Warning: You cannot delete posts or comments on Lemmy. It stays up forever, and is in direct violation of GDPR and other national privacy laws.
Title says it. Apparently lemmy devs are not concerned with such worldly matters as privacy, or respecting international privacy laws.
GDPR is for companies/corporations to "respect" user's requests about their data.
Lemmy (ActivityPub, actually) isnt a company.
What you are saying is the equivalent of saying that the concept of writing is in direct violation of GDPR.
What you probably can do is request that an instance remove your content... And then do the same for every single other instance of any platform that implements ActivityPub (and not all of them will even have data coming from you) and is federated with your instance. And the only ones that would really need to comply are those that are based or operating in the EU.
This is still the internet, not some magical place.
Use some of the most basic fundamental internet safety rules and don't provide potentially compromising information for no reason whatsoever. Especially since this isnt a corporation such as Facebook or Google who require you do so in order to use their service.
You are slightly wrong. The GDPR applies to everyone dealing with personal data on the regular, which you always have to assume with open text boxes. There have been plenty rulings already imposing fines on individual, private citizens for their misconduct in violation of the gdpr.
While Lemmy as a system might be exempt, anyone running Lemmy for sure isn't, as long as it regularly processes data of EU citizens, which it does.
As for the devs, the gdpr does require privacy by design. One could argue the Devs themselves aren't running it at all, so their software doesn't have to adhere to it, but individual instance hosts could still be hit with fines for running it as is.
thank you for the correction
There are some great replies here
I think it's also worth putting in extra effort to educate users so they know early and not when they're expecting otherwise. The system has a benefit, and it'll be smoother if users aren't surprised
Data deletion and public vote records are the two big things that come to mind
It gets worse: everything you post to Lemmy is sent to multiple other servers automatically. Those servers may be in jurisdictions that have very different privacy laws than the server you post from, or that hosts the community you're posting to. You have no legal agreement with those servers.
We're not done though. The ActivityPub standard makes delete optional, and other servers could be running anything, not just Lemmy. Some of them are probably running somebody's janky pet project that implements half of ActivityPub, poorly, on a jailbroken smart light bulb or something.
Lemmy should implement proper post deletion, possibly with a delay to allow moderators and admins to inspect deleted posts, but expect anything you share via ActivityPub to follow the once on the internet, always on the internet rule even more than in the past.
Delete buttons are just a placebo on the Internet anway. At least activitypub is honest about that.
Almost like the entire platform is based on the idea that one server/owner can't be in charge of the data.
Don't get me wrong, not picking a fight, just what op said is kind of obvious to me. You're picking a social media that is democratized and is federated with everyone. The natural tradeoff is that your data is not housed on one server... Which obviously means it's not private.
Idk, the fediverse is a great place, but I would never post anything here I ever wanted to be private. It's not an accident, it's literally by design.
How would this be done? Like you mentioned, anyone can run a modified instance of Lemmy that does not honor delete requests. I suppose you could put something that retrieves content from other servers as a pull operation instead of a push, but that's going to break Lemmy's ability to work with other ActivityPub applications (at the very least).
Delete currently renders posts invisible to most users. Delete should actually delete the post from the server.
It's impossible to ensure that the post is deleted from federated servers, web caches, clients that cache things, etc....
There are no guarantees either way. Even if the delete was somehow enforceable in software, it can be defeated with a simple server backup/restore of any federated server.
I think federated servers should respect any user generated delete request, but as users we need to expect that they wont.
This is a lot like spray painting a message on a public wall in a neighborhood and then complaining because the community won't paint over it (or destroy photos they took of it) when you realize how dumb it was.
You're writing on a public space for free with no business behind it. You're not the customer in this scenario.
From their history, maybe their comment is this one they wanted deleted:
Idk OP, maybe step one is to be less of a jerk to people. If you do that you won't have to worry as much about if things are deleted
OP is simply incorrect.
I'm coding a Lemmy alternative right now and have been testing this functionality out extensively. Deletes of posts and comments certainly federate, I've seen the AP traffic to make it happen. Also, the docs: https://join-lemmy.org/docs/contributors/05-federation.html#delete-post-or-comment
I haven't tested what happens when the 'delete account' button is clicked... Mastodon solves this by sending a 'delete this user' Activity to every fediverse instance so there's nothing about ActivityPub that makes removing an account and all it's posts in one go impossible.
