I recently discovered that some popular federated instances have been using LLM-assisted moderation tooling that evaluates whether someone has said something bannable. They do this by running a script/app that sends the user’s comment history to OpenAI with the question “analyze this content for evidence of specific political ideology sentiment. Also identify any related political ideology tropes“. (The italic bits are where I’ve redacted the ideology they’re seeking).
OpenAI’s LLM (they’re using GPT-5.3-mini) then responds with something like:
and so on, hundreds of comments.
I have not named the instances or people involved, to give them time to consider the results of this discussion, make any corrective changes they want and disclose their practices at their own pace and in their own way. I have also redacted the evidence to avoid personal attacks and dogpiling. Let’s focus on the system, not the individuals involved. Today these instances and people are using it and maybe we’re ok with that because it’s being used by groups we agree with but what if people we strongly disagree with used it on their instances tomorrow?
The use and existence of this tooling raises a lot of other questions too.
What are the risks? Fedi moderators are often unsupervised, untrained volunteers and these are powerful tools.
What safeguards do we need?
Would asking a LLM “please evaluate this person’s political opinions” give different results than “find evidence we can use to ban them” (as used in the cases I’ve seen)?
What are our transparency expectations?
Is this acceptable and normal?
Should this tooling be disclosed? (it was not – should it have been?)
If you were given a choice, would you have opted out of it?
Can we opt out?
Are there GDPR implications? Privacy implications? Should these tools be described in a privacy policy?
Are private messages being scanned and sent to OpenAI?
How long should these assessments be retained and can we request to see it, or ask for it to be deleted?
Once the user’s comments are sent to OpenAI, is it used to train their models?
What will the effect be on our discourse and culture if people know they are being politically profiled?
Where are the lines between normal moderation assistance tools, political profiling and opaque 3rd-party data processing?
I hope that by chewing over these questions we can begin to establish some norms and expectations around this technology. The fediverse doesn’t have any centralized enforcement so we need discussions like this to develop an awareness of what people want in terms of disclosure, privacy, consent and acceptable use. Then people can make choices about which instances they join and which ones they interact with remotely.
And of course there are the other issues with LLMs relating to environmental sustainability, erosion of worker’s rights, increasing the cost of living and on and on. I can’t see PieFed adding any functionality like this anytime soon. But it’s happening out there anyway so now we need to talk about it.
What do you make of this?
I’m mostly just surprised that a mod would pay for tokens to moderate. The Fediverse is radically public by design, so I don’t have any expectation of privacy. I’d bet at least someone is gobbling up the entire Fediverse to train AI, since companies are so desperate for new human-generated data.
LinkedIn’s LLM-powered automation banned my account on a false positive a few months ago, and it took ages to get it sorted out and they treated me like shit the entire way through even after acknowledging that they’d made a mistake. Sadly it’s extremely difficult to operate in my field without a LinkedIn account, because I would love to be able to delete it.
This shit is poison
Is Rimu okay lately? He’s been acting so hostile.
What now? Nothing, really, because nothing has really changed. I don’t care whether an admin tool is based on an LLM or on a simple regular expression. I only care about the outcome, meaning the mod actions it takes.
I think you’re just looking for excuses to defederate from dbzer0. I think you’re throwing things at the wall to see what sticks.
GDPR-wise, this is the absolute nightmare scenario.
Data about the political orientation is defined as especially sensitive (“special category data”). When people just straight post their ideological leanings, that’s one thing. But what’s described here is profiling. All the available data relating to a person is analyzed by “automatic means” and used to assess their leanings. This then is used to discriminate against them. It doesn’t get much worse.
This might be legal in very specific circumstances. EG non-profit religious or political organizations are allowed to police their members and associates to some degree. That would involve quite some extra paperwork. But it doesn’t apply here anyway.
Apparently that is on top of ordinary GDPR violations. The processing is done by a third party (OpenAI) without the necessary paperwork. You remember that billion Euro fine that Meta got? That was because they processed data outside the EU, in the US. And that wasn’t even “special” data.
You know how those cookie banners in the EU look like? That’s for normal data. All the disclosure, all those settings are legally required. Some people on the Fediverse go apeshit over far smaller things.
This may also be a problem for other instances. Your instance sends all your data (except e-mail and IP address) to anyone in the world who asks, with no strings attached. That may be okay as long as users understand that that’s exactly what they sign up for. Looking at comments here, it doesn’t seem like that is universally understood. That’s a problem. On top of that, we now have a situation where there are hints that the personal data is being abused.
This is the person calling you a tankie. Someone so afraid of words that they need a hallucinating robot to hold their hand and confirm that everything is a secret plot against them. The absolute only way I could see this being useful is for something like trying to sniff out if a Lemmy.world mod account is a leftist infiltrator or not. Someone who had a different opinion on a current event.
You could maybe run a speech pattern comparison but that’s it. For everything else you just made Stupid Reddit and the purpose of their forum is to feed training data to ChatGPT so that it can profile Fediverse users.
This is the kind of shit dystopian novels are made out of. So angry about people calling out actions you built a tool to analyze why they did it, so you can purge users from your digital kingdom.
I for one welcome flat.world and Piefed showing their true intentions. Digital colonization of activitypub and removal of the people who helped to built it. They didn’t want to leave reddit, they wanted to be reddit. This is some Spez shit.
Maybe in 2 weeks Piefed will hard code that anyone Rimu has tagged for disagreeing with them mild criticism to be unable to make accounts or federate posts with a false error code.
