1196
As part of the devs farewell message on their site, they have included malicious code to make each visitor sends 2,000 requests to the dbzer0 servers in an attempt to DDOS and take the instance offline.
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2026
1196 points (99.2% liked)
Fediverse
43141 readers
2018 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
- Posts must be on topic.
- Be respectful of others.
- Cite the sources used for graphs and other statistics.
- Follow the general 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
The issue is that it's one person shadowbanning people without their knowledge for any arbitrary reason across instances. Like even if it's opt-out, that's still problematic since it makes the default experience whatever that one person thinks it should be. Why should one guy get to decide across the entire fediverse whether your posts are opt-in? That is antithetical to the very concept of the fediverse.
Except one guy isn’t. You have to choose to install the software. It’s not included by default. I’m running a local client (Voyager) and never dealt with any of that because the admins of my instance don’t use it either.
And every user that uses that software for whatever reason, superior features, easier on the eyes, more popular it's what everyone recommended will get their curation from that one dev.
Which is why it’s ultimately the decision of the admin. Don’t like what the admin of your instance is doing. Go make your own. That’s the beauty of the fediverse. It’s choice all the way down. It’s not like Reddit where you’d be stuck.
Huh?? It's not up to the admin, that's my point, the list is implemented by the dev and every instance that ran tesseract ran the same blocklist. My point is that it should be up to the admins of an instance, not the dev of software that gets deployed on multiple instances...
Okay. I see where the disconnect is. We’re both saying the same thing. In my earlier comment I said “as long as the Dev is open about it and it’s configurable by the admin”. What the tesseract dev did was wrong, what I was saying though is that a dev creating and managing a list is fine as long as those other conditions are met.
But then the admin isn't managing the list the dev is! You have one guy managing a list across multiple instances, that circumvents the public modlog, where users do not know how they got on, or how they could get off, and the power to shadowban across multiple instances is concentrated in the hands of just one guy!