Deletion of entities is optional in ActivityPub. That, by definition, makes known-removal of an account and all its posts in one go impossible, because a server can just ignore the deletion activity.
Yes, although the server will not ignore the deletion activity if that server is running Lemmy. We're talking about Lemmy here, not the fediverse as a whole. OP singled out Lemmy in the post title and said "lemmy devs are not concerned with..."
I'm sure there is more to be done in this area. It'd be great to know for sure which software treats deletion activities properly (I'm really unsure about Kbin, I think it does not) and which does not so instance admins can make informed decisions about who they federate with. Perhaps this information could be made available right within the UI that Lemmy admins use to control their instance, rather than an obscure documentation page somewhere...
IMO having deletes federate should be part of a minimum standard all fediverse software has to meet (plus mod tools, spam control, csam filters, etc) before it is allowed to federate but obviously we're nowhere near having that sort of social organisation.
How would you even know if deletes federate?
Tell me: how much closer are you to knowing if the server is caching or not?
This is likely why deletion is optional. The people making the protocol know there's no way to enforce it.
As long as a deleted post is no longer visible in the publicly-accessible parts of the site, that would be enough verification for me.
I don't know how the GDPR authorities verify compliance with mainstream proprietary closed source apps, do you?
I think in terms of gdpr, if you notify a site that is providing service (allows users to register from I guess) to EU countries you want something deleted, they need to comply.
But I think in terms of federated content, you cannot be expected to do more than send information about the deletion out. If other instances don't respect it, it's not the originating instance's job to police it.
Now the user could go to these other instances and chase it up. But I wonder if a third party instance doesn't allow users from EU countries, if they'd be required to comply? Federated content opens up a an interesting set of scenarios that will surely test privacy laws.
I also wonder what the EU powers are to sites in non EU countries that allow EU users but don't respect GDPR. what can they even do? Companies like twitter, Facebook, reddit etc have presences in EU countries that can be pursued, but John Smith running a lemmy instance on a $5 vps might be out of reach.
It actually is.
When delegating the processing of PII to someone else (like another instance), you're supposed to initiate a data processing agreement with them: https://gdpr.eu/what-is-data-processing-agreement/
Unless Mastodon has somehow automated this process in inter-instance communication, they are just as liable as Lemmy is.
But pii isn't being sent. A user's nickname and the domain of their instance plus any content they create is. If they choose to put their pii in public posts or user info, that's their choice but is not pii solicited in order to operate the service, it was volunteered.
It's a crucial difference. I considered this when writing the terms and data retention information for my own instance. Federation is very frugal about the information shared.
Short of having someone inspect the databases, they can't. The GDPR is a threat, basically, that says "if (or, rather, when) the truth outs, we can nail you later". Which is why it's really only effective on big players anyway.
And it's only effective on players that have some kind of EU presence, otherwise there's nothing the EU can put that nail into.
Remind me again how things can be deleted from the internet?
Exactly, this is not specific to Lemmy as it applies to the whole internet.
Also, Lemmy is not a website : it would be somewhat like saying the language Python doesn't obey GDPR !
/thread
All your posts on the fediverse are effectively a public blog of your thoughts that will be scraped and stored in servers you have no control over.
If you care about privacy, which I understand, you probably want to leave quickly.
Here’s a rundown from someone who got fed up with the fediverse and kinda rage quit: https://blog.bloonface.com/2023/07/04/the-fediverse-is-a-privacy-nightmare/
Another example of this is that it’s not just about lemmy. One way in which lemmy actually federated well worth microblogs like mastodon is that users can be followed from mastodon etc.
So any number of servers running a number of open source easy to run platforms could be taking up everything you specifically post.
Just because you care about privacy it doesn't mean that you have to stay indoors all the time. You can still hang around on the town square you just have to be conscious about what you do where.
A big part of caring about privacy is understanding how the platforms you use work and using them accordingly. With proprietary platforms this is often opaque and the rules can change. Open platforms are transparent and you can actually understand them - if you make the effort.
It's not like deleting your comments or posts off of Reddit would magically remove them from all the various Reddit archives that exist around the Internet, either. Reddit only controls what happens on Reddit, and that problem is now generalized across the whole Fediverse.
Reddit still has to ensure what is deleted on their end, is actually deleted (which they don't, as we saw during the whole protest thing with delted comments being restored)
The fact that archive websites exist doesn't change that. A request under gdpr to such a site would have to result in deletion as well.
