• @x00z
    link
    English
    303 months ago

    It should actually be made more private.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      113 months ago

      How? The ActivityPub protocol has no support for private votes. Also, private votes would be private for mods and admins as well, which would make downvote brigading and vote manipulation very hard to detect and moderate.

      • maegul (he/they)
        link
        fedilink
        English
        63 months ago

        Hmmm … is it not really possible at all? Just riffing here … the identity of a voter isn’t necessary, just a means to ensure the uniqueness of a voter so there’s no duplication etc. So … could a hash of the voter’s ID be distributed with the vote to prevent duplication?

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          6
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Hmmm … is it not really possible at all?

          In ActivityPub, no, not at the moment.

          How would you verify that such a hash is coming from a real user? What if an instance sends 1000 fake hashes as votes? Also you could still correlate hashes and figure out who is behind the hash by looking at voting patterns of that hash.

          • @x00z
            link
            English
            33 months ago

            What if an instance sends 1000 fake hashes as votes?

            What’s the difference from users though?

            You’d give each user an anonymous vote ID that only the instance can link back to their username.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              13 months ago

              What’s the difference from users though?

              Imagine you have 500 users that consisently upvote each other and 500 users that vote randomly on different posts. If you jumble up those 500+500 in 1000 random hashes, it becomes impossible to distinguish who is part of the voting ring and who isn’t.

              • @x00z
                link
                English
                33 months ago

                Hence why I gave a solution. It would simply become spam that should be handled by the instance where it originates from.

          • maegul (he/they)
            link
            fedilink
            English
            23 months ago

            Yea … that makes sense. Thanks!

            Still … intuitively it feels like if the “threadiverse” platforms weren’t so concerned with interoperating with the likes on microblogging platforms, they could come up with a system that involved only sharing total vote numbers from their instance without any idenfifying metadata.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              43 months ago

              Only sharing aggregate votes could also lead to a lot of issues with vote manipulation, as it is very easy to manipulate such an aggregate.

              I agree that ActivityPub is biased around microblogging though. For all its flexibility and universality, it is surprisingly catered to that use case.