Report inboxes #6
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,72 @@ | ||
| - Feature Name: report-inboxes | ||
| - Start Date: 2024-02-20 | ||
| - RFC PR: [LemmyNet/rfcs#0000](https://github.com/LemmyNet/rfcs/pull/0000) | ||
| - Lemmy Issue: [LemmyNet/lemmy#0000](https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/issues/0000) | ||
|
|
||
| # Summary | ||
|
|
||
| Rather than combining all reports into a single report inbox, we should allow users to select whether they are reporting to mods or admins, and we should split reports into different inboxes based on that selection. | ||
|
|
||
| # Motivation | ||
|
|
||
| The current approach has some shortcomings: | ||
|
|
||
| * Users are not currently able to bypass mods and report directly to admins - this may allow mods to conceal instance rule breaking in specific communities | ||
| * Admins are not aware of community rules, so they may wish to take no action for most community rule breaking reports. However, if an admin resolves such a report, the relevant community mods most likely never see it. | ||
| * Different instances may have different rules, but somebody resolving a report on one instance will resolve it for other instances as well, thus potentially resulting in missed reports. | ||
| * Mods might take local action on a report and mark it as resolved even in cases where a user should be banned from the entire instance. In this case, admins are very unlikely to see the report. | ||
|
|
||
| # Guide-level explanation | ||
|
|
||
| ### When creating reports, users will be able to select if it's a mod report, or an admin report (or both) | ||
|
|
||
|  | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. Idea: Include a list of usernames of the mods and admins here (perhaps truncated to the top N of them if there's a lot) to make it crystal clear who is receiving the report. EDIT: As I note below, it should probably be phrased as "Does the reported content violate community rules or server rules?
The list of users could still be included for clarity. There was a problem hiding this comment. Agreed, added a note about this to the RFC There was a problem hiding this comment. The image shows the options as checkboxes - is the intention that you should be able to send the report to both admins and mods? Otherwise this should use radio buttons. There was a problem hiding this comment. I think it makes sense to be able to send reports to both, I would keep it as checkboxes There was a problem hiding this comment. Either that or a radio button / enum with I'd prefer that There was a problem hiding this comment. If users can ignore the choice between admin or mod, they will simply use the default. That would make the whole RFC moot. So I think there should only be radio buttons for either admin or mod. Anyway please update the image with the agreed layout, or get rid of the image. Its too confusing to have completely different suggestions in the image and text. There was a problem hiding this comment. Having both as an option definitely seems useful. This of course also applies to various other problematic content, but even for the spam example mentioned for lemmy.ml. edit: I see this was mentioned by dessalines further down already |
||
|
|
||
| ### Instead of the current single report inbox, there will be three different kinds of inboxes | ||
|
|
||
| * Admin reports - show all reports sent to admins (only visible to admins) | ||
| * Mod reports - show all reports sent to mods for any communities the user moderates | ||
| * All reports - Shows a read-only view of all (admin and mod) reports, only visible to admins | ||
| * This is a read-only version of the current 0.19.3 admin report view, and would allow admins to still keep an eye on mod actions on their instance if they wish | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. I feel like there is no practical need to make this read-only. Admins can alter stuff anyway if they wanted to, there's no need for the UI to try and hide that. But admins shouldn't get "unread report" notices about this view at least. There was a problem hiding this comment. Yeah, I think you're right. I think the best way forward is to just show a confirmation dialog with a warning when an admin wants to resolve a report which is not in their own report inbox. |
||
|
|
||
| The UI wouldn't need to change for mods, but for admins, there would be a new selection at the top of the reports page (the "mod reports" tab would only be visible if the admin is also a mod in any community): | ||
|  | ||
|
|
||
| ### Resolving reports should be more granular | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. I had to read this over a few times to fully understand it. Might be good to break this into 3 sub-headings. And what resolving, or removing does to the other inboxes.