Sure someone who doesn't host or specifically target EU citizens can ignore it at their leisure, but I doubt every Lemmy instance is hosted somewhere in non EU areas.
You're misunderstanding my point, I think. A Lemmy instance within the EU can theoretically be fully compliant with EU laws and delete whatever they're told to delete, but it's not going to make a difference because non-EU Lemmy instances can retain that data. Likewise, Reddit can delete whatever the EU tells it to delete, but that won't make a difference either because of those archives outside of Reddit;s control.
I'm not saying anything about what's legal, just about what happens. When you post something in public, be it on Lemmy or on Reddit, that public post is not going to easily "go away" when you try to delete it regardless of whether your instance is following EU law. Arguing "but it should go away" isn't going to make a difference, it isn't going to go away. It's important to understand this when making use of a forum like the Fediverse or Reddit.
Yes, and my point is, that the person running an instance has to comply with the gdpr if they are within the EU.
It doesn't matter if data has already been propagated somewhere else. On that instance, data needs to be able to be fully deleted. For the matter of deletion, it is irrelevant where the data might have been pushed or mirrrored to, that is a seperate issue, which still needs to be dealt with. But one cannot argue that deleting is pointless or needn't be implemented, just because "public" data is already mirrored elsewhere. The people running "elsewhere" have their own compliance to deal with.
And my point is that expecting this to be "dealt with" is unrealistic. It's going to continue existing on servers that are outside of your control and outside of the EU's reach. No matter how hard the EU legislates or how hard you believe it should be possible to delete that data, it's just not going to happen. Not without turning the world into a police state dystopia in the process, at any rate.
I'm not saying "don't implement post deletion." Go ahead and do that if it makes you feel better. But making you feel better is all that it's really going to accomplish, in the grand scheme of things. If you're concerned about stuff you post "sticking around" even after you want it gone, nothing is going to actually solve that. The only option is to not post that stuff in the first place.
There already is federation of deletion. It's not even something that needs to be implemented.
I have less of a defeatist attitude about privacy. Same way I don't think absitence is the only true way of contraconception. Privacy, yes, even if public spaces is possible. It's not easy, it won't just happen, but it is achievable. Needs a lot of work from a lot of people, but it is doable.
I don't expect you to change your mind on that.
It's an optional feature, there's no way to ensure it actually gets respected. If it was universally implemented and it worked what would be the point of this whole thread to begin with?
Thank you for posting that link. I'm not fed up (completely?) yet I suppose but it was eye-opening. I'll have to be a lot more careful about posting, possibly not post again.
seems weird this expectation of privacy on public sites built for public consumption of public content posted by people publicly.
i mean, i get wanting to control your data. the software i use allows for this ( the 'bins offer a user-level purge).
but privacy? seems weird
I mean, to have a Lemmy account you already decided to put your trust in total strangers with questionable security credentials.
but.. im not using lemmy
Mastadon works the same way, all ActivityPub services work the same way.
By being Federated that means data is being sent to remote servers. Sometimes that data doesn't always make it, like a delete request. So someone on their own home-server deletes their post, but on some remote server where that post they made is cached, it's not deleted, because the delete request never federated. For example, say you made a post on your own box, which you clearly have, and you delete a post, but it doesn't get deleted over on say, Lemmy.world. That's not purposeful, that's something the developers also trying to fix, so I think it's disingenuous to say they don't care.
This is literally a consequence of how federation works. It's not a purposeful violation of GDPR.
sorry, i was just being snotty.
i know full well and am on the side of pointing out the futility of attempting privacy in a public space.
You may not be directly using it, but this is part and parcel of the entire point of federated social media. Other software will be accessing the pool.
Effect of ActivityPub, not Lemmy. All federating systems function similarly, because it's a feature of the protocol.
If instances want, they can ignore delete requests and your content stays in their cache forever (remember Pleroma nazis from couple of years ago?) - now, that is an instance problem that might be a GDPR issue, but good luck reporting it to anyone who cares. At best you can block and defederate, but that doesn't mean your posts are removed.
The fediverse has no privacy, it's "public Internet". Probably a good idea to treat it as such.
