I accept if a dozen people can see my votes.
That’s not what you’re saying.
Ultimately I’m not invested in this decision. If the instance wants to watch people vote then people stop voting truly or at all.
Comment on Lemmy devs are considering making all votes public - have your say
FiskFisk33@startrek.website 4 weeks ago
I think people misunderstand. I too would prefer privacy, but theres a big BUT.
Due to how the federation works, anyone who is tech savvy enough can already see votes. One way is to run an instance.
This change doesn’t lower privacy, it aligns expectations with reality. A false sense of privacy, which people obviously show here in the comments, is way more dangerous.
corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 4 weeks ago
adam@doomscroll.n8e.dev 4 weeks ago
Except, if you’re using anything other than Lemmy at this point that information is already about. The Likes/Dislikes are considered public information by the protocol. Lemmy devs probably just didn’t get around to building out the UI for that before the Reddit APIcolypse.
Socsa@sh.itjust.works 4 weeks ago
If anything, Lemmy devs should work on methods to obscure user identities, not expose them.
One of the biggest issues with the fediverse is very specifically how much user information can be exposed outside your home instance. As has been pointed out in this thread, it is very easy for rogue instance admins to set up quiet data mining instances.
It seems like it should be relatively straightforward for certain activities, like votes and telemetry, to be anonymized/tokenized for the purposes of federation, since that information all propagates outward from the home instance anyway.
nutomic@lemmy.ml 4 weeks ago
Lemmy actually marks votes as private for federation, but it seems that kbin/mbin ignore that.
adam@doomscroll.n8e.dev 4 weeks ago
Ahh, didn’t even know there was a flag for that. I don’t suppose you could link to the relevant w3c or FEP for it?
dandroid@sh.itjust.works 4 weeks ago
If this is a hard requirement for federation, then I guess federated services are not for me, as I value my privacy more than I care to use them.
IlovePizza@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
I read about that. In my opinion is that what should change, if possible. There are good reasons why votes a secret in democracies.
FiskFisk33@startrek.website 4 weeks ago
That would be great. I’m not sure how to solve the problems that arises though. If i can send an anonymous vote to an instance, what stops me from sending 100?
Maybe there’s some smart cryptographical solution here that alludes me, but it seems hard, if possible.
Feathercrown@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
You could just hash your username+instance combo, right?
FiskFisk33@startrek.website 4 weeks ago
hmm, how would the receiving instance verify? what happens if I send 100 random hashes?
Linkerbaan@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Because voters only receive a voting ballot after they identify themselves as a real citizen with a real passport?
LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Passport required? Shit, most of our country would be ineligible to vote as they can’t afford to travel out of the country for vacations enough to keep up to date passports. Valid up to date passports are around 40% of the population in the U.S. I believe it is trending up though. Pre 9-11 they were way lower. (Because you didn’t really need a passport to go on short trips, just an ID)
SorteKanin@feddit.dk 4 weeks ago
Then again, private votes would be private for mods and admins too. So no more moderating vote brigading or downvote abuse or anything like that.
IlovePizza@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Good point. Would it be useful to somewhat anonymize them by giving every user a unique code? So admins would see these codes but not easily know what users they represent.
SorteKanin@feddit.dk 4 weeks ago
I’m afraid this may enable a malicious instance to use this mechanism to manipulate votes while making it much harder to detect. I think transparent voting is much preferable.
SomeGuy69@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Even on github they are public. Lol