It doesn't. No network is capable of that and if they say they are you're being lied to.
VPN's can be banned though.
nope. You can do IP analysis to ban IP's that belong to particular VPN but you can't ban VPN tech. There are so many VPN services and so many proxies and so easy to setup your own VPN that even Netflix struggles with that.
How are they caught then in countries that try to restrict digital access and have criminalized them?
I think these nations setup the ISPs to look for the packets using a VPN protocol. This protocol is only used between the user and the VPN provider, so the target website doesn't see it.
Though I think this can be evaded too with a bit of work (masking the packets as normal web traffic). One reason why repressive regimes also want to control the devices of the user.
There are ways to ban them even if it evades detection though. Incompatible formatting and mobile applications come to mind. Charleston in South Carolina having the highest concentration of diehard privacy maintainers goes over nobody's head, having it come up as one's location is like wearing a label that says "I am not who I appear to be" and is the source of the most common geoblock in the free world. Probably a giveaway I help keep the peace in a few sites.
Isn't that just a game of whack a mole though? Ban VPNs ending in Charleston, people hop to another location. Rinse and repeat
The right metaphor would be popping a pimple. Apply pressure and the oil just scatters and becomes aimless. They represent a powerhouse.
From the client to the VPN host it's feasible to do protocol/port identification and prevent it that way. Some are significantly more difficult to do that for though, particularly when it uses something like HTTPS to blend in with the general flow. It's possible to set up a national level proxy gateway, but that would require a user's system to trust some alternate CA which would be really hard to enforce.
Short version, there's always a way around, but they can make it real tough for the average user.
Lemmy isn't unified. Each instance will have their own policies.
It doesn't. That's a feature, not a bug.
You can do IP bans, but only your current instance really knows your IP. You can sign up to any others and you're just a fresh user to them.
Maybe the bigger instances share info about known CSAM uploaders between them, I dunno.
For remote actors, it seems to mostly rely on banned users not being very imaginative when it comes to naming subsequent accounts, and/or them not being able to leave a particular subject alone.
What do you mean by a “remote actor” here?
A user on an instance that's different from the instance that wants to ban them (so methods like IP logging or browser fingerprinting or whatever wouldn't be available).
Poorly
The answer is spread amonst the comments you've already got.
It's a combination of regular bans, IP bans, moderators knowing the 'regulars' and recognizing their (bad) behaviour. And the Lemmy admins have a Matrix chat(?) room where they exchange info.
I had to pay in order to get on my instance. It's definitely not foolproof, but you add even just a small payment requirement to a registration and it would seem like quite a bit would fall off.
Why spend time on deal with ban evasion instead you can spend time to serve who really need the community and make stuff better ?
It doesn't. No network is capable of that and if they say they are you're being lied to.
VPN's can be banned though.
nope. You can do IP analysis to ban IP's that belong to particular VPN but you can't ban VPN tech. There are so many VPN services and so many proxies and so easy to setup your own VPN that even Netflix struggles with that.
How are they caught then in countries that try to restrict digital access and have criminalized them?
I think these nations setup the ISPs to look for the packets using a VPN protocol. This protocol is only used between the user and the VPN provider, so the target website doesn't see it. Though I think this can be evaded too with a bit of work (masking the packets as normal web traffic). One reason why repressive regimes also want to control the devices of the user.
There are ways to ban them even if it evades detection though. Incompatible formatting and mobile applications come to mind. Charleston in South Carolina having the highest concentration of diehard privacy maintainers goes over nobody's head, having it come up as one's location is like wearing a label that says "I am not who I appear to be" and is the source of the most common geoblock in the free world. Probably a giveaway I help keep the peace in a few sites.
Isn't that just a game of whack a mole though? Ban VPNs ending in Charleston, people hop to another location. Rinse and repeat
The right metaphor would be popping a pimple. Apply pressure and the oil just scatters and becomes aimless. They represent a powerhouse.
From the client to the VPN host it's feasible to do protocol/port identification and prevent it that way. Some are significantly more difficult to do that for though, particularly when it uses something like HTTPS to blend in with the general flow. It's possible to set up a national level proxy gateway, but that would require a user's system to trust some alternate CA which would be really hard to enforce.
Short version, there's always a way around, but they can make it real tough for the average user.
Lemmy isn't unified. Each instance will have their own policies.
It doesn't. That's a feature, not a bug.
You can do IP bans, but only your current instance really knows your IP. You can sign up to any others and you're just a fresh user to them.
Maybe the bigger instances share info about known CSAM uploaders between them, I dunno.
For remote actors, it seems to mostly rely on banned users not being very imaginative when it comes to naming subsequent accounts, and/or them not being able to leave a particular subject alone.
What do you mean by a “remote actor” here?
A user on an instance that's different from the instance that wants to ban them (so methods like IP logging or browser fingerprinting or whatever wouldn't be available).
Poorly
The answer is spread amonst the comments you've already got.
It's a combination of regular bans, IP bans, moderators knowing the 'regulars' and recognizing their (bad) behaviour. And the Lemmy admins have a Matrix chat(?) room where they exchange info.
I had to pay in order to get on my instance. It's definitely not foolproof, but you add even just a small payment requirement to a registration and it would seem like quite a bit would fall off.
Why spend time on deal with ban evasion instead you can spend time to serve who really need the community and make stuff better ?
troll get bored soon or later