Currently, almost anyone in the Fediverse can see Lemmys votes. Lemmy admins can see votes, as well as mods. Only regular Lemmy users can’t. Should the Lemmy devs create a way to make the votes anonymous?
There is a discussion going on right now considering “making the Lemmy votes public” but I think that premisse is just wrong. The votes are public already, they’re just hidden from Lemmy users. Anyone from a kbin/mbin/fedia instance can check out the votes if they are so inclined.
The users right now may fall into a false sense of privacy when voting because the votes are hidden from Lemmy users. If you want to vote something and not show up on the vote list, please create another account to support that type of content and don’t tell anyone.
deleted by creator
One way to anonymize voting, if desired, could be just make a mess out of who voted what in the logs. I vote something, some other random user’s name is logged. Or maybe that could be used to deter scrapers and make the incorrect logging reverseable somehow that requires actual human interaction that cant be automated.
Unlike commenting and posting, which offers the who, what, where, and when parts of the message passing process, voting on Lemmy (now, for non-admins) is inherently an unequal process. Imagine if someone could send you an email whenever they wanted, but you were prevented from knowing who or even from what instance it is from, or when it was sent, do you think that could open up a potential for some variety of abuse? Or texting, phone calls, showing up at your door, etc.
Knowing the identity of the voter is an important part of properly receiving the “message”. It also increases freedom of choice, b/c otherwise the only way to prevent such messages (if, let’s take it as a given that some people find them annoying) would be to turn off voting entirely, either by going to one of the instances that does that, or just ignoring all (down-)votes yourself.
If we want the Fediverse to grow, and in particular to include less emotionally stunted humans that actually care when someone says something about them, good or bad, this will be a necessity. (Also, I was speaking tongue-in-cheek there, but genuinely social standards do vary across this wide world, and it really would increase content if there were not only more but different types of people, especially those most likely to generate quality content.)
And as other non-Lemmy methods of access to the Fediverse provide that feature - k/mbin, piefed, sublinks - Lemmy will fall increasingly behind if it were to ignore this very basic feature.
Making the votes public also increases honesty, since they are already public now. And if you don’t want to know who down-(up?-)votes you then… don’t look? But for those who want to know, it will be a great feature to have.
I’m at the completely opposite end of the spectrum of most people, they should be public to all. It makes it clear whether the guy downvoting you is doing so maliciously or as a non-participant. Same for upvotes. Otherwise, just get rid of it and find some better mechanism. The people saying “NO!” or that they should be anonymous don’t really have a reason, your comment history is already giving you away and no one has a problem with that.
The worst thing public upvotes/downvotes might lead to are the same things your comments are already profiled for by the same people that would and perhaps a random getting mad at your downvote or upvote and voting back, which doesn’t matter that much with the current karma system. The benefits, however, are a clear vision of where those upvotes and downvotes are coming from, without it you are a blind person in a social networks but with it you can tell who is interacting with you and you can investigate why and even make judgement calls because you can see whether they interact like a jerk.
No drama witch hunts, accountability for the way you are interacting online, the the benefits outweighs the drawbacks, but people don’t want it because they feel insecure about it. I specially favor it because it could be a first step for a form of crowdsourced moderation (speculated on it here), where you can choose the people you think are voting comments to your taste to eventually have a select group large enough to determine which should show up first and which shouldn’t show at all, and it could be completely complementary to existing systems. Don’t want to see “yes, I agree” comments sorting as the most relevant? You might choose people who do not upvote but have engaged with the rest of the thread for comments you consider more informative.
No one from kbin/mbin instances can check out the downvotes you make, since this attitude has been so widespread many don’t report it to those instances. They can see people who upvote, and the sky hasn’t fallen because of it. Anonymity largely only helps the minority making the drama remain hidden.
the world is an interesting place, the very reasons you gave “for” it is why I was against it. I don’t agree that it won’t cause witch hunts, and from the POV of the commentor it might be nice, but from the POV of the person who is giving the vote, it’s a severe downgrade.