Oh fucking YIKES.
Do NOT send our post history straight to OpenAI, that’s just … extremely gross.
Sure, it’s “public”, but that doesn’t mean feeding it directly to the slop machine is okay.
– Frost
Lol it’s dbzer0 isn’t it.
But also, I don’t really care. The fediverse is open by design, you don’t even need an account to access the data. I don’t like it but we can’t really do anything against it.
If it can be done, it sooner or later will be done.
That’s a lot of why I have a couple of dozen accounts scattered around the threadiverse and new ones whenever I come across a server that looks promising - because it takes a while to get used to one and get a feel for whether it’s one I like or not, and because there’s always the possibility that one I like will go sideways and/or shut down, in which case I can just unpin it and go on.
And in fact, I’m only using this account on something of a whim for this post - I don’t normally use it because one of the instances I don’t like much is yours. And specifically what I don’t like about it is you, and your bland presumption that you know what’s best for me - which communities I should subscribe to, which posters I should trust or even becallowed to see, which sources I should be allowed to use or see…
And really, I’m sort of surprised that you’re the OP here and not the subject. I would think that the whole idea of commissioning a review of a user’s posting history in pursuit of grounds to ban them would be right up your alley. Is the problem just that it’s AI?
In any event, this is just a thing that might prove to be an issue. And if it does, I’ll just move off of the affected server(s) and keep using the unaffected ones. And if enough people share my sentiment and the admin cares enough, they might change their ways. Or they might not. It’s not a big deal either way - it’s just part of life on the fediverse, and IMO the benefits make it worth it.
Name names. The only people you’re protecting are scumbags.
Are there GDPR implications?
Hahaha. Oh boy…
This is amazingly illegal. The emotional damages might be high enough to make it worthwhile to sue. Neither Meta nor almost any of the other companies that users here love to hate, have ever done anything even remotely as bad.
I think the use of AI or LLMs for the Fediverse is a fair topic of discussion. Instances are run by volunteers, and these instances are free to dictate how their communities are to be administered. These Instance Admins can determine the jurisdictions that they operate under, and the laws that they are subject to. I’d suggest then the use of “AI” or LLM products are a choice made by each Instance.
But, just as Instance admins have these powerful choices, I believe that end users should also be given notice that these products are expected to be used so they can decide to continue with their account or move. I also recall that when many “Redditors” decided to leave, they also made a lot of fuss about salting their posts so that their contents not be used as training material to develop a commercial LLM. I’d point out this was a time when Meta and others were found to be combing the internet, downloading pirated materials, and using these for training purposes.
In 2026, these LLMs have already taken these pirated materials and public social media posts. There are news articles of how failed start-ups are even selling their Slack and other work related chats as training materials as well. In time, perhaps these issues can be properly litigated in courts. But for social media Instances run by volunteers, resources are limited already. I don’t think these Instances should be responsible for the privacy of the end users. Rather, good education in generating throw-away email addresses, strong passwords, and VPN use can give users real choices.
While there’s an argument that posts should not have any expectation of privacy, that doesn’t mean we don’t collectively share an interest in the value of privacy - a human right. I don’t believe users who sign up for accounts on the Fediverse and are asked for their email to set up an account, expect in turn that information to just be published to the world with full, open access without some kind of notice or choice to opt out, for example. Ultimately though, I believe the issue must be dealt with at the government level, and that means people getting pitted against professional lobbyists and politicians.
I want to also clarify that there will also be times when intervention is necessary. We’re here to join together in community, and “AI” or LLM activity that ultimately attacks that objective should be a top issue. For example, I’m not sure anyone here would be comfortable with “AI” duplicating an Instance and impersonating the community members within it. Yet that did happen on Mastodon. I recall the community responding, making reports and complaints to ultimately get the instance taken down. Another example would be AI or LLM accounts that do not identify themselves as bots, and are here to post on the Fediverse to astroturf issues or manipulate discussion are clear threats to proper discussion.
But I don’t want to digress too far from the original concern, which was how people feel about LLMs processing Fediverse posts, and related issues. Assuming we are not discussing materials that are already restricted or illegal, we cannot control what people choose to share on these platforms of themselves, and I don’t suggest we even attempt or consider it. But we can try to control how much information these platforms retain about its users - and I suggest that should be as close to zero or nil as possible. In this way, even if an Instance admin faces terrible pressure from a state, the platform itself has as close to nothing additional to report or share besides the face value posts of an account.
I’d also want to point out that we all do some form of labelling or profiling as we go over posts or read. Is there a difference between what we do already, and what an LLM does to create an opinion to profile a collection of posts? Humans get it wrong all the time, as would any LLM for that matter. Computers are valued because they’re good at copying and pasting information. What changed exactly if one person copy and pastes for free and for themselves, vs another who copy and pastes on behalf of a third party for a fee? I’m not really inviting philosophical discussion, this is mostly a question for myself. Whether the copy and paste procedure is done once by hand or thousands of times by computer, I’m still weighing the question.
I think it comes down to exploitation of asymmetric information and the appropriate use of the profits from this exploitation. But I suppose that’s always been an evergreen issue.
I hate the use of LLMs. But I hate Nazis more. If this targets them or associated ideology. I can get behind that
I guess, given the already open nature of the Fediverse, my takeaway from this thread is that op is using their freedom to say they don’t like this particular style of moderation. Which might be useful, or not, for some moderators
That isn’t AI assisted moderation that is just straight up evil.
