this post was submitted on 04 May 2026
288 points (90.7% liked)

Fediverse

41887 readers
792 users here now

A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, Mbin, etc).

If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to !moderators@lemmy.world!

Rules

Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I recently discovered that some popular federated instances have been using LLM-assisted moderation tooling that evaluates whether someone has said something bannable. They do this by running a script/app that sends the user’s comment history to OpenAI with the question “analyze this content for evidence of specific political ideology sentiment. Also identify any related political ideology tropes“. (The italic bits are where I've redacted the ideology they're seeking).

OpenAI’s LLM (they’re using GPT-5.3-mini) then responds with something like:

image

and so on, hundreds of comments.

I have not named the instances or people involved, to give them time to consider the results of this discussion, make any corrective changes they want and disclose their practices at their own pace and in their own way. I have also redacted the evidence to avoid personal attacks and dogpiling. Let’s focus on the system, not the individuals involved. Today these instances and people are using it and maybe we’re ok with that because it’s being used by groups we agree with but what if people we strongly disagree with used it on their instances tomorrow?

The use and existence of this tooling raises a lot of other questions too.

What are the risks? Fedi moderators are often unsupervised, untrained volunteers and these are powerful tools.

What safeguards do we need?

Would asking a LLM “please evaluate this person’s political opinions” give different results than “find evidence we can use to ban them” (as used in the cases I’ve seen)?

What are our transparency expectations?

Is this acceptable and normal?

Should this tooling be disclosed? (it was not – should it have been?)

If you were given a choice, would you have opted out of it?

Can we opt out?

Are there GDPR implications? Privacy implications? Should these tools be described in a privacy policy?

Are private messages being scanned and sent to OpenAI?

How long should these assessments be retained and can we request to see it, or ask for it to be deleted?

Once the user’s comments are sent to OpenAI, is it used to train their models?

What will the effect be on our discourse and culture if people know they are being politically profiled?

Where are the lines between normal moderation assistance tools, political profiling and opaque 3rd-party data processing?

I hope that by chewing over these questions we can begin to establish some norms and expectations around this technology. The fediverse doesn’t have any centralized enforcement so we need discussions like this to develop an awareness of what people want in terms of disclosure, privacy, consent and acceptable use. Then people can make choices about which instances they join and which ones they interact with remotely.

And of course there are the other issues with LLMs relating to environmental sustainability, erosion of worker’s rights, increasing the cost of living and on and on. I can’t see PieFed adding any functionality like this anytime soon. But it’s happening out there anyway so now we need to talk about it.

What do you make of this?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Blaze@piefed.zip -3 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Piefed is infected with Rimu’s extreme opinionated garbage and he only backs down and puts them into a toggle after someone notices it.

I personally prefer Rimu taking feedback into account and then making changes than Lemmy devs bluntly closing feature requests widely upvoted by the community because "reasons"

Let's be honest here, it's not like there are so many options we can choose from.

Also, the example you gave about shows more than anything else that Rimu did change his mind.

"All the settings in this screenshot are off by default"

[–] Stamets@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

He only changed his mind after someone discovered it. The thing I don't like is his obfuscating his opinions that he's injected into Lemmy. Having to manually discover them and then bug him about adding an opt out toggle is not exactly trustworthy behavior nor is it something I'm going to applaud. He still tried to sneak it in regardless and only backed down when called out. I'm not giving him props for that.

[–] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Rimu is like Microsoft Windows.

Adds in things the higher ups felt was needed. Users then discover it and say this is a bad thing to include in software.

Microsoft then says "right our bad, we should have thought twice on this"

Microsoft then does it again a few weeks later, repeat.

[–] Blaze@piefed.zip -3 points 6 hours ago

Comparing a single open source developer to one of the biggest tech corporations worldwide doesn't really seem relevant.

Adds in things the higher ups felt was needed.

Who are the higher ups in this case? There's no Piefed board of management or investors to answer to.

All of that being said, I'm looking forward the day Pievolution can be run easily, then every instance can make their own choices, and these endless debates will end.

[–] Blaze@piefed.zip -3 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

The code is open source, nobody bothers to read it. If that's supposed to be obfuscation, then that's not really effective.

[–] Stamets@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 4 hours ago

The same arguments are made when an overwhelming amount of paperwork is dumped on someone during discovery in a trial. It's not a good argument then and it's not a good argument now. If you have to go through and check every single thing he's done to find the hidden things he's put in there without announcing then that is not transparent. You simply cannot change the fact that Rimu overwhelmingly puts his opinions into Piefed as a whole and then leaves it for everyone else to find the opinion and then tell him to add a toggle. He fights against it before eventually adding a toggle. Meanwhile, damage has already been done for however long with his garbage running rampant without anyone noticing it.

If he is not willing to point out what is opinion and what is code then I am not willing to fact-check every piece of his work to find what is code and what is crap. He's being disingenous and underhanded.

I am not continuing this conversation.