Especially considering the fact that if the person downvoted but didn’t leave a comment afterward they likely would not have downvoted in the first place if it wasn’t anonymous because they don’t want to have to deal with the social interaction of someone trying to push them to explain further. Not everything needs a detailed this is why I feel this way, that’s why there is a upvo and down vote system in the first place, to prevent everyone from leaving a comment of I agree with this / I disagree with this / this is on topic / this is off topic
In addition to this, to say that no one’s giving reasons of why voting should be private, I don’t think that’s a truthful statement there are plenty of reasons that people have provided via privacy, security and sometimes just mental state.
You mentioned that you want to have a system where you choose what people you see and the people you don’t agree with don’t appear., I think that type of environment is extremely unhealthy for a social media platform. It’s why other platforms that have curated that content is starting to become a cesspool. I really don’t want to see lemmy become one big Echo chamber, it’s not healthy to have only one ideology that you see at all times and let’s face it that’s what that system you’re proposing would introduce.
Additionally the system your proposing is going to run into the same issue as the other websites that have attempted to do, this sort of system leads to new people inadvertently getting filtered out as untrustworthy, which will mean that they’re not getting activity on their posts/ comments as well which means that they’re just going to move on to another platform.
Honestly, I think I would rather just have the score system be removed as a whole then see that type of system implemented
I know that’s probably why you do, like I said, people feel really insecure about it. I don’t really respect irrational insecurity though. Your comment history could also lead to witch hunts, yet no worries there… If it does need to be handled, it should be done by automatically deleting your old up/downvotes and comments. But no one is asking for that with comments either… They only take in issue because they don’t want to be held accountable to their votes, even if the probability is practically zero and extremely exceptional.
If you really don’t want to explain why you are downvoting, I really don’t think people should be downvoting. I very rarely downvote, and there are plenty of comments I neither upvote or downvote simply because not everything should be rated nor am I capable of doing so. It is toxic.
You already have a system where people with alts and moderation privileges decide what you see and don’t see, this will happen regardless with information saturation. What I want to have is putting that in the hands of the users. Whether it will be good or bad will depend on the users, and because it would be complementary, you could still accept the traditional or default method. More choice is not bad, it is the users that make it bad, and in this case, they would make it bad only for themselves. But it would also be easy to work this system into something like https://ground.news , where as with a homogeneous imposition you don’t have a choice nor even an idea of what is being censored if you don’t go out of your way to find out. If it’s completely transparent, you could even look through the eye of another user’s moderation settings to see the sort of content they are getting.
Not sure where you are pulling the “new users get filtered out as untrustworthy”, the system I’m proposing would do not such thing. This seems more like a projected insecurity without specific examples that can be countered.
Without a karma system, the problem then goes back to which comments show up first and which might not show up at all. That’s just a traditional forum thread, where the newest comments do.
If you really don’t want to explain why you are down-voting, I really don’t think people should be down-voting.
there are many times that you can down-vote without a requirement of explaining. Sometimes your point has already been made by another person, other times it’s just a really bad take or the person is so dead-set that honestly you couldn’t change the persons mind even if you explained it. Sometimes the comment is just hostile to the current situation or the OP, sometimes the comment is just super off-topic. Some situations allow for down-votes without explaining it.
I personally down-vote for off-topic and harassing posts as it helps the system sort what is considered helpful to the discussion. I would refuse to down-vote for harassing and off-topic if this system is in place, as it creates an attack vector for the person to come after me, a situation that would require either blocking them or bugging a mod for, which is something that personally I just don’t want to deal with in my life so I would simply just not participate in the vote.
Not sure where you are pulling the “new users get filtered out as untrustworthy”,
The type of system proposed inherently causes it as a side effect. When you have a system that is crowdsourced from the popular opinion, you create an echo chamber that only shows content from sources that have been deemed as appropriate, as such not only do you lose the arguing side, you also lose content from people who are not established/just starting out as they are not profiled as that side. as for examples? Two examples of sites that use that style system include Stackoverflow, which uses a rep system to decide how much access you can get into, and some of the larger reddit sites which went off the karma system to even allow posting in them. There are also other examples in reddit, but the karma block system was the most predominant (followed by sub rule filters which filtered out based off bias).
