If you think this post would be better suited in a different community, please let me know.


Topics could include (this list is not intending to be exhaustive — if you think something is relevant, then please don’t hesitate to share it):

  • Moderation
  • Handling of illegal content
  • Server structure (system requirements, configs, layouts, etc.)
  • Community transparency/communication
  • Server maintenance (updates, scaling, etc.)

Cross-posts
  1. https://sh.itjust.works/post/27913098
  • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.worksOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    5 days ago

    That is a cool feature, but that would mean that all of the web traffic would get returned to my local network (assuming that the server is set up on a remote VPS), which I really don’t want to have happen. There is also the added downtime potential cause by the added point of failure of the GPU being hosted in a much more volatile environment (ie not, for example, a tier 3 data center).

    • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 days ago

      Not all web traffic, just the images to check. With any decent bandwidth, it shouldn’t be an issue for most. It also setup in such a way as to not cause a downtime if the checker goes down.

      • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.worksOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        It also setup in such a way as to not cause a downtime if the checker goes down.

        Oh? Would the fallback be that it simply doesn’t do a check? Or perhaps it could disable image uploads if the checker is down? Something else? Presumably, this would be configurable.

      • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.worksOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        With any decent bandwidth, it shouldn’t be an issue for most.

        It’s not only the bandwidth; I just fundamentally don’t relish the idea of public traffic being directed to my local network.

          • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.worksOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            16 hours ago

            Yeah, that was poor wording on my part — what I mean to say is that there would be unvetted data flowing into my local network and being processed on a local machine. It may be overparanoia, but that feels like a privacy risk.

            • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 hours ago

              I don’t see how it’s a privacy risk since you’re not exposing your IP or anything. Likewise the images are already uploaded to your servers, so there’s no extra privacy risk for the uploader.

      • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.worksOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        Not all web traffic, just the images to check.

        Ah, yeah, my bad this was a lack of clarity on my part; I meant all image traffic.