andyburke ,
@andyburke@fedia.io avatar

How is this not a caching issue on the linked server? Serving the same info up over and over from memory should be incredibly fast.

Are their pages dynamic and filled with ads and stuff or something that makes this a problem?

chiisana ,
@chiisana@lemmy.chiisana.net avatar

If you’ve skimmed over the original publication, it is actually worse: it is a non problem. Other users have pointed out already: ~100MB served over 5 minutes period is quite literally nothing for even one small VPS serving the content independently, let alone a site with CloudFlare in front like they claim to have.

Zak ,
@Zak@lemmy.world avatar

The proposed solution of an intermediate server caching embeds is needlessly complex. The first server a link is posted to can fetch the embed, then push it out to every server receiving the post.

punkyblob OP ,
@punkyblob@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

Actually an interesting point. My immediate concern with that idea is that it would open the door for disguising things for what they aren't.
The solution was made from the general caution of not trusting remote servers regarding content they not necessarily control.

But yes, that would definitely be a solution, too.

skullgiver , (edited )
@skullgiver@popplesburger.hilciferous.nl avatar

[Thread, post or comment was deleted by the author]

    •
    catloaf ,

    The first server should be the one it was posted to. Then federate the embed just like the post itself.

    If a server is malicious, it doesn't matter if that malice is transmitted in the post or in the embed, it should be defederated just the same.

    skullgiver , (edited )
    @skullgiver@popplesburger.hilciferous.nl avatar

    [Thread, post or comment was deleted by the author]

    •
    Zak ,
    @Zak@lemmy.world avatar

    In this case, generating fake excerpts is not something a user on a server controlled by someone else can do; they have to operate a malicious server themselves. Defederation is a good solution to malicious servers.

    Certainly someone very determined could spin up a bunch of malicious servers and put out a bunch of posts containing fake excerpts, but they'd need followers to get any reach on the microblog side of the fediverse. They could spam Lemmy communities, but users would notice and downvote/report the posts.

    So I think "just defederate" probably is an adequate solution here, at least as things currently sit. Were the fediverse to grow by an order of magnitude, I think it would need a reputation system to add a bit of friction to a brand new server or user getting a lot of reach quickly.

    rimu ,
    @rimu@piefed.social avatar

    Not all servers are equal. I would trust a post from lemmy.world or lemmy.ml to have valid metadata, for example. It'd be great if admins had some way to specify trusted instances (with the biggest 6 instances as initial defaults).

    There would be other uses for the trusted instances concept. Automatic sharing of moderation actions, block lists, community lists, etc

    skullgiver , (edited )
    @skullgiver@popplesburger.hilciferous.nl avatar

    [Thread, post or comment was deleted by the author]

    •
    rimu ,
    @rimu@piefed.social avatar

    Link previews for content from untrusted instances could still be generated just as they are now.

    The centralisation that has happened is a separate issue.

    Omniraptor ,

    It's not centralization if not everyone trusts the same server, which there is no obligation to

    Carighan ,
    @Carighan@lemmy.world avatar

    [Thread, post or comment was deleted by the author]

    •
    punkyblob OP ,
    @punkyblob@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

    How is this blog spam if it provides an approach on how to fix it (next to a recap)? I just put it on there because I collect stuff there.

    https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/pictrs/image/8bc7252a-79af-4931-bc34-0d39d62bd9db.png

    But yeah, whatever, Lemmy is an interesting place.

    erlend_sh , (edited )

    This is certainly not spam but rather a blog response, a time honored practice as old as blogging itself.

    OP’s article links to the source article (albeit via its fedipost rather than its blog post; maybe best to link both) and contributes to the online discourse with a long form reply, detailing a possible solution.

    Mischaracterizing such a clearly well-intentioned contribution as “blog spam” is disingenuous.

    edit: thanks for retracting your comment. I hope my retort won’t dissuade you from continuing to engage in this community :)

    ThillyGooth ,

    This is not spam. The blog post discusses a current hot topic. There's no advertising on the site. OP has nothing to gain by sharing this. Don't make people hesitate to post quality content just because the topic has been discussed elsewhere.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • fediverse@lemmy.world
  • All magazines
    •