Fediverse

Skimmed through the article and something picked my attention, the numbers given in the "325000 posts analyzed". The way its given, it makes seem like big numbers, but if you calculate what is the percentage of the numbers given, it's less than 1%. Can't check the linked source, but it seems like a classical "lying with statistics".

And besides, text seems written in a way to give the impression site moderation for smaller sites is too stupid to block bad actors, and that only the paternalism of bigger sites can solve this implied issue.

The crappiness of this section has been noted

That section is out of line with Wikipedia policies because it only relies upon scholarship that isn't meta-analysis, which Wikipedia considers primary sourcing (an idiosyncratic borrowing that ought to be called firsthand sourcing instead: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Scholarship), making it undue weight.

it looks like somebody who just saw this post edited wikipedia for the first time to remove that. this is why wikipedia's wonderful: it's that easy. i have this quirk where i wanna debate anyone who distrusts wikipedia or claim its rigidity

I haven't seen any of that shit on the fediverse except maybe conspiracy theories (which are way more prevalent on other websites), wtf are they talking about?

There was a few months where I had to ban server after server every day because someone was really into semi-lolli anime. They were posting it in every anime forum. I asked them why they were non stop posting upskirt or provocative drawings of very young girls and they got angry that I dared ask.

"Legal reform has also been proposed, most notably around Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, as well as proposed legal requirements for instance operators to engage in good-faith moderation of instance connections."

The source for this is a a paper written in January 2024 by someone called Nikhil Mahadeva.

Lets be clear, any Section 230 discussion will never mention the Fediverse. That implies anyone who wants to erode even knows what the Fediverse is.

YUP! Can confirm, den of iniquity over here! Just like the fact I've been running Linux for 18 years now, so I'm obviously a hacker and a subversive. We enjoy things here like CHOICE and FREEDOM. You're all fucking DEVIANTS! And so am I! DEVIANTS OF THE WORLD UNITE!

Lol wait till you see any of the Pakistan or India related articles. Its like the Ganges river in text form.

It's pretty toxic toward right-wing pieces of shit that espouse hate toward minorities, women and queer people. As it should be.

Today you learned any idiot can edit Wikipedia and it is mostly done by pro government entities.

Beware of unearned knowledge.

You "lose" 100% of the battles that you choose not to fight.

Besides, people here are reporting that the content is already gone. Even if it comes back, it likely will bounce around back and forth but not return to this same state, so this was transient.

Even so, it seems not wrong? "toxic or abusive content being common in the Fediverse", regardless of how precisely that is measured, seems entirely accurate to me. YOU (and I) may choose to block such content, in part by being on an instance that enacts this choice for us, but that does not mean that such does not exist. Head on over to Chapotraphouse@hexbear.net to get a taste of what the Fediverse offers. It does exist, and while Lemmy.World defederated from it, so many other instances including Lemm.ee did not. Or Lemmygrad.ml.

It is so easy to forget about what was shoved under the rug, but the Fediverse is more like 4chan than most of us care to admit. Just because there are no Nazis currently standing in your little corner of a Nazi bar does not mean that you can invite your Jewish friends over to walk (safely) through the front door.

The Fediverse can be quite toxic. So much so that I've entirely stopped recommending it to people irl. We need to be more acceptable to people if we want to change our image, not just pretend that we are fine.

That section is just pure Ragebait lol

This article has been a source of so much frustration over the years. I honestly think it should be scrapped and entirely rewritten.

I have seen worse stuff on Instagram and Reddit than I have seen on the fediverse... and I use the fediverse far more.

it is impossible for an instance to be "removed" from the Fediverse

That's just how the internet works.

As with Wikipedia, I saw the same stuff with articles regarding religious topics that were just heavily guarded by a neckbeard atheist who had unreasonable expectations.

I've just seen your edit and the material added to the Fediverse entry on Wikipedia, your assertions seem well founded although I'm not tied into Wikipedia's Mod community and the motivations of users therein. You're definitely right that the Fediverse isn't exactly a node of objectionable content, frankly I've seen none, although admittedly I haven't plumbed the depths of every single instance. Their assertion should be noted though, that the Fediverse is wide open for abuse despite IMO not already being affected by the same volume as other platforms.

out of approximately 325,000 Fediverse posts analyzed over a two-day period, 112 were detected as instances of known child sexual abuse material (CSAM); 554 were detected as containing sexually explicit media alongside keywords associated with child sexual exploitation; 713 contained media alongside the top twenty CSAM-related hashtags on the Fediverse; and 1,217 contained text relating to distribution of CSAM or child grooming.

By their own numbers, the volume of CSAM was 0.03%, the volume of CSAM posted alongside keywords was 0.17%, the volume of CSAM posted with known associated hashtags was 0.22%, and 0.37% contained text related that kid of content. Less than ideal, you could say, given the nature of the content in question. The real crux of the matter seems to be whether or not it will increase, and whether or not Lemmy's Mods have the capacity to moderate the content like other platforms IMO, but their claim that "toxic or abusive content being common in the Fediverse" is more than slightly overblown even in considering the material.

Its gone now I think

This is ironically an inevitable consequence of Wikipedia's centralization undermining its strategic objective of making knowledge free and accessible to all.

I am not arguing for the opposite extreme, rather pointing out that Wikipedia is simply too centralized to be a durable vehicle of truth.

Federated architecture provides differentiated redundancy and the possibility for existential conflicts to be preserved in splits between elements of that federation rather than require the leaders at the top to be perfectly lucid and uncorruptable by encompassing forces (state or private) or risk cementing problematic lies as truth.

I think this would be a thing worth organizing around, can we mass report (edit ok "report" is probably the wrong word, this is about a broader editorial tone on the fediverse not attacking the particular person) this person or their particular edits on the fediverse? I don't mean a mindless spam wave, more like a well written consistent push from a large, disparate range of people that continually highlights that Wikipedia really doesn't have an accurate picture of what the Fediverse is (to put it charitably for Wikipedia).

Financial interests pay people to edit.

Mysteriously my ip is banned from editing when I tried to view talk on a suspect edit, even though I have never once edited a page or even accessed that part by this ip. None on former ip's either.

Ip is on some shady brazillian blacklist so maybe that is it idk, everyone just trusting shady internet players.