This is definitely a con of Lemmy for me. I like to be more privacy focused but Lemmy gives you 0 privacy on whatever you do on the website. Anyone who wants more privacy on Lemmy is told you have no right to privacy, don't expect any privacy, everything you do is public on the internet, etc. A massive boner killer for me. I think basic things like deleting your own post or comments should actually get removed from all servers, PMs should not be viewable by anyone except the recipients, and what you vote on or subscribe to should be private. Lemmy doesn't sell your data but that's because anyone can take the data for free. I thought this stuff was because Lemmy is still new and will get to it eventually but the push back seems to say this was a choice or is not broken. I ended up exploring different social media alternatives but I like the style of Lemmy better since it is more reddit-like with an active user base plus has different android clients. I don't like kbin because it shows who upvoted or downvoted something to everyone - it's not accountability when it erodes your privacy.
I used to comment on Lemmy more but then I ran into this problem when juggling multiple accounts, Liftoff sucks ass at letting you know which account you are logged into (I use Summit now and it is better at it) so I ended up getting my accounts' wires crossed when I thought using the drop down on your accounts changed your account but no you have to go to manage instances to switch which was not intuitive. I ended up abandoning the accounts when I couldn't figure out how to actually delete the post from the server.
Edit: man I wish I saw this sooner, might be time for me to either stop posting again or look somewhere else.
While I didn't find any factual issues in a quick skim of that article, I really don't agree with its tone.
The Fediverse is radically public. That's the nature of a protocol like ActivityPub, not a bug to be fixed. Using it for anything you're not comfortable with being public forever is a mistake.
Thats why I stay as anonymous as possible.
always remember to throw in false information to throw others off your tail
completely unrelated, but I am a 45lb chihuahua with alopecia from Reno, Nevada.
GDPR is international now? Do I need to break out Nelson Muntz when some Euro type thinks European law is extraterritorial?
Don't make me break out Nelson Muntz, please.
It's mostly important for when you wanna do business in the European markets.
The alternative is to be blocked by most of Europe entirely. Happens usually to tabloid news sites as they are often in violation of anti misinformation and hate speech laws. It's also why they could sue Facebook so easily as otherwise Facebook would be non-GDRP compliant and be blocked there.
Lemmy however isn't exactly for profit, so sees much less scrutiny. This is primarily for business after all. Lemmy doesn't have ads, doesn't take users money, nor does it sell products. It also does not actively distribute illegal media either.
(it should be noted that it's usually not the EU doing the blocking but rather so websites choosing to block viewership from the EU because they'd rather do that than get sued to hell)
"Lemmy" doesn't do ANYTHING. Lemmy is server software. It has no agency whatsoever.
Individual Lemmy sites might be beholden to the GDPR (or not, if individually run). But any site hosted outside of the EU can wave its ass in the faces of EU officials trying to enforce the GDPR.
Mods and admins can remove posts and they don't stay on the server. If you delete it yourself, then it stays. Comments stay deleted, though and is replaced with a 'deleted by creator' message.
Mods and admins can remove posts but they do stay only if they're "removed". But if they're "purged", then they're deleted from the server.
I noticed a lot of clients like sync try and hide that fact. Poorly
there's a delete button
Lemmy lack of central control is a feature. But it can still be GDPR compliant. GDPR did not make useNet illegal. GDPR does not make peer-to-peer illegal.
As an EU citizen you can still write letters to the editor of newspapers, and those letters can be published in those newspapers of record. Sending a message to Lemmy is akin to publishing publicly and opinion piece in a newspaper.
Certainly you can use GDPR to talk to an lemmy admin to remove your data on the instance you registered and account on. But due to the nature of Lemmy, it's architecture, you can't go out and retract all of the newspapers that have been published. That's a physical impossibility.
Even if you could somehow talk to every administrator of every instance, you can't prove you were that user who posted that data.
You know, I think I'm going to make some software that just siphons every ActivityPub message (ignoring delete requests except to log them) and call it "GDPR THIS". The amount of mysticism and confusion around two very basic concepts (ActivityPub works by copying profusely, and the GDPR has no weight outside of the EU) just leaves me baffled here.
That's a pretty uncharitable interpretation, especially considering Lemmy is developed in and funded in part by the EU, and the "staying online forever" thing is a consequence of Federation (and one they're working on remedying).
If you were worried about this sort of thing, perhaps you should have done your research about the platform before making an account so you could bitch about it here. You definitely don't sound like the voice of reason when you couldn't be arsed to figure this out before you made an account.
So you can't make an account on this platform if you don't agree with how it operates? By that logic no criticism of the platform by its users is possible, which is a great way to ensure it never gets better.
