What are your thoughts on the idea of adding an edit history feature to posts, and comments in Lemmy?
Kalcifer @ Kalcifer @lemm.ee Posts 9Comments 209Joined 2 yr. ago
Kalcifer @ Kalcifer @lemm.ee
Posts
9
Comments
209
Joined
2 yr. ago
Editing a post may be to remove the password or email address you accidentally copy pasted in, or removing some potentially doxxing information, or one of many reasons you want that content gone.
Why not just delete the post, and then make a new one with the correct information?
Github has edit history, but it also allows users to delete revisions so it seems your main concern would not be resolved by this implementation.
If this were to be allowed, the edit history would then be pointless.
And as you point out, there is already a message that says the post was edited and what time.
That is the only information that is provided. One is unable to find out what was changed.
Nah, never liked the feature, wouldn’t appreciate it here.
Would you mind elaborating on why you feel that way?
Side note, external images can be embedded in markdown like this:
Thank you for that info! I'll update my post.
Your are absolutely right. I guess I had accidentally copied the wrong link. Thank you for letting me know! I have now updated my post.
Post a link to a channel of 1k users and 1k users send a request to the website, instead of only the server once?
That would only happen if the URL is generated on the recipients side. What Signal does, for example, is it generates the preview on senders side, and sends the preview with the URL, so the preview is only generated once.
/edit: From a privacy standpoint I’d really trust my chat server provider over random websites. So I definitely don’t see how it’s a terrible choice for these two reasons.
What do you mean? How would "random websites" come into play?
That being said, if you’re concerned, disabling previews is the answer.
Thankfully, they are disabled by default.
content-signature:qGFf4UPQ4M6XKPDbSyjOuKK5erMVrib4GPgJTPSifQT6qiijr1MRJxucdCk8rBol/AB+Blsv+aVn1zxs6D8cHttXu7E0uZuGYuS1UyYq/sVyjW6XSgvwpMqmozHaLh61+je8LDeFXVyR8t+okNYEzugMcmZsbes4gPchoxkkk9Mpo9AzIkmh40JEiz3WTrLMOT6Kwc5B0SIu3QENq2ucqSPUJ9HfOM4yMhYV57wQgk6VyssUWRlntq9RD3gauVa2CKi7g21LppoUiVRoxuxlalXM6azmza4M1z3cAK/F2x8ZEaeQbHjec3Q8LD4/w50dWN5hhuRyGdQTRqY+U0ACLA==
OP can edit comment, sign with a different key and claim his comment was edited by the admins.
Dang, that is a scenario that I hadn't considered. I'm not sure that there's anything that can be done about it.
content-signature:h0Iy5AaMSi9fo+LeWpR1hFpbRygi066LKPL7+5aDJ4Y0mf33R8/E+wn9At+N0dvNr8HH1eAghGkpfCbfcoe5NzzcsRMgfl+qSYjrpb4DmN124DLLoFd7q55R/aqXdqqZP+4DaVTLVN5G2MKg5SPL0SMhHxTl6f4BUxhQCWy6PapqwvsG3D59hVQtNlgm4/ab7oo5ORIR+ENV59+rrssNxaNBsKud4rths93SFMCf/si3Uewo0VNCorTb/KUMoZaHv21zmneq5UxZRkqXD3ZR4/H7vDILWArp350OSpZxm69kTJAeBH3VuvYkKunMlouzsxEJqdLDaaApYWwSyyUYLQ==
This is indeed an obstacle in practicality. You are absolutely right in that any channel under control by the admin could be used as a means to orchestrate a MITM attack and replace my public key with theirs. The only way for this to work is for me to personally provide my public key in a separate, and secure channel like Matrix.
