• QuentinCallaghan@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    7 months ago

    In case of 4chan it’s obviously other anonymous imageboards. There doesn’t seem to functionality in Lemmy that would allow for posting without accounts.

    • Andrew@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Accounts (which contain the private key that signs the headers in your posts, and the public key to verify) are required for ActivityPub to work.

    • whoareu@lemmy.caOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      hmm, maybe I should open an issue on github about it? however it will make moderating communities difficult.

      • themoonisacheese@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        7 months ago

        Not possible really. The protocol Lemmy uses requires accounts, not only as a soft requirement, but the software your instance would be interacting with requires it to function.

        • RobotToaster@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          It could always use an “anonymous” pseudo-account, (ie, have anonymous posts federate as [email protected]), or a pseudo-account per post ([email protected], anonymous2, etc). Thinking about it, the former has the advantage of being easy to block by instances or comms that don’t like it.

    • RobotToaster@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      7 months ago

      I imagine it wouldn’t be hard to add that functionality to an instance, but given the pearl clutching Lemmy instance admins are prone to it would be defed pretty quickly.

      • KISSmyOSFeddit@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        7 months ago

        It would be defed pretty quickly because all bots, alt right trolls, pedophiles and anyone looking to share illegal content would instantly flock to it.

        • QuentinCallaghan@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          Amen, Sopuli wouldn’t federate with such instance either. It would introduce too much problems. Bad idea.

        • RobotToaster@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          From what I’ve seen 4chan seems to be able to keep at least two of those out with captcha and jannnies.

          You’d probably need to limit anonymous posting to local communities to prevent issues though.

      • voracitude@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        7 months ago

        Tell you what: you go host that instance, with no pearl-clutching. Don’t worry about any knocks at the door, or federal agents abseiling through your windows. You don’t clutch no pearls, right?

        • RobotToaster@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          My point was more that instance admins defed for things that are comparatively minor, relative to allowing anonymous posting, not that allowing anonymous posting is a good idea (even if it’s technically possible).