I do believe that a karma system is best type of system however I believe that the metric should be hidden from sight. This will allow for helpful comments to rise to the top, but will remove the hard focus “score” ideology that everyone has. In this system you wouldn’t know if you were down-voted in the first place, which means you wouldn’t be aware of someone maliciously down-voting you, and it would also do what you want where it would force someone if they had a super big issue with what was posted to actually comment on it. That being said, this system can not exist in a federated environment so therefore the next best thing is either anonymous (to all but mods/admins due to moderation and federation control reasons) or just not having the system as a whole.
If those are your examples, then you are misunderstanding my proposition. Some of the reasons you suggest to downvote are not good reasons to me, but that’s point, everyone has their own criteria and their own preferences for the comments they would like to be reading over others. By denying them the ability to choose, you are imposing an arbitrary and fallible karma system. Hiding it really doesn’t fix it, you are denying the alternative because you feel the absolute worst case will occur. Yet right now it is possible, and does not happen.
One benefit to vote transparency for admins is mod monitoring options.
Reddit is infested with vote manipulation via bots. At least on the Fediverse it seems like both admins and mods might have more options.
The users right now may fall into a false sense of privacy when voting because the votes are hidden from Lemmy users.
Why would you even want anonymous votes but not anonymous comments?
The former is as good\bad as the latter.
I know they were already technically public. I think they should be shown.
How about pseudonymous as a compromise? Votes could be publicly federated but tied to some uuid instead of the username. That way you still have the same anti spam ability (can see that a user upvoted these things from this instance at this time) but can’t tie it directly to comments or actual user accounts without some extra osint.
It might be theoretically possible to correlate the uuids with an account’s activity and dox the user in some cases, especially with some instances having a single user, but it would be very difficult or impossible to do on larger instances and would add an extra layer. Single user instances would be kind of impossible to make totally private anyway because they can be identified by instance.
Votes could be publicly federated but tied to some uuid instead of the username. That way you still have the same anti spam ability (can see that a user upvoted these things from this instance at this time) but can’t tie it directly to comments or actual user accounts without some extra osint.
The issue with that is with malicious instances that could engage with vote manipulation by just generating new IDs and voting for whatever they want. If you can’t look back at the profile and determine whether it’s a real, non-spam account, it’s a pretty big issue unfortunately.
You also have an issue where someone could potentially vote with “your” ID without any way to detect that it’s not actually “you” who sent the vote.
they could do similar to another platform had done, which is tie voting to a shadow account that only the instance admin team can link to a user, this allows for moderation while providing the ability for obscurity.
I still disagree it should be public in the first place, but I know it’s a hard requirement for federation so it’s unlikely to become more concealed
Yeah, that’s fair enough, though I’m not sure it’s very different from malicious instances creating normal user accounts?
You can see when users from an instance are all suspiciously voting the same way at the same time regardless of whether they are usernames or IDs.
There’s lots of legitimate users that only vote but never post so doing it based on that doesn’t seem very effective?
The second problem is solved using public key cryptography, the same way that you can’t impersonate someone else’s username to post comments. Votes and comments are digitally signed (There would need to be a different public key for voting to maintain pseudonymity though).
Yes by default, but there should be an option to make them public
I see absolutely no reason why they shouldn’t be
I think votes shouldn’t be anonymous. Transparency is important to weed out trolls and bots. And public votes should be made easier accessible to every user not only admins/mods.
When I first signed up for reddit, the upvotes and downvotes were not only separately tallied, but also showed the usernames of the most recent people who did them if you hovered over the button. Then very shortly after that they changed it so that it made votes private by default, and you could override it in the settings, but almost nobody went to check that box back on. Eventually, they completely removed that feature around the time upvotes and downvotes were combined into one. which along with vote fuzzing was one of the worst changes to reddit comments, imo.
Lemmy feels like old reddit right now, which is a great spot to be in. I don’t think you necessarily need public vote info, but maybe it could be enabled on a per-community basis? I can see some communities like politics not wanting to add additional drama to the equation while other more content driven communities might enjoy knowing who was giving the feedback.
Vote fuzzing is the worst. Reddit said their main reason for implementing it was to prevent vote manipulation… seriously? Vote fuzzing laid the groundwork for vote manipulation.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
If I vote something I’m expressing my opinion just like I would with comment, and those are not anonymous.
I get that people are worried about griefers and psychos, but anonymity is just a (poor) cure for the symptoms, not for the disease; users who don’t behave should be banned, and if their instance turns out to be a detriment to the community, they should be defederated.The anonymity we should ensure is the one of the person behind the username, to avoid doxxing and cyber-bullying.
