SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Normally, when I make a post on SoylentNews, it's to talk about some exciting new feature, our future, or something similar.
Unfortunately though, on rare occasions, I have to make announcements like this one. Sometime between May 12-13th, one of our email accounts was breached. The account ("test1") was left over from go live, over a year and half ago, and had a very weak password protecting it. We believe that an automated password guesser was able to find and access the account. Once breached, the account was used to send a significant amount of spam until we deleted the affected account on the 14th May 2015.
As a result of the compromise, several spam services have blacklisted our mail server; we're currently working to try and get ourselves cleared whenever we become aware of one of these blocks. We do not believe any user information or sensitive data was compromised; the account in question was simply a virtual dovecot account with no corresponding UNIX account attached to it.
mechanicjay was primarily responsible for handling this and cleaning up the mess, and I wish to personally thank him and the rest of the sysops team for their handling of this issue. We are looking at taking steps to prevent a reoccurence such as using fail2ban and the like. Unfortunately, most IDS systems like fail2ban are incompatible with IPv6 which we use extensively internally within our network.
A sysops meeting is being scheduled to discuss this and other changes we're making to the infrastructure.
I will update this article (or post a new one) with additional information should it become available,
NCommander
(Score: 5, Insightful) by engblom on Monday May 18 2015, @01:27PM
While this is offtopic to the real discussion about the abused e-mail account, I fully agree with you.
I might burn some of the karma I have collected on this site, but I want to claim that moderation works better at that other green site than on this one because of the people visiting it. Here people are modding down things they do not agree with rather than modding up what they agree with. This site has fan boys liking to be in power. On the other site you often see both arguments modded up so you, as a reader, can see both and decide for yourself what is a better argument.
Because of the current moderation system and the fan boys present at this site, I have many times been thinking to give up SN. Sometimes I have been a whole week away, sometimes more. And I was among the first to register at this site as I dislike Dice as much as other do, but the people at SN has not been what I have been hoping for.
My own suggestion would be to only allow people to moderate up, never down. Then it is easy to filter out those comments nobody liked. At present state, if the opinions are like 50%-50% about something, a comment might get both modded up and down so the result is around 0. A such comment should be visible in my opinion.
(Score: 3, Informative) by NCommander on Monday May 18 2015, @01:42PM
I think this proves we're due for another community post on moderation.
Expect one this week.
Still always moving
(Score: 1, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @01:47PM
Is it just going to be yet another post, or is it going to be action?
We're past the point of discussing this.
It's clear what needs to be done.
Moderators need to be held accountable for their abuses.
Moderators who mod down good posts, or even just a single post, should never mod again.
It's that simple.
(Score: 4, Informative) by NCommander on Monday May 18 2015, @02:05PM
Examples required. We do ban moderation abuse, but apparently shit is falling through the cracks. I rather not go charging into this without getting a full set of opinions across the board, and moderation is off topic for this post. We do take shit like this seriously, and if we're going to revamp the system *again*, I rather have a plan than just throw something at the wall and see if it sticks.
Still always moving
(Score: 5, Informative) by Tork on Monday May 18 2015, @05:25PM
I'm usually the loudest to complain about bad moderation but honestly, around here, I rarely see it. If you'd like proof of that please feel free to look at my comments page. [soylentnews.org] I'm not everybody's favorite person here, in fact you personally have seen me in action and I've definitely butted heads with the Mighty Buzzard. But you can see here virtually all the moderations I've received have been positive.
I have no problem at all with you constantly evaluating the moderation system, it only serves to benefit me and the people that comment here. But I do want to say I really appreciate you asking that AC for proof because he has been challenged on that before and he's never provided it. From where I sit there's just a crying baby demanding a second bottle.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @06:02PM
It's not just one AC pointing out the bad modding.
engblom is a registered user who also sees that there's a problem, for example.
Others have acknowledged the problems in the past, too.
Maybe you don't want to admit there's a problem, Tork, because you are one of the users who is perpetrating this harmful downmodding.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Tork on Monday May 18 2015, @06:11PM
It's not just one AC pointing out the bad modding. engblom is a registered user who also sees that there's a problem, for example. Others have acknowledged the problems in the past, too.
So one person, probably you, has seen this problem. Great. There's something very obvious missing here, do you know what that is?
Maybe you don't want to admit there's a problem, Tork, because you are one of the users who is perpetrating this harmful downmodding.
If you really truly do believe what you're preaching, you should know this is exactly the wrong path to go down. You've already been told what you need to do. It's time to man up.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @06:28PM
Tork, there is a problem with bad moderating here.
It exists even if you don't want to admit it.
