Technology

37712 readers

230 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

226

Admins, we're about to have a really bad SPAM problem when Lemmy removes captcha support in v.0.18 - You ALL have a responsibility to communicate back to lemmy devs to try to stop it. (tucson.social)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

173 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Look, we can debate the proper and private way to do Captchas all day, but if we remove the existing implementation we will be plunged into a world of hurt.

I run tucson.social - a tiny instance with barely any users and I find myself really ticked off at other Admin's abdication of duty when it comes to engaging with the developers.

For all the Fediverse discussion on this, where are the github issue comments? Where is our attempt to convince the devs in this.

No, seriously WHERE ARE THEY?

Oh, you think that just because an "Issue" exists to bring back Captchas is the best you can do?

NO it is not the best we can do, we need to be applying some pressure to the developers here and that requires EVERYONE to do their part.

The Devs can't make Lemmy an awesome place for us if us admins refuse to meaningfully engage with the project and provide feedback on crucial things like this.

So are you an admin? If so, we need more comments here: https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/issues/3200

We need to make it VERY clear that Captcha is required before v0.18's release. Not after when we'll all be scrambling...

EDIT: To be clear I'm talking to all instance admins, not just Beehaw's.

UPDATE: Our voices were heard! https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/issues/3200#issuecomment-1600505757

The important part was that this was a decision to re-implement the old (if imperfect) solution in time for the upcoming release. mCaptcha and better techs are indeed the better solution, but at least we won't make ourselves more vulnerable at this critical juncture.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Seems to me like you're mis-framing what's being said to fit your argument and claim the other person as a troll. No one has made a claim about stopping "ALLLLLL" bots or "perfection". It's about whether it stops enough to matter. And I think it's safe to assume if someone had the interest and capability to write a bot, they can probably google "how to defeat captcha" and implement one of them. If there's currently not a flood of bot accounts, I believe it's from a lack of caring rather than the captchas doing anything.

There are solutions for bots, they should be implemented, but keeping the existing captcha isn't worth it. Multiple things can be true, but I get the feeling you're set enough in your opinion that you're going to (continue to) attack the character of anyone who disagrees.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not entirely sure about the misframing thing, because I see a pretty clear pattern of arguing towards perfection, I'm not sure how one could look at that and not arrive at the interpretation. It didn't seem to matter how complex the task was, the point was always "that version can be overcome - it's pointless".

All the while missing the point. If we're arguing "stops enough to matter" then the answer is self evident. The captcha is currently the difference between a bot problem and not for many and that's what's happening now, not in the future (as near or as distant it may be). Multiple things can be true indeed "This is a bad implementation and needs replacement" "this is currently stopping things from getting worse", but that doesn't also mean "We should remove it now and not worry about a replacement until afterwards".

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I'm not saying they're not perfect, I'm saying they're effectively worthless. They're so easily bypassed that it's not worth supporting in the first place.