|
||
|
|
||
| * Reports in the "admin reports" tab can only be resolved for admins of the local instance | ||
| * To reduce overhead, **banning the reported user on the user's home instance + removing reported content should automatically resolve reports for remote admins as well** | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. I don't understand this - what do you mean by remove admins? I was under the impression that admin reports only go to the local admin and doesn't federate. Why would you want to report something to an admin that is not of your own instance? Do we need 3 options? I.e.:
That last options seems... excessive? I suspect I could be flooded with reports even if I only had a small instance. Is the "report to admins" you're talking about in this RFC number 2 or number 3? There was a problem hiding this comment. I think users should not have the ability to generate reports to ALL federated admins, however, I think when submitting a report to admins, it should always go to all relevant admins. The set of relevant admins depends on context, there are three options:
In the second and third scenario, it makes sense to automatically resolve reports for remote admins as well, when the user is banned on their home community & the reported content has been removed (because at that point there is no further actions any admin on any instance can take for that report). However, if a feddit.dk admin bans the lemm.ee user first, the report should not be automatically resolved for lemm.ee admins, because they might still want to ban the user locally as well. There was a problem hiding this comment. That makes a lot of sense - I don't think the way the RFC is written right now makes it clear that that is what you mean, perhaps explicitly talk about those 3 scenarios as it made it clear to me :) |
||
| * Reports in the "mod reports" tab can only be resolved by relevant mods. Admins can only resolve these if they are also explicit mods in the relevant communities. | ||
sunaurus marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
| * To reduce overhead, **admins banning the reported user on the community instance OR the user's home instance + removing reported content should automatically resolve reports for mods as well** | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. Thanks, was hoping to see this, otherwise we're increasing the workload for everyone. |
||
| * Reports in the "all reports" tab can not be resolved, they are only there for a read-only overview | ||
| * This is to prevent cases of admins accidentally preventing mods from moderating according to their own community rules | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. Admins should have the power of overruling mods though. If mods don't like the admin of the instance where their community lives, they should find a different instance to host their community. There was a problem hiding this comment. Sure, but I don't think that's relevant for resolving reports. I mean, admins can always remove content, ban users, etc. This point is more about preventing admins from inadvertently hiding reports from mods. |
||
| * Admins can still always explicitly take over communities by making themselves mods, in this way, they are able to handle mod reports for any abandoned communities, etc | ||
|
|
||
| ### Mods should be able to escalate reports to admins | ||
|
|
||
| This would generate a corresponding report in the admin inbox. | ||
|
Comment on lines
+51
to
+53
There was a problem hiding this comment. This sounds like a very nice thing to have. |
||
|
|
||
| # Reference-level explanation | ||
|
|
||
| * In the UI, changes are needed for both reporting as well as the reports inbox views | ||
| * In the database and API, we should split reports by intended audience | ||
| * Federation needs to be changed as well in order to allow distinguishing the report target audience | ||
|
|
||
| # Drawbacks | ||
|
|
||
| It might make reporting slightly more confusing for end users - the mod/admin distinction might not be fully clear to all. | ||
|
Comment on lines
+61
to
+63
There was a problem hiding this comment. Another idea: What if instead of saying
We say:
If we made rules actual data instead of just text, you could even imagine a follow-up question like
Just as an example, hope that makes sense. I think such a flow would make it simpler for users. However that could perhaps be pushed to further work and not necessarily be part of this RFC. There was a problem hiding this comment. I like the simple, less verbose options better: There was a problem hiding this comment. I think the problem is that it's a non-obvious choice that the user might not be truly capable of answering. I imagine most users would ask themselves "how do I know whether it should go to an admin or a mod?". Some users might not even know the difference between an admin and a mod. However, the user is more likely to be able to answer or at least find the answer when asked about the rules of the community or the rules of the server. The follow-up questions for each specific rule would also make it a lot easier for the user to answer, as they would have pre-defined options. The user wouldn't even have to go look for the rules. It's not like this is rocket science, Reddit does literally the same thing. I don't think we need to reinvent the wheel here. So yes, it is more verbose but also a lot more user-friendly. Generally Lemmy is not too user-friendly at the moment and I think it can do a lot better in this aspect. |
||
|
|
||
| # Rationale and alternatives | ||
|
|
||
| Alternatively, we could make reporting **even more** granular. It would be possible to allow users to select only a specific instances admins as the intended report audience, for example. | ||
| However, I think this has several downsides: | ||
| * Makes the report UI even more confusing | ||
| * Potentially takes away valuable information from other admins (imagine a user only reports CSAM to their own instances admins, while leaving the offending post authors home admins in the dark) | ||
|
|
||
| # Prior art | ||
|
|
||
| Most other social networks allow users to select whether they are reporting a violation of community rules, or site rules as whole. | ||
|
|
||
| # Unresolved questions | ||
|
|
||
| Does ActivityPub properly support splitting up reports like this? | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. We can set the |
||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is incorrect. If you resolve a report, that only affects your local instance. Mods or admins on other instances have to resolve it separately.