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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
As a general note, the design of Lemmy is around preserving information against censorship over having private conversations (like Matrix for example). You’re probably aware that once data is delivered to other servers, the origin server can’t guarantee deletions of data from them.
I’m not an admin, but I remember that Lemmy admins are able to purge content from their server, and send out a request for other servers to purge their copy of data which by default would be accepted if received from the canonical server. This was used to remove some harmful content that was posted on Lemmy a few times. This feature isn’t user accessible, at least as of now.
Media uploaded to Lemmy by the user can be deleted.
Edits are propagated through federation, so if you are concerned, you can edit posts you want to delete before deleting them which is close enough.
Thanks for the detailed explanation — this helps clarify a lot. I understand that federation makes guaranteed deletion impossible, but knowing that admins can purge content and send out a federated delete request is exactly the kind of mechanism I was hoping existed.
From a user perspective, having some version of that available — even if it can’t guarantee 100% deletion everywhere — would still be meaningful. A user‑initiated delete request that other servers can respect would give people more control over their own content without undermining federation.
Editing before deleting is a good workaround, but it still feels like something that could eventually be built into the platform in a more direct way. I appreciate the insight; it’s good to know this isn’t a dead end technically.
I am not a programmer, but as I understand how it works, when you access content (user profile, post, etc.) that is not on your server, a request is sent and two things can happen. The request receives a response and the content is updated or it is not received and you see a cached version. I suppose a third option could be added, you get a response and it says that the content is actively deleted, causing the cache to be deleted. Maybe it took a while to clear everywhere, but I don’t see why it wouldn’t work.
That makes a lot of sense, and it’s exactly the kind of mechanism I was hoping existed or could be added. Even if deletion can’t be instant across every server, having a federated “this content is deleted” response would give users real control instead of just hiding posts locally.
A system like the one you describe — where a delete request clears caches on other servers — would solve most of the privacy and user‑control concerns people have. It wouldn’t need to be perfect to be meaningful.
I appreciate the explanation. It’s good to know that this isn’t impossible, just something that needs coordination and implementation across the Fediverse.
There is no technical limitation to this. Only a software limitation. More specifically, as I suggest, the communications protocols and their interpretations on different platforms across the Fediverse. I suppose, that since this feature was not properly implemented from the start, right now its implementation is far more complicated due to large amount of existing content and separated servers. Thus, implementing such update requires a lot of willpower, free time, skills and coordination across the Fediverse to avoid data loss. This is my opinion and it may be incorrect since I do not participate in development of the Fediverse.
Thanks for the explanation — that actually helps me understand the situation a lot better. I get that federation makes things more complicated, especially when content is already spread across multiple servers.
From a user perspective though, it still feels important to have a way to fully delete posts, or at least send a federated delete request that other instances can respect. Even if it can’t guarantee 100% removal everywhere, having a proper deletion mechanism would give users more control over their own content.
I’m glad to hear it’s not technically impossible. Hopefully it’s something that can be explored in the future, even if it takes coordination across the Fediverse.
The solution: A three‑layer deletion model This is the only model that satisfies both Lemmy’s architecture and user expectations.
Layer 1 — Local hard deletion (guaranteed) When a user deletes a post/comment:
the content is wiped from their home server
the object can remain as a placeholder to preserve thread structure
media files are fully removed
This part is already possible.
Layer 2 — Federated delete signal (best‑effort) When deletion happens, the home server sends a message:
“This content is deleted — purge your copy.”
Servers that respect federation will:
delete their cached copy
update the thread
remove the content from search
Servers that don’t care will ignore it — but that’s already true today.
This is the missing piece Lemmy needs to implement.
Layer 3 — User‑initiated purge request (optional escalation) Admins already have a purge tool that:
deletes content locally
sends a federated purge request
is accepted by most servers
Expose this to users in a controlled way:
rate‑limited
confirmation required
optional admin approval
This gives users real deletion power without enabling abuse.
You say you understand the technical limitations, then immediately ask if there are technical limitations in the next paragraph? And then this comment is clearly written by an LLM. Maybe if you tried to use your brain you’d have better luck.
I’m trying to understand the current behavior as clearly as possible, which is why I asked for clarification. The replies from others in the thread have helped fill in the gaps about how deletion works across different servers.
My goal isn’t to argue about federation limits — it’s to understand whether the user‑side deletion experience can be improved, even if perfect deletion across all nodes isn’t possible. That’s the part I’m trying to explore here.
