| 23 May 2025 |
 Gnuxie 💜🐝 | In reply to @k900:0upti.me
Yes and I'm not even convinced it's a good idea it's a really good idea and the only bad thing about it from my perspective is that it is not included in event auth. So doesn't go far enough yet. | 09:17:53 |
| Gnuxie 💜🐝 | it's also fail unsafe atm | 09:18:51 |
 emily | do you not share my concerns? | 09:50:56 |
| Gnuxie 💜🐝 | I didn't read them, sorry | 10:00:51 |
| Gnuxie 💜🐝 | it's a relatively small feature that will take time for servers to adopt yes. but the only have to implement the event forwarding and not the policy server itself. | 10:01:37 |
| Gnuxie 💜🐝 | scanning content I think is out of scope and not useful | 10:01:57 |
| Gnuxie 💜🐝 | so I don't see that as a concern | 10:02:07 |
| Gnuxie 💜🐝 | I'll show why | 10:02:10 |
| Gnuxie 💜🐝 | https://marewolf.me/posts/draupnir/25/02.html#priorities-a-focus-on-on-boarding-users | 10:02:31 |
| Gnuxie 💜🐝 | * | 10:03:49 |
| Gnuxie 💜🐝 | the bigger issue is just proactively getting access to events to stop flooding | 10:04:08 |
| Gnuxie 💜🐝 | from new users | 10:04:17 |
| emily | (these three messages, FWIW) | 10:05:11 |
| emily | ah, but I guess you read them :) | 10:05:19 |
| emily | "but the only have to implement the event forwarding and not the policy server itself" → that's precisely the concern wrt centralization/SPOF right? | 10:05:33 |
| emily | hm, ok. | 10:05:49 |
| emily | then the Matrix blog presentation of the feature confuses me somewhat | 10:05:59 |
| emily | since they explicitly say "In short, they're servers on the internet where you can send events to and have them be checked for spam/illegal imagery/etc." | 10:06:31 |
| Gnuxie 💜🐝 | yeah they intend to use them differently to me I think | 10:06:49 |
| Gnuxie 💜🐝 | and the point is they enable people to make tools for proactive checks | 10:08:00 |
| Gnuxie 💜🐝 | whether those tools are made is something else | 10:08:10 |
| Gnuxie 💜🐝 | since fundamentally it is impossible in matrix atm | 10:08:24 |
| emily | right. well I agree that there needs to be a blocking kind of moderation and that reactive approaches are hopeless, yeah | 10:08:26 |
| Gnuxie 💜🐝 | * since fundamentally it is impossible in matrix atm without policy servers | 10:08:37 |
| emily | in my view, it's not really a good thing for NixOS that rooms are independent of homeserver | 10:08:46 |
| emily | the split-brain issues we've had, and the reactive-only moderation, are things that wouldn't be an issue if nixos.org was authoritative for our rooms | 10:09:10 |
| emily | and the benefits we gain from federation are from users being able to be on different homeservers, not the rooms being distributed across homeservers | 10:09:28 |
| emily | of course this may not be the case for all communities | 10:09:35 |
| Gnuxie 💜🐝 | well that's another argument entirely and we can't go from saying this feature will take too long to roll out to fundamentally changing the protocol x3 | 10:11:31 |
 dgrig | The (main/only?) benefit of the current architecture is the fact that the nixos.org HS isn't a SPOF. Obviously, with this also come all the issues you mentioned (split brains, abuse, etc). | 10:11:47 |
