Comment on Upvotes and downvotes are public information on Lemmy

yermaw@sh.itjust.works ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

• irelephant@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  lemvotes.org

  source

  • LemmyThinkAboutThat@lemmy.myserv.one ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Scroll all the way down: join-lemmy.org/docs/…/03-votes-and-ranking.html

    source

    • irelephant@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      Sure, but how many people have read the docs?

      source

      • LemmyThinkAboutThat@lemmy.myserv.one ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        🤦🏻‍♀️okay, good point.

        source
  • InFerNo@lemmy.ml ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    This always givea me a 404

    source

    • rumba@lemmy.zip ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      Just tested your post here, your instance def opted out.

      source
    • irelephant@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      your instance may have opted out.

      source
    • Obi@sopuli.xyz ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      Or just buggy results.

      source
• mic_check_one_two@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Yeah, at worst it’s a necessary evil to prevent a rogue user on a second instance from mass downvoting. Your username is tied to your vote, because otherwise a rogue user could just spam downvotes at whatever they didn’t like.

  Instance 1 has a post. Instance 2 has a user who disagrees with that post. User is able to spam downvotes, because instance 2 is not binding their username to the vote. So Instance 1 has no way of knowing if the votes are multiple different users, or all one user. The only real solution here is to disable external voting, but the entire point of the fediverse is cross-compatibility and self-hosting. By binding the username to the vote, instance 1 is able to detect repeat votes and disregard them.

  source

  • socsa@piefed.social ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Public votes do absolutely nothing to stop people from making a bunch of users on a bunch of instances and voting from those users. Voting agents are a simple solution to the issue, since you can still just ban the voting agent if it seems problematic.

    But there's a deeper context here, which is we are drawing a weird line between voting being a fundamental, if not critical part of the application, but also apparently grounds for imposing sanctions on users for doing it wrong? That's a fundamentally flawed mechanic no matter how you swing it, since you can't standardize any singular set of rules, and we are already seeing a rapid escalation of tit for tat vote bans. This is just unsustainable and is pushing things towards an obvious endpoint where there is such a chilling effect on voting that it negates the entire utility of the mechanic for sorting and content curation.

    source

    • anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      This is just further evidence that we just shouldn’t have a downvote option at all.

      source

      • npdean@lemmy.today ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        No, downvotes are more important than upvotes

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • socsa@piefed.social ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        I agree, except we should leave the basic mechanic and just make it a placebo.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Important to note here, too, is that ip addresses of users arent synced across instances.

    This is only a problem for people who care about the reputation of their user account - which is something people should be rotating out anyway if they care about their privacy.

    source
• npdean@lemmy.today ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  I am not saying if it is good or bad but it is terrible that it is not made clear.

  source
• LemmyThinkAboutThat@lemmy.myserv.one ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  I posted in the wrong spot, sorry. There’s a link and screenshot here:

  lemmy.myserv.one/comment/15441289

  source