Edit: Let me make this clearer:
Saying in effect "yet you participate in lemmy" to dismiss the OP's concerns is ridiculous. If this logic were taken to its endpoint, there would be no valid criticism of anything lemmy ever did.
Maybe that's your goal, but I would rather not blindly defend lemmy because I like it. I'd rather make it better, and that starts with criticism.
I mean, yes?
If you do not agree to the terms of a service, do not use the service. This is the case for essentially every system ever. You can go complain about it on Reddit or something if you like.
Okay, since you clearly carefully read and completely agree and support eveything in the Lemmy TOS, please tell me where it says it will keep your comments forever.
You'll find that in the ActivityPub specifications, actually, where delete messages are optional to implement.
The choice of how it implements ActivityPub's optional components you'll find in the Lemmy (or other Fediverse) source code.
So do we expect every user to read, understand, accept and agree with the specifications and source code of lemmy before they make an account, and having done so, never make any complaints about it?
This isn't a difficult calculation - that person was effectively saying "yet you participate in lemmy" as a reason to dismiss any criticism. That should be on the face of it ridiculous. I don't understand why anyone is taking their side except as a knee-jerk defense of their favourite platform.
Lemmy isn't my favourite platform. Not even close. I'm not sure it's even in my top ten.
What I am attacking is the rampant ignorance over a fundamental aspect of technology. A distributed system by its very nature has copies. Sometimes the copies last for a few milliseconds (think your router) and sometimes the copies last effectively forever (think the Internet Archive). And there is nothing you as the user can do to change this. There is also nothing that prevents someone from making the delete side of things not delete things. (Yes, this includes your router. How do you think "wiretaps" of modern digital communications systems work?)
In the case of ActivityPub this is even more egregious a level of ignorance. The entire point of federated software is to copy and spread content, so if you have even half a brain cell you're going to have to know that there will be copies of everything you've ever posted on servers other than the one you posted it to. And yet we have stupid twats like the OP whining about the GDPR as if it is even slightly meaningful in a distributed system that crosses outside of EU's jurisdiction.
Yeah, okay, see that's a genuine, principled and material explanation with what's wrong with the OP's complaint, and I agree. The laws don't make a lot of sense.
What I don't agree with, and I think it should be at least as obvious as the point you just made, is that the response, "you can't make this complaint because you made an account here" is just thoroughly bankrupt. Of course people can make criticisms of the platform whilst having an account here.
Also though, your explanation that it's in the specs and source code seems like a tacit admission that it's not in the TOS, so appealing to some supposedly informed agreement to those TOS is doubly wrong.
I'm not saying that "you can't make this complaint because you made an account here". I'm saying "only an idiot can make this complaint because this is how all distributed systems work without exception". There isn't a single system out there that is connected to anything outside of itself that isn't susceptible at some level or another to exactly what the OP is complaining about.
This includes the router you have between you and the Internet at large.
EVERY distributed system retains copies somewhere for some duration. And ANY of them can be (pretty trivially) modified to just retain everything for as long as there is storage to hold it. If you want privacy you're going to need end-to-end cryptography, but that means no discussion sites like this.
So my objection to the OP's complaint is that it's just stupid. Because it applies to literally every piece of technology they likely use to post the complaint, but for some reason it's Lemmy that's being singled out.
I'm not saying that the terms can't be more transparent, because they absolutely can be.
But if you have become aware of this practice and you continue to participate, you have de facto agreed to it. You can of course agree to the terms and continue to criticize them, but you don't get to sign up for a soccer game and then claim that the rules against using your hands don't actually apply to you. If you don't want to face the consequences of how distributed services like this fundamentally work, don't use them.
It took this person 20 days to post this. They didn't create their account to post it the same day or even the next day, ergo, they figured it out after the fact.
If they really had an issue with stuff like this, why pray-tel weren't they already doing their due diligence to ensure that the service they were signing up for didn't violate the GDPR in ways they didn't like? That seems like a gross oversight by someone clearly incensed by it.
(Also, it continues to be questionable whether it's actually breaking GDPR rules, and even in that regard, it would be individual server admins responsible for enforcing GDPR compliance.)
Wow I can't believe you're criticising the policy that you agreed to when you made your account. Sounds like you need to delete your account and take that kind of talk elsewhere.
You know, it's clear you're not arguing in good faith or taking what I've said in good faith, instead of choosing the most uncharitable interpretation you can to get a "gotcha," so I think we're done here.