I would like to emphasize that this is all just an experiment for my own interest. I would certainly not recommend what I am doing to anyone else.
content-signature:nHszcVqN6q4R+QXnem7w42nxw58kNPNV3UGVK/rxBP5QBWNjoHX5WstdcuLWiiuuky0ZwXVR6zif2/+oWwRcmDtbv+FNlBOKSIVfcW1lSOQNQeBddbmBNIfP7hBjtTSVbszIZPXNzJQykEFdxh9hJVaC3eEqxYnN4oIOdxWjj+MejQ2zpG3l/BdnTLqWX3rf4HK4VPD8OMYyxTbqhtTMMje+tfCrf/EtRfgY3gd0Clm6oWw6WeD6QgQdJHgbRlDrZwIVE8F5zdtnooFcIptlo4ovJl9VX7FdBCExRW9MQJUU+3AZv5gVCZ4pZ9zZaXihGmhdNRDbAX9XQVUSSRc+1w==
For more in depth information, I'll refer you to this Wikipedia article on digital signatures. But, the long and short of it is that I distribute a public key which would be used alongside that signature to verify if that signature was generated by my private key for the content that is contained in the given post.
content-signature:Hdv6ZJpsd8MxqdThHqSL5gs/cQ+AbxhOPdoRYYOyL8Ip4/dA6VM3oWtTvItLLO1x+I8DiS+Al7ay5e4TasdNNvrXh5cFmq7+b/L523/tJTqheCpv4tNDETp2H6FY9tJa0HmtmIv4jskdeAMrV0Rnmf1HoqMjO729mGdi1fGxLKVIszlBc4TUKtwzLOOFqBYR5zJCeRw7hbNydGnFRCcJcKfhTX/ANkRChqmCU8AR8Vnb99IMUnchWosjno/88WyoVZEpp/M06iMhw63wKsLzwfDySES3UbMAQwLOEYYtC3B8Y+ApeySAfUkssQjVy7bQUtiE7t/5eYoOTCOBQMUJpQ==
I don't. The string at the end of my comments is a digital signature which serves as a means to verify that I was the one that posted it, and that it wasn't modified by an admin, or any other external entity.
content-signature:GHnwqVFVDJFDAGt7Xg1oQecp04BoH+qJucdpFOblrg+YxSx8Vp7DfxEQudqcxK1+7yiOjgKvnVDCRP6oU7XTjttdl6sdMpFq9LcFHQ6OlVtjsvaSoIobck4ARimWs5vvTYMTBp6kCNYmhczFniJ52q3Blps7G1bw5q7sOf1z4rWG+CB99jb//02+x6KVjllnoiZJdVhqfa69dryG49W8QxTLvHqr20kTmAQzEpAK/kWgGL2/FLNhUYjvmVQtQAUJlXo/GJtj93AHyrApqwXEVmGSe/imIrosGgugG3UZSRGJzYd+/KwOVxsZNkTe+eMIyV8ceeouy9LcorEKJ1mq/g==
Are you replying to the following?
In every normal country this couldn’t happen because that guy wouldn’t have a gun in the first place.
Are you referring to a shooting in self-defence by a law-abiding gun owner? If so, then yes, if said law-abiding citizen didn't have a gun, then, by modus tollens, they wouldn't be able to use a gun in self-defence.
content-signature:MPvnKfx103YjaEk1xAXkZad4N/0g8T26skCzlxub/U2C7YlNL3ycnBO+T9uLoaM1EJ93KjJxWFjisQOWL6sw6znCkte+v0HXg6SP1KewjQGthXuEwCkFNvbmgNMs/yB9UCnqHQA94fdb1NKgi6NpZqh/Ja6cn6B/fsLAyOtMSAEtmYJWG/Dqa3I9p5GdHXUlMsWpKpZrd4oQ8qxDIDZPYgApZPhNKLHJijZK0lrsj91HbSapgCPY9gGVwT758MnEQ4MdgmywfwFlXxhzPU3qDLu6J/tqjNAPNiPdadE9VN9H/Oj5C2I235zLgmk9TCdMoNz1ZwjpXfg566OZxsjWog==
Someone walking up to you us bad, but it isn’t a credible threat to your life.
It entirely depends on context.
youtube should be held liable for incentuvizing this behavior
For one, YouTube isn't directly incentivizing it. The existence of money, and social fame are the main incentivizing factors. YouTube simply provides the platform. Holding YouTube accountable for this would carry enormous ramifications for the rest of the internet.
even if it means repealling section 250
Do you mean Section 230...?