If you're part of the problem, as you very well may be, then of course you won't want to admit it.
But you should still admit it anyway.
Because there is a problem with bad moderating here.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday May 18 2015, @06:39PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @09:26PM
Hello, fallacy! [logicallyfallacious.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 19 2015, @12:27AM
That fallacy doesn't apply when there is in fact a problem, like there is in this case.
Repeatedly insisting that Obama is a Muslim is an example of that fallacy in action, because Obama is not a Muslim.
Repeatedly pointing out that there is a severe mismoderation problem here at SoylentNews is not an example of that fallacy in action, because there is in fact a severe mismoderation problem here at SoylentNews.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday May 19 2015, @08:09AM
Wow, I just accused Tork of being _the_ whiner (in not so many words) like, yesterday. And now here he is, a full blown reasonable Soylentil! I may have misjudged you, Tork. I concur with everything you said.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @05:59PM
Here are just two examples from one story from earlier today:
https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=7499&cid=184571 [soylentnews.org]: 2, Troll
https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=7499&cid=184583 [soylentnews.org]: 0, Troll
Perfectly fine comments like those are getting wrongly modded down way too often here.
Tork wrongly says it's just some AC who's complaining, but both of those comments are from registered users.
Everyone is falling victim to this bad modding, AC or not.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Tork on Monday May 18 2015, @08:32PM
Tork wrongly says it's just some AC who's complaining, but both of those comments are from registered users.
I don't see their complaint. I also don't understand why you can't just post the specific comments that got you mouthing off in the first place instead of glancing around for modded down posts and going "See, I'm right!" I mean, seriously, with all the noise you've generated I expected something a lot more substantial. But I think we both know if you point in that direction you'll reveal that you actually did deserve your moderation.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @08:37PM
Even a single incorrectly moderated comment is a huge deal.
It doesn't matter who the victim is.
The fact that one person was victimized is more than enough for this to become a big deal around here.
There have been many examples given, affecting many victims.
That makes this a big deal.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Tork on Monday May 18 2015, @08:42PM
Even a single incorrectly moderated comment is a huge deal.
If the moderators were all staff of the site I'd agree with you. Randomly dispersed around the readership and the usage is based on opinion? No.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday May 19 2015, @08:25AM
The fact that one person was victimized is more than enough for this to become a big deal around here.
Gawd, you are dense. Yes, if this was a matter of some human right laid out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but this is only a matter of an idiot being told that they are an idiot, which while possibly rude, is no violation of rights and certainly not a big deal.
Wait, are you using "victims" in the "Indiana" sense? Or are you using "victim" in the Gamergate sense? Is it just the refusal of normal people to agree with your insane world view that is unjust and oppressive? Gentlepersons, I believe we have discovered the violence inherent in the system. I recommend a new mod, "Crazy, but that's OK", we will probably have to give it a +1, the whole "disagree" ruse is not going to work again. Or perhaps the Seinfeld version: "Not that there's anything wrong with that". This we might be able to get away with the +0 on. And finally, maybe just an "anti_gewg_" mod, at a suggested -2, just for emphasis. As a prior victim of a spam modding, it is difficult for me to suggest harsher measures for our serial disrupters, but it is even more clear now what must be done. (Hey, wasn't that the title of one of Lenin's pamphlets? Have we been infested by Trotksyists pretending to be Republicans? )
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday May 19 2015, @08:06AM
I rather not go charging into this without getting a full set of opinions across the board, and moderation is off topic for this post.
Exactly, and this is precisely why you are our N Commander. Carry on, Sir!
(Score: 4, Informative) by opinionated_science on Monday May 18 2015, @05:09PM
Says the anon....evidence please?
(Score: 4, Informative) by janrinok on Monday May 18 2015, @06:33PM
So are you suggesting that someone with an account should be held responsible for their actions, but the AC's who (IMHO) do their best to ruin this site should be allowed to continue without any rein on their activities? There are some good ACs, but the majority are simply avoiding being held accountable for anything. Try following a discussion when everybody is AC - it is not pleasant.
My own feeling is that the right to moderate should be linked to previous commenting and, where possible, that account's use of the moderation system. I do not support ACs - how difficult is it to create an account if you want to say something, even if you never use the account again. But, we would know who was saying what, and new accounts wouldn't have the right to make use of all of the moderation options. Just my €0.02.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @06:57PM
The best comments I've ever seen here have come from ACs. All of them. I have never seen truly insightful, deep comments come from a registered user.
Registered users aren't here to engage in truly thought-provoking discussion. They're here to build up a reputation. They're here for the sake of vanity. That's why they create an account in the first place: they care more about appearances than about the discussion.