Also, it's not a "policy" it's literally a byproduct of how federation works. Sorry you completely fail to understand the architecture of this service and how that influences how it works. All ActivityPub services suffer from the same issue.
Where's the lie?
I don’t agree with that reasoning. It’s entirely possible for someone to be personally accepting of the Fediverse’s privacy issues, but make an intelligent, well informed, coherent critique of them.
Like perhaps the OP did? Seems like they had to personally accept the TOS, or at least tolerate it, but they also have a critique.
I also still don't see how "yet you participate in lemmy" is a real answer.
I don’t think “yet you participate in Lemmy” is an especially good answer, either. The same reasoning applies.
It's been a problem for a while. Considering major social media companies have already gotten massive fines from the EU for violating the GDPR, maybe the lemmy devs will put more effort in setting up a deletion system once the EU sends them a fine for breaking the law?
They can't fine the "lemmy devs" (nor any other Fediverse devs). They can fine the operators of servers, and even there only those operating servers in the legal jurisdiction of the EU (which is checks notes the EU).
In this case, the "lemmy devs" and the operators of lemmy.ml are the same people and it's hosted within EU.
But - that's still a far cry from getting any kind of GDPR violation report going, much less getting it through the process to actual fines.
People like to bring up GDPR violations as a some kind of super-moderator tool, but it isn't that easy and it definitely isn't automated.
You are missing
theseveral points.lemmy.mlis a server. The devs of Lemmy can't be fined unless specifically the server they operate (lemmy.ml, recall) is doing something against the GDPR.Yeah. That's what I said
Yeah, sorry, man. All the ignorance was blurring together and your post was caught unjustly in the fringe.
The EU doesn't have global jurisdiction, if an instance developer or admin has no EU presence then they could just ignore them.
Sure, but EU data protection laws may require EU based Lemmy instances to block instances that dont honour deletion requests.
This is why mastodon was built GDPR compliant by design.
Sure. Lemmy does have such a presence though.
"Lemmy" is a piece of software. A piece of software can't violate the GDPR, it's just a blob of data. You need to be running a server to do something that would break the GDPR. Those server-running admins are the ones that need to be concerned about their EU presence.
Maybe some of the people developing Lemmy are in that category and might get in trouble, but it will be because they're running servers not because they're developing Lemmy. If they get arrested or whatever it has no effect on Lemmy-the-software.
Message your admin and ask for purging of that post/comment/user.
Then message every federated server's admin.
Then message every federated server's federated servers' amins.
Then ...
The number of surprised Pikachu faces people are displaying here is actually pretty funny now.
Technically, yes. If the law is of concern, if you're an admin, purging it from your database will be the only extend your power can reach. If privacy is of concern, while purging will not federate, delete/edit will, so edit all comment into gibberish before deleting your own account, and then ask for it to be purged. If that's unacceptable then best not use social media at all.
I don't know where this myth came from, but you don't have a right to erase your public posts from there internet under GDPR. See, for example, https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/32361/does-a-user-have-the-right-to-request-their-forum-posts-deleted
If anything, you might have such rights under copyright law, if your posts cover the threshold for copyright. In that case, you can ask server admins to delete them, and they will have to comply. But the request has to reach them (if they're defederated, the delete button won't teach them, and you'll have to contact them separately).
To my knowledge, these privacy laws prevent corporations from holding onto your data after you have requested to delete it. Lemmy is not a corporation, and there is no single entity that holds onto all of your data. That's just a tradeoff of being decentralized.
Very bad indeed! This is the beginning of the end for lemmy.
Ps for those who don't know, copying a deleted comment makes it appear in your pastbin
Oh no, that's not even the half of it. The admin for your instance has access to literally anything on their server, including passwords afaik. If you want privacy, this ain't it chief.
They have access to your password hash, effectively the "infrastructure" admin(s) as I'll call it (not admins of the site - they need to have access to the actual system that is running the instance) have access to the same things that infrastructure admins of another site would have.
Ah, guess i misunderstood a comment on here.
Every website has access to the password you use on that website. ALWAYS use unique and randomly generated passwords for every service.
Nobody has access to passwords. They have access to password hashes, which are not the same thing. It would be the absolute most half baked of solutions to still be saving passwords in cleartext.
Which isn't to say it doesn't happen. I still occasionally get my password emailed back to me from small handbuilt websites. Which is part of why you should at the very least never use the same password twice.