reporting absolutely helps. it increases visibility for content that slipped through automated moderation and having more reports for content indicates urgency.
here's also some more context and explanation about what's going on:
https://fedi.fyralabs.com/notes/9psdqurvye
https://fedi.fyralabs.com/notes/9psnooe6p1
https://fedi.fyralabs.com/notes/9pth6oh3xr
based on the sticker logic, it's clearly not
at that point you'll just discourage any new users if they have to gamble on whether or not their content is actually seen by anyone. account age really isn't a good indicator of anything other than soemone being dedicated enough to spam. considering this isn't the first wave of csam attacks, i can assure you that whoever is targeting lemmy with this is determined enough that account age won't deter them for long, they'll just have to slightly adjust their playbook.
that doesn't do anything, they'll just register accounts in advance and wait some days.
we've even had spam recently from accounts that had been dormant for months, although it was a different kind of spam.
account deletion does not federate in general, only banning (+ content removal) does
no, they're getting a lot of downvotes because it's spam.
they're not interested in legitimate discussion, they only need to promote the spam links at the end of the post.
I ate fiber but now my internet is down. what do I do?
have you seen someone with a 90° asymmetric face yet?
The 90 days disclosure you're referencing, which I believe is primarily popularized by Google's Project Zero process, is the time from when someone discovers and reports a vulnerability to the time it will be published by the reporter if there is no disclosure by the vendor by then.
The disclosure by the vendor to their users (people running Lemmy instances in this case) is a completely separate topic, and, depending on the context, tends to happen quite differently from vendor to vendor.
As an example, GitLab publishes security advisories the day the fixed version is released, e.g. https://about.gitlab.com/releases/2024/01/11/critical-security-release-gitlab-16-7-2-released/.
Some vendors will choose to release a new version, wait a few weeks or so, then publish a security advisory about issues addressed in the previous release. One company I've frequently seen this with is Atlassian. This is also what happened with Lemmy in this case.
As Lemmy is an open source project, anyone could go and review all commits for potential security impact and to determine whether something may be exploitable. This would similarly apply to any other open source project, regardless of whether the commit is pushed some time between releases or just before a release. If someone is determined enough and spends time on this they'll be able to find vulnerabilities in various projects before an advisory is published.
The "responsible" alternative for this would have been to publish an advisory at the time it was previously privately disclosed to admins of larger instances, which was right around the christmas holidays, when many people would already be preoccupied with other things in their life.
looks better when you remove the slashes
you're not getting banned from steam, you're generally getting banned from participating in anti cheat secured lobbies of a single game or a group of games.
single player experience is generally not affected.
having a 3 strike system before getting banned from multiplayer just means it's 66% cheaper for a cheater to get a new copy of the game.
this is also not new and has been the case for the current family sharing system as well.