Question I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts on possibly making votes public. This has been discussed in a lot of other issues, but here's a dedicated one for discussion. Positives Could help figh...
Probably better to post in the github issue rather than replying here.
I never said blocking people is an unreasonable option. That’s something you just made up so that you could give your little speech.
I’m pointing out that it’s very strange that when I bring up away this is going to obviously be abused pure knee-jerk reaction is to say ’ why didn’t you just block them’ as if it’s already happened.
Now to the matter at hand… What is the point of this? Why do users need this information? Every argument for it on the GitHub seems to only apply to things moderators need to know
Looks like you hit the wrong reply button and your post got disconnected from the thread.
That’s something you just made up so that you could give your little speech.
That’s a gross assumption of bad faith on your part. I pointed out that you would still have the same tools that you already have available for any types of harassment that may already occur.
I’m pointing out that it’s very strange that when I bring up away this is going to obviously be abused pure knee-jerk reaction is to say ’ why didn’t you just block them’ as if it’s already happened.
I said that because, as you might have already learned from elsewhere in this thread, voting information is already public and any “annoying neckbeard” that was too-interested in you can just view your post from any other instance running software that displays those details. It can already happen, but I’m glad that it sounds like it hasn’t happened to you.
Now to the matter at hand… What is the point of this? Why do users need this information?
I explained why I think it could be beneficial in another comment in the original conversation. Another user pointed out that I was overlooking your concerns that there would be an increase in harassment due to the increased ease of access to the information. That’s a fair point which I had not fully taken into account, because as I said above, the potential for a bad actor to access that information is already there because of how ActivityPub works.
I never said blocking people is an unreasonable option. That’s something you just made up so that you could give your little speech.
I’m pointing out that it’s very strange that when I bring up away this is going to obviously be abused pure knee-jerk reaction is to say ’ why didn’t you just block them’ as if it’s already happened.
Now to the matter at hand… What is the point of this? Why do users need this information? Every argument for it on the GitHub seems to only apply to things moderators need to know
Looks like you hit the wrong reply button and your post got disconnected from the thread.
That’s a gross assumption of bad faith on your part. I pointed out that you would still have the same tools that you already have available for any types of harassment that may already occur.
I said that because, as you might have already learned from elsewhere in this thread, voting information is already public and any “annoying neckbeard” that was too-interested in you can just view your post from any other instance running software that displays those details. It can already happen, but I’m glad that it sounds like it hasn’t happened to you.
I explained why I think it could be beneficial in another comment in the original conversation. Another user pointed out that I was overlooking your concerns that there would be an increase in harassment due to the increased ease of access to the information. That’s a fair point which I had not fully taken into account, because as I said above, the potential for a bad actor to access that information is already there because of how ActivityPub works.
Since my original replies I have since found a post about PieFed adding experimental private voting to their ActivityPub implementation. You might be interested in reading more or trying that instance out for a while because of your concerns around public votes.