On the other hand, you shouldn’t start a shootout at Walmart over a tik tok.
That is a rather reductive statement -- you are ignoring crucial contextual information. The victim assessed that, given the situation, there was a credible threat to his safety, and acted accordingly.
content-signature:dD+9B0nz63HWVwijeZIDB4gx0Ac++yPYtxsZJAd2m54y8qUwqFBgmQpjYkX5x8Xg/ERu81hD8Ar01Kmx06y+g/lznsz1YP6Hixn1qwK+0ydI4rONqDgWE33kcccF1tzBND93DpQDvgkkTPgrRq9cvakW42YgS8AJkrVgpGGkbMQmAD+1WosMncwtZRb3iObhjgf6qq7idc3wqpjsLsxvK9i476EK+9hygKwWwLwL7vAvX++igd8G0XARr7xeBA7oUcmc89OsF2CE9LEf4FUEsW3b9TMv57CFGu0WYpivqglJTKg/6F4VCKm9u/l7FT8E83MDqgtPHjx6CMvydWjPag==
It seems like the best outcome would be: person having their personal space invaded tells the “perp” to stop it.
The best outcome, sure, but not a guaranteed outcome.
judge orders to cease their invasive harassment against other people.
That's not really how the law works. If It is already illegal to harass people, then the court order would essentially be along the lines of "I order you to stop doing illegal things!".
The whole being shot just shows how quick to violence and homicide Americans are. It’s like, the solution to everything these days. Dealing with people the past few years in public is pretty dicey, just asking someone not to cut in front of you at the checkout line could potentially lead to a mass shooting these days.
It isn't entirely fair to group unprovoked violence with self-defence. There is an argument that could be made for proportional response in defence, but this is a separate issue.
content-signature:pAJkBsbiDHXMaSZ2SkenLgap0KT3Jnz3LV4F7n97GHsbMXIAVNZFFnsd4WxHZ6ryOSW6OvoT+fWGWCrTyCFjAH/IjqtLbk2uPqIXBNRAFv6AGQ3swX6kqtpKe97t35Of+ACUgyXM4BX0HGpoEojRhuHrKUU2EAD8brvTkHBVIXD5QTDWibmEm6aUZpnfCmBLoAyo8J/uiN1NBnbYZghJ9vgG8JVIo26MNFeP9Vq79LihQ0wp6PXHiS38+M4YQ65wk+cPKWXgxYfg4N/VNdsQkoAtEk4OVnMAZoh42eBiGNbTcp2xB4V9Qwk+eCkn1POi1DTKb7NYjpi03kj1lvRX1A==
Using a bot to generate a URL preview is an interesting workaround.
Content Signature: cLObDckmLviCA8xG832rJ8PFk9UTYN/PrdRb5/lCZkl+GsjtkMp90r6PWD+Ffxby0izyxVeDocLbJh8xrP7L3a1dUX2whEABb8mAhl+cHJqbxq07Z3SWBcroLyolMjmIfUQIgRRRB6lUhbsiwCfKcoVrf0HQchXZS+83YcyMtr+dgiIhVQar3/WMkIk+4nJ/sS+O2vz7c/RfxAzYYzFSPErFVe8Y1NWXWqPOajV/BdLS0U8239ElxUb7Q2Zq8SCgzqoOBtFbgWXTsa6lHFj4gqkRiaDzH6jlJhuO4rRZdA6E2dP+G0Ru7MexI1P6ev65I6VMWxYye0nqtdXC8Alp3A==
Can’t the admins just edit it and sign with a new key?
Of course, but if the signature were to change, it would no longer match the public key.
Either way there won’t be a way to know for sure who edited the comment
The goal is only to know if the OP edited it or not. It doesn't really matter who edited it if it wasn't the OP. The only important information would be that it wasn't the OP.
but well they can just tell you that.