This site isn't alone, obviously. The best content at /. comes from ACs. This is also why the discussion at sites like Reddit and HN, which do not have anonymous users, is so vapid. It's never about the discussion there. It's never about the ideas. It's all about building up vain online personas.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @09:35PM
So you've not been doing much SN reading at all, you're only reading stories immediately after they're posted and then never again, or you're lying to push an agenda. There are insightful posts from registered users and plenty of "marry young girls" spam posts from ACs. Merely by using the phrase "all of them", you're provably wrong or such a minor user of SN that your points are likewise invalid.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @11:14PM
The GP never claimed that ACs didn't post bad comments. The GP also never claimed that registered users don't post good comments. The GP did say that "the best comments ... come from ACs". I hope you're able to comprehend what was said, and what wasn't said, and how they differ.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 20 2015, @12:19AM
Nope, the poster you refer to wrote:
... which is either provably wrong, or marks that poster as a completely inconsequential user of SN due to spending effecitvely zero time on this site.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @09:41PM
i have to agree with this. i make a lot of posts as AC, despite having an account, because i don't want the reputation that can come along with them, eg, i don't want to be labeled as "that" kind of person, where "that" is some opinion that you don't personally agree with because of your biases. its not about preserving my reputation, but more about not wanting to be pidgeonholed based on my perceived biases, and being pre-judged based on that rather than the content of my posts. i want the information in my posts to be heard by all, and unfortunately humans let their biases get in the way [boston.com] far too easily, like how facts coming from "the other side" will be ignored and make one's delusional views even more entrenched, but hearing them from "your side" will actually have an impression. i want my posts to be viewed equally by all, rather than being immediately ignored or brushed off for no other reason than the fact that the viewers' biases are different from my own.
(Score: 2) by coolgopher on Tuesday May 19 2015, @02:56AM
I can't speak for anyone else, but I've got an account so I can customise the layout and have that same layout available regardless of where I access SN from. Maybe your generalisation is correct, but I'd need to see actual evidence before I believe it.
And speaking of generalisations, it sure seems like the common thread here is that those complaining about broken moderation lacks evidence to back up their claims.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday May 19 2015, @08:42AM
Registered users aren't here to engage in truly thought-provoking discussion. They're here to build up a reputation. They're here for the sake of vanity. That's why they create an account in the first place: they care more about appearances than about the discussion.
Yes, that is why me, Aristarchus of Samos, a 2400 year old Greek philosopher, came here to Soylent News and registered under my own true name! Because I needed the rep! Some times I envy Galadriel, because she could have just put on the One Ring, and not had to deal with all you ACs and orcs.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Monday May 18 2015, @09:23PM
zero-tolerance policies do very little to actually improve things. after a certain point, making punishments even harsher do nothing to decrease the occurances of the action you want to limit, and are sometimes even counter-productive. what you're basically suggesting is that people should be executed for the tiniest of mistakes.
beyond that, there's also benefits to having leniency in a system - it'd be downright retarded to take away somebody's moderation ability permanently because they accidentally selected the wrong moderation while drunk one night, and having to deal with an appeals system to restore one's moderation ability because of simple mistakes would just create even more bureaucracy and headaches than it would be worth.
there's also the fact that, for most instances, what makes a moderation "bad" is purely subjective - not agreeing with a moderation doesn't make it bad, so who is in charge of deciding, and what gives them the right to force their will and viewpoint on everyone else?
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday May 19 2015, @08:04AM
It's clear what needs to be done.
Moderators need to be held accountable for their abuses.
Moderators who mod down good posts, or even just a single post, should never mod again.
This is not at all clear. What is clear is that the one particular troll who keeps disrupting every discussion here needs to be IP banned, for how many ever IP addresses are in play. I find that the moderation on this site is completely fair, and I see no reason anyone would think otherwise, unless they are a butt-hurt minority. No problem with further tinkering with the mod system, but I do not think it will do what the AC whiner thinks it will do, nor do I think it will solve the whiner AC problem for the rest of us. I suggest we take off, and nuke the "Mod Abuse" troll from orbit; it's the only way to be sure.
(Score: 2) by Common Joe on Tuesday May 19 2015, @04:12AM
Maybe I just don't browse low enough often enough or in the past enough, but I don't see what engblom is going on about. When asked for examples, I saw one person [soylentnews.org] out of three give legit examples. (I have to admire the effort [soylentnews.org] of this guy, though. I only looked at the top six and they were all trollish comments.) I'm curious to see what you have to say and look forward to it.
(Score: 2) by NCommander on Monday May 18 2015, @01:59PM
An article is on the queue to specifically discuss moderation for Wednesday at 10:00 UTC.
Still always moving