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

    The software is setup in such a way that you can run it on your pc if you have a local gpu. It only needs like 2 gb vram

    • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.worksOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months 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
        ·
        2 months 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
          ·
          1 month 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
          ·
          1 month 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.

        • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.worksOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month 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
              1 month 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
                ·
                1 month 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.