We had a really interesting discussion yesterday about voting on Lemmy/PieFed/Mbin and whether they should be private or not, whether they are already public and to what degree, if another way was possible. There was a widely held belief that votes should be private yet it was repeatedly pointed out that a quick visit to an Mbin instance was enough to see all the upvotes and that Lemmy admins already have a quick and easy UI for upvotes and downvotes (with predictable results ). Some thought that using ActivityPub automatically means any privacy is impossible (spoiler: it doesn’t).

As a response, I’m trying this out: PieFed accounts now have two profiles within them - one used for posting content and another (with no name, profile photo or bio, etc) for voting. PieFed federates content using the main profile most of the time but when sending votes to Mbin and Lemmy it uses the anonymous profile. The anonymous profile cannot be associated with its controlling account by anyone other than your PieFed instance admin(s). There is one and only one anonymous profile per account so it will still be possible to analyze voting patterns for abuse or manipulation.

ActivityPub geeks: the anonymous profile is a separate Actor with a different url. The Activity for the vote has its “actor” field set to the anonymous Actor url instead of the main Actor. PieFed provides all the usual url endpoints, WebFinger, etc for both actors but only provides user-provided PII for the main one.

That’s all it is. Pretty simple, really.

To enable the anonymous profile, go to https://piefed.social/user/settings and tick the ‘Vote privately’ checkbox. If you make a new account now it will have this ticked already.

This will be a bit controversial, for some. I’ll be listening to your feedback and here to answer any questions. Remember this is just an experiment which could be removed if it turns out to make things worse rather than better. I’ve done my best to think through the implications and side-effects but there could be things I missed. Let’s see how it goes.

  • mesamune@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Its strange to see one of my posts being used as a reference. All I was trying to do was share something cool.

    I do agree though. When up/downvotes (especially downvotes) are fully public, it leads to trolls getting angry and lashing out on individuals in a semi-public way. And if you can see ALL of that individuals voting patterns, then we get people strategically making tools to go after people that vote certain ways. Theres a reason anonymous voting is a thing outside of the internet as well.

    If this goes live in lemmy.world i will be looking at other places to post/interact with. Love lemmy (and contributed to the codebase as a dev) but I cant be bothered with trolls.

    • endofline@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      It’s vice versa. In the old good times there was a saying “don’t feed the troll”. Just block him. Downvoting is just a cheap solution for people who cannot justify their argument. Btw, I love to read downvoted comments which are by default ‘hidden’. Most of them are trash but sometimes it’s a valid point but not the very popular one

      • mesamune@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        I’m not sure what you are suggesting. Are you suggesting never using downvotes?

        • endofline@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Yes, exactly my thoughts on this. Downvoting is only a measure of crowd censorship based on opinion popularity. If you see some trolls, just block them but don’t hide their posts for other ones who may think on that person views otherwise

          • doctortran@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            3 months ago

            Downvotes are part of the whole curation aspect of the site, and it’s a valid part of the democratic system. For all the whining about being “censored” because you got downvoted, there’s countless cases where downvotes influence the sorting algorithm positively.

            Garbage shouldn’t sit on the same level as fluff comments no one bothered to vote on.

            • endofline@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              3 months ago

              Millions flies cannot be mistaken. Democratic mob cannot be mistaken. Mobs have never lynched anybody. How ignorant you are in your ego with your “whining” argument

            • endofline@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              I think it’s better to present a valid point against somebody’s statement than straight down voting without giving a reason “just because don’t like him”. I think it would create positive discussion environment in lemmy. We are here after all to exchange ideas on lemmy. Aren’t we?

              • mesamune@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                While engaging in discussion can be beneficial, it’s important to recognize that not everyone is comfortable/interested in debating every point they disagree with. Downvoting allows users to express their disagreement without feeling pressured to engage in a back-and-forth that might not be constructive.

                Additionally, some statements may not merit a detailed response, especially if they are inflammatory, misleading, or irrelevant. Encouraging only counter-arguments could lead to an environment where people feel obligated to justify every opinion, which stifles participation rather than promote a positive discussion.