Verifying with the user's public key accomplishes the same, and is independent of a direct audit from the user.
content-signature:qbUJz7ND/3+S+W0ptyja6zAeT0q7OyzFvJpAOr3iqbbN37+GcdAashDP8QNahRyAwA1X3tm9mh0PePV3VFDaiWzOeSNOQBwrVgnlepu+euG+07WJQT0Env8/vg+Q6qO7tcVN0vp8WGYftF5cjHCkjox2Mcu3dJ1g7ONMh+nJLIhrDTAki4nVLNJuJzznLBZJzohkW3/LBqDMjkPUDq0E3Mdulm6kUpWG8r3ECgxuOjdiHSvUS9yEjOZFpGiBibjQihAlDNqe2Rcx2kCP2H8nhJwclm667KnoinfV52z8v0zNrKlz8PIb6q+whwn6mNkisC02mQwQkStUi4SocZxaAA==
I think it’s sensible to ignore prohibitions of this nature
While sensible, I would argue that it is ill-advised (depending on context). One would instead be better suited to protest for this right, or to build grassroots support with the hope of democratically achieving it.
freedom is a practice.
I do strongly agree with this statement; however, the rule of law must be respected unless one is absolutely certain that there is no other choice. I think the declaration of independence puts it succinctly:
[...] Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government [...] Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. [...]
uNWFd160lwjPncmmtOMI7pnIQxbDjNaaogkRHv4troRYz5retihmjDJQuz/87YT91VYC5npys3BFwROqsqgQ7+4WAYIBob+nRktqKeu44el2IjlKjAh9OGlOMTroThnIte2FuswNR7A+jyx6uC5F4/Ryl7Fatk5tjHX91HAdpmRksqer5SYLgQzYYt9J5k28ZuyvhDSwQfWf5Ur4lF74j7+qDVH61kV7qFIfM4gJOy9vKHfP7k21+eKD9Wlv6RDFmk/Y8j/urt35zfdH5m/zGS36qo8RhIu3nap26ybFXb41SiLG0iOH+/iJLqgzALhpmLPO+6m7qGHCCdCXxws7fQ==
I take issue with some of the wording that you use.
it’s best to just kill the shit out of anyone
An argument could be made for reasonable, and proportional response given the context involved; however, do note that when one is trained for the use of a firearm in self-defence, they aren't trained to make a killing shot, they are, instead, trained to shoot for center mass to ensure the highest chance of striking their target.
anyone you think might be a threat
There should be no "might" involved. You act when you are certain that there is an immediate threat.
content-signature:Re4nBlceIFwCUt0aa8Q0VJI/nf6k0y3v4LCvJXZvir3Xh1cRxppkyI5d8ml+SDupRCLkjo5IeKXiY/2ktiHtMQjgoFTBdlcRvKo54at63dp9OgmY6gYp5rq0u6096uIjk4+w/8U9YILmxNOlMbiNWtWM9CgnCbIWBdLhOMSAxxR2w1VOx6t+9sdfHN4j2rnBdZG+Sw70czdtBAKmasnXe0Mx5SAp7ccoq9YDjSSMYg6z5GkHs2RFkaW/EccRRRz88MRLz0hhSs0X8mgz5aa09pcKJTxBPD24AOUeY9DaH9XqHnmcMFS7b6gMIbWQkKyVrTWpNBiuzYm6J1dll5HJFA==
In every other country if three people decide it’d be funny to beat you to death, you actually have zero you can do about it.
I don't know if you mean that one would lack the means, or that they are simply prohibited by law to defend themself, but, in either case, it is false in that there do exist countries in which one can defend themself, or defend themself and carry the means to defend themeself. For example, let's look at Canada (do not interpret this as legal advice):
34 (1) A person is not guilty of an offence if
(a) they believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person;
(b) the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves or the other person from that use or threat of force; and
c the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.
So we can see that one is allowed to defend themself. Things do get a little more trick when we are talking about the means to defend oneself. Canada's criminal code defines a "weapon", as follows:
weapon means any thing used, designed to be used or intended for use
(a) in causing death or injury to any person, or
(b) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating any person
and then further states
88 (1) Every person commits an offence who carries or possesses a weapon, an imitation of a weapon, a prohibited device or any ammunition or prohibited ammunition for a purpose dangerous to the public peace or for the purpose of committing an offence.
