15
Lemmy needs real deletion, not just soft‑delete/hiding (lemmy.world)
submitted 8 months ago by to c/support@lemmy.world
9 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Right now, deleting a post on Lemmy only hides it locally, but doesn’t fully remove it across the fediverse. I understand the technical reasons behind this, but from a user perspective it feels incomplete.

Platforms should give users the ability to fully delete their own content, or at least send a federated deletion request to other instances. This is important for privacy, safety, and user control.

Is full deletion planned, or is there a technical limitation preventing it? I’d like to understand what’s possible and whether this feature is on the roadmap.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 11 points 8 months ago (5 children)

Any feature relying on a willing cooperation of every node in the network is impossible to enforce.

Sure, it should be attempted, but don’t expect it to actually matter against actors that just don’t give a fuck.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 5 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    You’re right that no federated system can force every server to delete something. But meaningful deletion doesn’t require 100% enforcement.

    Lemmy already has admin‑level purge tools that send federated delete requests, and most servers respect them. A user‑level version of that, or a proper “deleted” ActivityPub signal, would give people far more control than the current soft‑delete model.

    Even if a few rogue servers ignore it, the majority of the fediverse would still clear the content, which is a huge improvement over “deleted by creator” placeholders.

    Federation doesn’t have to mean no deletion — it just means deletion has to be cooperative instead of enforced.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    A user‑level version of that, or a proper “deleted” ActivityPub signal, would give people far more control than the current soft‑delete model.

    This quite literally already exists.

    When you delete posts, comments or PMs, the ActivityPub message is a deletion. How other servers handle this depends on the software, some immediately delete the data, others will retain it for some time and trigger a delayed deletion. Others may not delete it at all. Likewise, if you delete your profile in Lemmy, you have the option to select whether your content should get deleted along with it.

    With Lemmy, some of these actions are not always instantly deleting data from the database. For example, if you delete a post or comment, you still have the option to undelete it to restore the original content. From a moderation perspective, it is crucial to not purge everything from the DB without a trace immediately, as this would easily allow abuse by bad actors.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 4 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Thanks for the clarification — that helps me understand the current behavior much better. I didn’t realize Lemmy already sends a proper ActivityPub delete signal, and it makes sense that different servers handle it differently.

    From a user perspective, the part that still feels incomplete is that deleted posts and comments remain visible as “deleted by creator,” even when the content itself is gone. I understand why the object can’t be purged instantly for moderation reasons, but it does create the impression that deletion isn’t really happening.

    What I’m hoping for is a more user‑friendly deletion experience — something that preserves moderation needs and federation realities, but still gives users a clearer sense of control over their own content. Even if perfect deletion across all servers isn’t possible, improving the local UX would go a long way.

    I appreciate you taking the time to explain the technical side.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Good on you for realizing you were wrong, I'll upvote that.

    However, as for the behavior it's standard forum functionality. People may respond to your comment, and then you delete it. You individually have the right to remove all discussion underneath, and future users need to understand there was something there.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] [S] 2 points 8 months ago

    That makes sense — I understand why placeholders exist to keep threads readable and avoid breaking the structure of conversations. I’m not asking for replies to disappear or for threads to collapse.

    What I’m trying to explore is whether the user‑side deletion experience can be improved while still keeping that structure intact. Even if perfect deletion across all servers isn’t possible, having clearer control over what remains visible on the home instance would go a long way.

    I appreciate the explanation; it helps put the current behavior in context.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent