Comment on User "threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works" is banning users for downvoting his posts.

• remon@ani.social ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  There’s not really a way to do votes privately on a federated system.

  It’s a minor technical problem.

  source

  • moseschrute@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    How would it work in your opinion?

    source

    • remon@ani.social ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      You use a one-way hash instead of the user-identifying key that is currently used to store the vote value.

      source
• jbk@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  didn’t piefed or some other alternative to lemmy add that feature

  source

  • teft@piefed.social ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Kbin. Piefed doesn’t show you who voted. It does show users “attitude” which is a ratio of upvotes to downvotes that the user has given but it isn’t granular to show what they’ve voted on.

    source
  • AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Piefed implemented it, but it didn’t work out for some reason and they ended up having to remove it.

    source
  • ech@lemmy.ca ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    I’m not talking about blocking users from seeing votes - the nature of federation requires, at the very least, that admins are able to see the data flowing into their instance, which includes voting records. From that point, all it takes at that point is a purpose-made instance to be spun up that will catalogue all the votes that it federates with and publish them. In fact I’m pretty sure this already exists.

    source
• Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Thinking out loud, one way hashes would work as a way to keep the id of user votes secret whilst avoiding vote duplication.

  source

  • AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Not to remote servers

    source