this post was submitted on 04 May 2026
284 points (91.3% liked)

Fediverse

41887 readers
761 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?

(page 4) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] obinice@lemmy.world 20 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

You stay far, FAR away from that shit, is what you do.

Scanning people's entire history for political leanings, etc? That's some deeply dystopian stuff right there.

It's easy to forget that these sorts of communities are dictatorships with only as much transparency as the owner wants to share. Usually they're benevolent dictators, so we don't think about it too much. But they can change in a heartbeat - and we don't ever really know what they're really thinking, or doing behind the scenes.

When the mask slips and they reveal this sort of thing, thinking we'll just accept it and keep living under their rule, it's time to read the red flags and GET OUT.

Hopefully someone compiles a list of places that do this stuff, so we can avoid them like the plague <3

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 7 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Scanning people's entire history for political leanings, etc? That's some deeply dystopian stuff right there.

Yep. It's Cambridge Analytica and Palantir level shit.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] leoj@piefed.zip 4 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

I will never understand why large groups cannot just add more people to the moderation team? People are willing to help folks.

[–] Tehdastehdas@piefed.social 4 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

In Fediverse moderation tools, are there consensus forming mechanisms to ensure that even if 20% of the volunteer moderators are malicious, none of their wrongful moderation suggestions leak through to the stream of final moderation actions? If not, I'd be reluctant to add moderators.

[–] leoj@piefed.zip 2 points 11 hours ago

You're risking bad actors either way, its just a question if you have enough good actors to counterbalance the bad.

Unsure what level of power a mod has to mess up a server or access for everyone, but seems like the worst case scenario is you just strip their mod tools and ban... So why not screen a bit and add some people instead of handing data to AI, which is what some of us came here to escape.

[–] Loco_Mex@sh.itjust.works 15 points 19 hours ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 16 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

I think LLMs could be useful tools for moderation, you might even can get away with smaller models for it, but I don't think people should be outsourcing them to big corpos, due to ability to manipulate the models.

[–] deadymouse@lemmy.world 11 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (2 children)

I agree, we need our own servers with local AI models for fediversе.

[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 20 points 19 hours ago

AI horde. Local models. Crowdsourced. Distributed. FOSS.

[–] Alvaro@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 18 hours ago

Today with models like gemma4, you could literally do this on basically any hardware, but for text moderation ypu don't even need LLMs, we have ML models that do text moderation perfectly fine and run 10x faster

[–] ResistingArrest@lemmy.zip 46 points 23 hours ago (5 children)

I think this will exemplify the beauty of federation. If I find out my instance mods are running all of my comments through a company’s ai model, I’ll switch instances. This is in great disparity to something like Instagram or Snapchat where every photo I post is immediately fed to ai and my only options are: be okay with it, never post, or delete Instagram.

[–] quediuspayu@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

But you don't even need to be a mod to do that. Anyone at any moment can run someone else's entire comment and post histories through an LLM.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz 31 points 23 hours ago (4 children)

Mods of any instance you're federated with can do this

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] wjs018@piefed.wjs018.xyz 42 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (10 children)

I don't think the privacy issues here are too salient. Pretty much everything on the fediverse is public already and have likely federated outside any particular region like the EU, so GDPR doesn't really have any teeth. The exception to that would be if instance admins are using database access to also feed private messages to an LLM (especially a corporate LLM). I know that the "private" in private messages on the fediverse can be conditional...but it should at least be considered private from LLMs as an expectation since those messages are inaccessible to things like scraper bots or listening instances designed just to harvest data.

My biggest concerns here would be twofold:

  1. False positives - LLM sycophancy is a thing. So, I worry that if you ask an LLM to dig through a big pile of text looking for a thing, that it will tell you that it found that thing...even if it is completely removed from context or completely made up. The false positive rate might be low (I have no idea), but I guess I just don't trust the LLM enough to let it take the wheel with stuff like this.
  2. Outsourcing moderation - LLMs are not going to be up to the task of moderating everything, just ask digg. However, tools to help moderators effectively do their jobs are helpful as well. There is a balance to be struck here. I think, for me, something like asking an AI essentially, should I ban this person, just feels like you are outsourcing your decision making too much. It is too far on the automation side of the scale for my tastes.

All that said, people can run their instances how they want. I don't really have strong opinions on LLMs/AI in general, I just kinda hate big tech companies. That is my foundational belief in the work that I do for the fediverse - fuck big tech and the oligarchy they have built/funded in my country. That is really the only axe I have to grind in all this.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] TheCornCollector@piefed.zip 8 points 19 hours ago

I’m really not fond of the profiling by automated means, but it seems like an inevitable consequence of the design of the threadiverse. Everything is public and easily accessible by anyone that would like to profile you.

I certainly disapprove of moderation based on ideology. Moderation should be based on quality of the content and if it fits in the publicly readable rules. Definitely not some hidden analytics or if the user completely fits in the in-group of the moderator.

I will admit that this might be a good way to find and filter out LLM based bots that are only there to promote or manipulate the conversation. But it should still be done according to public rules.

[–] melsaskca@lemmy.ca 3 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

So they are not using AI to assist the user or administrator, but as a cop who points out the "guilty". All the ploughshares are being converted back into weapons.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›