it now.

Being able to support threading would be nice, a lot of clients don’t have that feature, spaces too would also be nice. Also the E2E encryption is a must since a lot of Matrix communication have it enabled by default.

It’s not nearly the same as following communities or groups, it’s just a collection of posts grouped by tags, as opposed to a space where people discuss or post about a more broad topic. Also Communities and groups typically invite more interaction than simply tagging posts by virtue of being a place people post as opposed to simply being a post tag category.

I should note that there are groups on Mastodon (Not really in Mastodon itself but federated Group actors from other services show up there) though they are less intuitive and thus are usually overlooked by most Mastodon users.

Maybe one of the forks or backend replacements could implement an option using it to make it compliant. I wouldn’t go with the OP’s solution since privacy is non-existent on Lemmy, but just blocking interaction seems like it would be enough to make it compliant, and prevent the harassment issues mentioned, I made an issue which addresses this in the Lemmy Github, it proposes a new feature rather than changing the existing blocks because it’s good to have mutes and blocks at the same time.

Unfortunately Lemmy isn’t like that and does not follow activitypub spec in that regard, in their current form the block doesn’t seem to do that at all and simply hides the blocked user from the blocking user as if the blocked user didn’t exist. There are no checks on interactions.

Also if you’re wondering how it works with Mastodon, Lemmy basically ignores Mastodon’s blocking system and freely allows interraction with Mastodon accounts in the thread even if they blocked the user replying, and also the community actor.

Yup this happened a lot on Reddit. As much as people complain about the newer two way blocking system on Reddit this type of harassment disappeared basically overnight when that rolled out. It largely was a good thing because for every user who was legitimately being abused by it, there were a lot who were benefiting from it by stopping harassment from others.

Now Lemmy can implement anything but nothing could ever prevent blocked/muted user to create another account in order to continue harassment.

Not a great argument because the same could also apply to community and site bans.

I think that having more tools to fight harassment is ultimately a good thing, are these tools perfect? Of course not, but they are still better than having nothing.

I think the only way to prevent such issue would be a system which would require to prove identity in some way in order to create a single account. But this is completely against the openness of a federated network.

Indeed it is, plus it doesn’t stop those malicious enough to commit a felony just to harass someone but that is neither here nor there, this discussion is about protective measures that can be done before ban evasion.