this post was submitted on 29 Sep 2023
0 points (NaN% liked)
Lemmy.world Support
3232 readers
5 users here now
Lemmy.world Support
Welcome to the official Lemmy.world Support community! Post your issues or questions about Lemmy.world here.
This community is for issues related to the Lemmy World instance only. For Lemmy software requests or bug reports, please go to the Lemmy github page.
This community is subject to the rules defined here for lemmy.world.
You can also DM https://lemmy.world/u/lwreport or email report@lemmy.world (PGP Supported) if you need to reach our directly to the admin team.
Follow us for server news 🐘
Outages 🔥
https://status.lemmy.world
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't really have issue with a bot rate limiting, or suspending users (provided the false positive rate is low enough), but there does need to be a robust appeal and undo process which is the bit which seems to be lacking here.
That's always the dilemma. The higher the ratio of banning bots, the higher rate of false positives. Do you want more bots with virtually no users being banned or do you want virtually no bots with a lot of legitiment users being unfairly banned?
The answer most sane people take is the former but not everyone shares that opinion.
Using scripts to flag possible bots/spammers is fine. The final decision should be made by a human though. I would volunteer for that.
Sure but you'd need enough volunteers to sort through hundreds or even thousands of flags daily. Not always possible with large userbases but having a 'likely false positive' subset that can be done by manual review would be good.
You shouldn't have lost your contributions and it's made worse by an ineffective restoration feature.
Yes, indeed!