Punishment
(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1)
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
However, there are some loopholes in this. As long as one states that they are not carrying an item with the purpose of causing harm to another, and that such reasoning could be reasonably justified, given the context, one could, for example, carry a knife. Carrying a firearm, however, is significantly more complicated, and difficult.
RvzKdXmHFIp8J+d3mmGIEyVSdsasZDUWhjSowB0IplIbNNRBto4TzFiKTueEaYakSsSQ9F/KQxtXK5NMbSWgeX3gSXr+ry5KvwAidi/9HxY0NFzHINnJ4682kK7E247jObijihDyootBL9nOMVeqEB0jFaHL5x6aQuNsmmOCmrMpjIeAiCimQXg1PFlEnY83JDLjlInwxh5uH5dnhCupXBpPFzj1dKwk8hsONY40w9wOK8i+3/lhVUMRXm3fwAAAUbuqlaizX9qp8yDrqd868pEbuCvrz6lh5Z4WQAvKkmO+GUWP+O0ARctxoHD5mhjDD/R2O3JVlIwYVf5Cc9PQXA==
Do note that this isn't an exclusive statement; a knife is also extremely deadly.
content-signature:SZvzGdmNHaRH7zTy1xJeSZp30zK/eCLiV+707z3BzZsDQ9rlW/2MgYJBsDgqndz51uKiovW3o3teh1NfzvtbN6n5BFtOSTkIYRazhkkA39WVI7rIikrWVtWvkHkexrdD1JGGJhLnbHrqMfnDfYbGIJbMLGaQ3Va6zSXQGxra1S+oE5sc9ENrOyIk62qpPHJ1MHEb4c7YK+CpVNHe9eZaYIEs8jfipU5vI3ICba3NaqnBj1g3VuJmJUGOGExlZoSi2froXRE4eqNAiSpl41zLfT9OMVJHXnZRUOdySRte8lWfIAkPWt7fxHA5+wTDogxzCNwn4CcQh3DgDyakocV8Fg==
So long as the strangers they interact with may be armed it’s just an arms race.
I don't fully understand -- are you stating this as a counterargument to allowing citizens to arm themselves?
content-signature:B1AXrZBd/7FJJsrZK3eAstCO4snSAUMFuDO1KjwEAJU3xxtP0d7KJD2oTd9vS/0UHABSsREV9mDuethUyiv+QH++uWOlCvc2jVHOX6Q9UMN2QcAPbJm6hbqGQLMpJNjI2F94IPu8iZa6tnyAsagUQHbx6T8WBAlnv7nl5ukmUfFwtl6CP/lobNteFBlMKXOCRV+mJTbWq02L71ZA6EyfD2EUyLVb1iJ/NoDWOnI9whAoUHRHSOzLldEd/AoQ0/8HjvKsnFT+EAeqh7KEBYaMcKdduA3U2hqaIo5tIUpDOmCG9QGtbJq7m4Oo6Hxt95qxvBuRRiEzQ6rRPmVPsoKIIg==
Hm, I'm not sure how practical this is. If one must defend themself, would it not be best to always be sure that one has the absolute best means of successfully doing so? I would argue that carrying a firearm increases these odds far more than carrying pepper spray.
Pkr4gZz8OcH+N59ulney/B0zujS5vwLPawRI3io+8XhRumTMIu18/YlBE78Vu4eZpVHvQsNREGoMkkifDySYSSL7yjWE2KO4IKIxPUxQp2uyn2YFAjeX9xVBexuNrg/pL3X7oHhuGXUwy5QCHn7S6H/yXH7q7R0gpvpn1DPfkZYBmw62iMmcSss1lpxxSS5zhyroAjY5dVbCBmzfFUOEkjUi5I2k3MmxpfCTZlvTZvLEJil6lSwum+1H8Q5WDL1HpkuceyOgWAe4ATiB1Yay2056kIQiwrXbLO3EPzX9kW4GZAyYPABGZcjIYM4WlWzrD6wj5blsGFIT00gXckUMVQ==
This one actually isn't so bad. If a person opts out of their edit history being shown, at least this would be a sort of red flag for the reader that should trigger skepticism in the content's trustworthiness. That being said, it would still be inferior to having a mandatory edit history.