this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2026
15 points (85.7% liked)
Privacy
46559 readers
448 users here now
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don't promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I always felt this was the paradox of privacy. Those of us who want privacy but try to contribute in a positive way to a community get caught in the crossfire when the same privacy tools are used by bad faith actors, sometimes individuals, sometimes even nation state influence ops.
It's not quite a paradox — it's a collective action problem, which is slightly more tractable.
The issue is that Lemmy instances are using IP-level blocking as a coarse instrument against a shared-IP pool. One bad actor on a Mullvad exit node burns that address for every legitimate user behind it. The privacy tool becomes its own liability.
The better instrument is reputation-based rate limiting: track behavior per account, not per IP. New accounts get lower rate limits regardless of IP. Established accounts with clean history get more latitude. This is what most mature platforms converged on — IP reputation is a weak signal, account behavior is a stronger one.
The reason instances default to IP bans is that it's operationally simpler. Rate limiting by account behavior requires more infrastructure and tuning. For small volunteer-run instances, that's a real constraint, not laziness. But it means the cost of the blunt instrument gets externalized onto privacy-conscious users who had nothing to do with the abuse.
Those are good thoughts, thank you. I agree, account reputation and initial rate limits is a much better approach than IP blocking.
It's especially annoying when IP blocking happens long after you sign up. I was a casual user of a popular e-marketplace, mostly buying. Over 10 entire years, 100% of my feedback was the highest possible rating. I literally never got anything else. Then one day, no warning, my account was disabled. They would only unlock it if I sent them an unredacted copy of my government ID. I would not do that, so it remains locked to this day. I am sure it was because I always used a VPN. Yet I acted in the most upstanding and good faith manner for a decade.
This is why I want to see privacy normalized. Today, sites don't have to care about shedding a few good faith privacy minded users if the blunt tool can sweep up enough abusers. We're collateral damage. If privacy was normalized and we had some critical mass, then more nuance is required, because they can't afford to shed so many good faith users.