No I’m worried about powertripping mods… That’s the issue.
Because too many mods are power tripping assholes and I say that as someone whose been a mod in various corners of the Internet since at least 2000.
The best mods, and admins, are nearly invisible and as close to drama free as possible.
I am Palestinian and I just got banned from world news ml for saying that some Israeli hostages experienced rape/sexual assault/abuse without “credible evidence”. Somehow the mod equated this with me not giving a fuck about Palestinian prisoners of war.
No my man… I was raped myself as a teen. So to me, all rapes are equal no matter who does it to whom.
How do mods see them? As far as I am aware, you have to be an instance admin. But it’s not difficult or time consuming to spin one up and I doubt the average user of Lemmy is technically incapable; most of the Fediverse users in general seem to be IT people and developers.
Making a browser addon/extension wouldn’t be too hard if you can get the data somewhere. And then it’s just a click of a button to get the functionality.
This is all I see as lead mod of 3d printing. I also checked and desktop is the same both in desktop mobile view and on my laptop.
Yeah, I moderate a few communities and have no idea how to see vote identities.
I suspect you need access to the database.
Looking at the source, “comment_like” seems to be where they’re stored.
someone commented on github (I think it was Desallines) that the vote viewing feature has been available since 0.19.4 . Lemmy world is still on 0.19.3 .
Being able to see the moderation history linked directly to a post was added then - but I don’t see vote viewing nor recall hearing about it, which would have been a huge deal.
Nothing4You commented Aug 14, 2024 •
mods can already see votes in communities they moderate since 0.19.4, so this would be reducing what is visible today:
and
Dessalines commented 5 days ago
I’d like to clarify that mods should only be able to see votes for the communities they mod only.
Admins can see all votes.
I dunno, we’re on 0.19.3 so I don’t see it but I guess it’s there.
https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/issues/4967#issuecomment-2289596923
Ah, mods only, and then only for their own communities - well, still, that’s something (though I’d prefer prefer it opened up for everyone). Thanks for the link.
Everyone’s fleshed out a lot of the discussions so I’ll just bullet point my opinion to try to better explain the discourse I’m seeing on here
-
I view “Lemmy” like it’s a Community Center with group discussions, Community gatherings, and/or lectures with public comments. If you’re in the crowd “Booing” (downvoting) without standing up and making your position clear, you’re not adding anything to the discussion.
-
Downvote/Upvote is not like “Booth Voting” at all. You have ONE vote in a democracy, that’s the core principle. You don’t vote Yes for a candidate then vote No for another. You don’t see a ticker above the booth tallying everyone’s vote that was before you (voter manipulation, why hidden scores became a thing).
-
I think this would go over a lot better if mods had the choice of how to present the votes. Opt in or out of showing voters, opt in or out of showing scores or eliminating downvotes or even upvotes if you want. Give the power to the community and create useful tools for mods to try out.
removed by mod
That’s just not the same at all. How many times do you get to vote on the referenda? I’m really interested to know where this mindset comes from that a social media upvote/downvote is anything like a real political “vote”. It’s completely different except the name, is that where the confusion is coming from? Is this an age/demographic thing?
You can vote no or yes on a referendum. The Upvote is for comments that contribute, the downvote is for off-topic not that you disagree with the policy! By continuing this logic you’re exposing you want to continue “Voting” on whether you agree with a topic in “privacy”. That’s not how public discourse works, which this is. You guys are acting like everyone is a guest speaker and you’re the X-factor judge deciding if they should continue or get off the stage.
Anyone looking at the actual voting system on here would not say it’s democratic or fair/balanced. There are no protections or even logic to construct a system like that because we’re not voting on policies! This is a town square, not your local council. You’re wanting to walk into the square and vote on the flowers or people walking by, that’s not how public interaction should work!
In every single thread the downvote is abused as a “I disagree” or as a reactionary “I don’t like this person”. It does absolutely nothing for the conversation, it’s solely for others to feel better if the numbers match their own personality or to dissuade the person who’s being downvoted from voicing their opinion.
This whole event is rather sad and disheartening like a depressing xkcd
-
