The userbase is small enough that hashing would be easy cracked by a determined person. Even with salting, iterating through the entire userbase and hashing each username+salt to check for a match would probably not take long
Replace “hashing” with “encrypted” (perhaps just using a symmetric key that the admin sets up) and then it gets impossible to know for any outsiders who is the real user behind the vote.
I for one just wish people understood once and for all that anything you do on social media is public.
If you are not comfortable backing up your opinion or action, then don’t do it.
Assuming each user will always encrypt to the same value, this still loses to statistical attacks.
As a simple example, users are e.g. more likely to vote on threads they comment in. With data reaching back far enough, people who exhibit “normal” behavior will be identified with high certainty.
One of the advantages of votes being public is that it keeps instance owners honest and, perhaps more importantly, means they know other instance owners are honest.
If they weren’t public it would be easy to modify your lemmy instance to send 10 votes with fake hashes for every real vote. There would be constant accusations of brigading and faking votes.
Banning trolls would be doable - they’d have patterns where they target specific users across many different communities. If the same user downvotes everything I’ve ever said, from controversial political takes to pictures of food to posts about gardening, that’s probably a malicious user.
But “brigading” doesn’t mean anything and I don’t respect the concept. You can’t ban it because you can’t define it in a way that doesn’t include normal usage of the site.
If the same user downvotes everything I’ve ever said,
Right. How would you know what “the same user” is? Let’s say that your posts get downvoted at random intervals by 5-10 users in the first 45-120 minutes. They all have different user names. What are you going to do? Create a report against any particular user and hope that the mods look into it?
I was thinking that it would make sense to federate upvotes, but with the hash of your username instead of your actual handle. Would this work?
The userbase is small enough that hashing would be easy cracked by a determined person. Even with salting, iterating through the entire userbase and hashing each username+salt to check for a match would probably not take long
Replace “hashing” with “encrypted” (perhaps just using a symmetric key that the admin sets up) and then it gets impossible to know for any outsiders who is the real user behind the vote.
I for one just wish people understood once and for all that anything you do on social media is public.
If you are not comfortable backing up your opinion or action, then don’t do it.
Assuming each user will always encrypt to the same value, this still loses to statistical attacks.
As a simple example, users are e.g. more likely to vote on threads they comment in. With data reaching back far enough, people who exhibit “normal” behavior will be identified with high certainty.
What if a uuid is generated every time a user signs up, and every upvote iterates through the uuids?
One of the advantages of votes being public is that it keeps instance owners honest and, perhaps more importantly, means they know other instance owners are honest.
If they weren’t public it would be easy to modify your lemmy instance to send 10 votes with fake hashes for every real vote. There would be constant accusations of brigading and faking votes.
I’m honestly surprised it hasn’t already become rampant.
How long until it gets abused, and trolls start brigading though instances that hide their votes?
Nothing stops defederation, though.
That creates an incentive for trolls to create accounts at the popular instances using this mechanism in order to destroy their reputation.
But they can just be banned from those instances?
How would that work? How would an admin separate downvotes from brigaders and legitimate users who happen to downvote a comment?
Banning trolls would be doable - they’d have patterns where they target specific users across many different communities. If the same user downvotes everything I’ve ever said, from controversial political takes to pictures of food to posts about gardening, that’s probably a malicious user.
But “brigading” doesn’t mean anything and I don’t respect the concept. You can’t ban it because you can’t define it in a way that doesn’t include normal usage of the site.
Right. How would you know what “the same user” is? Let’s say that your posts get downvoted at random intervals by 5-10 users in the first 45-120 minutes. They all have different user names. What are you going to do? Create a report against any particular user and hope that the mods look into it?
If everyone’s votes are public then it seems trivial to see how any particular user votes.
If user shithead69420 downvotes literally everything I post, they’re probably not a good faith user.
Or mentally unwell people stalking.
Piefed already does this, because it is the way.
Just make a rainbow table and get the usernames back.