Based Count head admin.

Some of the tools I’ve created:

I speak: 🇮🇹 🇬🇧 🇫🇷

  • 2 Posts
  • 33 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 17th, 2023

help-circle






  • Exciting stuff! In particual I really like how neatly organized the project roadmap is, with a quick glance at the project GitHub page I can tell what you guys are working on and how development is proceding.

    Also, props for using a widely established language like Java. I know Rust has lots of advantages and is all in all an awesome language, but having to learn a new language just to be able to contribute and submit PRs to your favourite open source project kinda kills the hype (and takes away a bunch of time).



  • Well of course I can’t guarantee that I would be convinced, even after hearing that but explanation aside

    Just because data is publicly scrape-able doesn’t mean it’s acceptable to do so.

    Isn’t it? If, an instance admin, has the possibility of hiding some data to the public and refuses to do so, it’s either:

    1. Because they are fine with the public accessing it
    2. Because they are ignorant and unaware of such a feature, which I honestly don’t think is an acceptable excuse (after all users have entrusted this person with their data, ffs)

    At the end of the day what I am doing is nothing more than what any user could do by checking the “Moderated servers” section of the about page of any Mastodon instance.

    I’m sorry but I’m really am not seeing the logic behind your point.


  • I’m sorry could you please elaborate on why the rest of the Fediverse would be enraged, or how this could be used for harassment? I don’t think I follow. I’ll admit, I only interact with the Fediverse through Lemmy so maybe there’s some dynamics of the Masto-sphere I’m not picking up.

    My understanding is that Mastodon admins can choose to hide their /domain_blocks endpoint to either outside users or even to all non admins. (source), and as a matter of fact almost a thousand of the 1700 Mastodon instances I’m querying already do so, so really I can only get the federation status of the few hundred that remain.

    I think the admins that prefer not to show their defeds, in fear of harassment, are already hiding them, so it should be ok for me to query the remaining ones.



  • Yeah sure. Assuming you are only targeting Lemmy instances (other softwares make this a bit more complicated), A “can interact” with B if:

    • A hasn’t blocked B
    • B hasn’t blocked A
    • Neither A nor B are on allowlist. If either is on allowlist, it must have explicitly added the other one to its allow list (this is very uncommon, the only big instance using allow lists is hexbear.net)

    So, to verify this, you could query the Defed Investigator with the instances you care about, one at a time. Only select the softwares you care about (likely only Lemmy) to make the query faster. Say you wanted to verify the compatibility between lemmy.world and sh.itjust.works (just making an example). Go to https://defed.xyz/check?name=sh.itjust.works&software=lemmy

    • lemmy.world doesn’t appear in the “Instances defederated from sh.itjust.works” (this means .world hasn’t blocked SJW)
    • lemmy.world doesn’t appear in the “Instances defederated by sh.itjust.works” (this means SJW hasn’t blocked .world)
    • lemmy.world doesn’t appear among the “Instances not allowing sh.itjust.works” (this means .world isn’t on allowlist or, if it is, it has explicitly allowed SJW. Again, this is very uncommon)

    Also make sure the instance you are looking for isn’t among the “Instances that returned errors”, of course.