Upvotes seem to just federate as likes and dislikes.

    • Draconic NEO
      link
      fedilink
      English
      429 days ago

      Mods can already see voting data, at least through the API on the latest version of Lemmy.

  • Draconic NEO
    link
    fedilink
    English
    48
    edit-2
    29 days ago

    The whole concept of the Fediverse as social media is that all the data is public. Stop acting like these servers are giving out private data. This data has never been private, and it never will be. Data like this being shared with any other server is how ActivityPub and the Fediverse work.

      • Draconic NEO
        link
        fedilink
        English
        829 days ago

        It’s not good practice. Really one shouldn’t be assuming anything is private or some entitlement to privacy on a service where all content you post is made publicly available to any and all linked instances. They miss the point of a federated public forum. If one wants privacy, data must be kept locally only. That’s why Lemmy has local-only communities, the “private” community aspect that many people want just won’t be federated, because you can’t make something like this private otherwise.

          • Draconic NEO
            link
            fedilink
            English
            529 days ago

            I know, it’s a really big problem here and on the Fediverse in general because people get so outraged and entitled over something that just is the way things are, this wouldn’t work any other way.

    • @TacoSocks@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      129 days ago

      I don’t think everybody knows that and at least here on Lemmy, it doesn’t show it by default like friendica. The fediverse doesn’t necessarily mean that all data has to be public. It’s just that it’s way harder to have a sense of truth without public data.

  • fxomt
    link
    fedilink
    English
    25
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    I’m not sure about the downvotes part (i failed to recreate this lmao) but you can already view upvotes with mbin. Piefed solves this problem with a option to make your votes private but only with untrusted instances (but from my tests it didn’t work? weird)

  • @schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    471 month ago

    Yes, after all other servers need this information in order to prevent double voting, you can’t just have servers sending each other information “somebody upvoted this” and also tell when servers are allowing users to vote more than once.

    So upvotes and downvotes aren’t actually private, never have been, some servers may display them publicly even if most don’t.

    • @PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      14
      edit-2
      30 days ago

      The server hosting the post needs it.

      It only needs to tell other servers the vote count, and the votes of people on that other server.
      That may not be how it actually works, but that’s all that’s needed

      • @schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1730 days ago

        Yes, but then you can have malicious servers sending fake numbers without other server operators being able to check whether this is at all plausible.

        (It’s still possible for malicious servers to send fake votes, but server operators can see which users they are stated to originate from, then block that server if that looks like it’s doing that. At least that is my understanding.)

        • @PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          130 days ago

          What do you mean “send fake votes”?
          Or rather, who do you think should be responsible for identifying and blocking fraudulent votes?

          And how do you reconcile votes that come from servers that you’ve defederated with? Should everyone have the same view of the post, or should people only see votes from servers that their server is federated with? What about votes from users you’ve personally blocked? Etc

          I personally kinda think that the responsibility is on the server hosting the post, and that everyone should see the same (but anonymous) vote count, of which the hosting server is the single source of truth.

          • skulblaka
            link
            fedilink
            English
            630 days ago

            A malicious hosting server could use fake points to blast any message to the top of everyone’s feeds until manually banned or defederated

            • @catloaf@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              230 days ago

              Yes, that’s happened before. They were sending a very large number of votes, so it was immediately obvious. Even a couple dozen from an unknown instance will be noticed, when an admin sees it and says “huh I haven’t heard of that instance” and when they look there’s nothing there.

            • @PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              230 days ago

              I’m not sure how giving every server access to the votes solves that.
              The malicious server can make fake users to pump up votes. your server admin has to notice, then check the vote logs, then see what’s happening and defederate them. That’s pretty much what you described in your scenario, anyways.

                • @PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  129 days ago

                  But it also has to be defended separately by the admin of every server that has a user subbed to that community. Seems like a large burden to put on small-mid instance admins.

                  I’d be surprised if my server admin was really paying attention that closely to votes on communities I’m subbed to, right?
                  I have to admit I don’t know the view that admins get of how their server intersects the fediverse.

        • @Wooki@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          130 days ago

          It’s only fake numbers for posts on the instance.

          Not the first malicious instance, wont be the last.

    • @Wooki@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      6
      edit-2
      30 days ago

      Over thinking.

      Only the instance with the post needs the username to register the vote, the count can then be updated by the instance. Simple and lightweight

      • Natanael
        link
        fedilink
        English
        3
        edit-2
        29 days ago

        Hashing alone if it’s just usernames isn’t enough. Need something like keyed hashes, but then malicious servers can lie about numbers of votes.

        Otherwise you need something ridiculously overengineered like public but encrypted logs of user actions and Zero-knowledge proofs of correctness mapping everything to a distinct existing user without revealing who it is.

        As I mentioned in another post: for consistency is better to have each server count total votes from their own users, send a signed & timestamped message with the count to the host of the post being voted on. Then the host can display a consistent vote count to everybody that shows where votes are coming from without manipulation of external votes.

        Each individual server can lie about its count, but not by too much or else it will be detected and the server can get defederated (or have its votes ignored).

        • @barsoap@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          429 days ago

          but then malicious servers can lie about numbers of votes.

          They already can do that by pretending to have users they don’t have. It’s definitely a quick way to get defederated.

          • Draconic NEO
            link
            fedilink
            English
            429 days ago

            And it wouldn’t be caught quickly or maybe even ever if they opted to use hashes instead of just showing who voted and when.

  • @merthyr1831@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1129 days ago

    I get this is obviously intended behaviour on part of actpub but I’d love for there to be a pseudo-anonymous voting system too. Maybe an option to hash user credentials when added to likes to ensure that they’re unique whilst obfuscating the original user.

    • @nednobbins@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      629 days ago

      There is already a foolproof method that is immune to any abuse of trust by admins; create an alt account.

      • @merthyr1831@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1
        edit-2
        29 days ago

        True, but there are other benefits too. Bots can’t crawl through your likes for example. Maybe you want a feature on lemmy or mastodon or whatever with anonymous polling? (ik masto has polls but for sake of argument) Maybe you’re implementing anonymous polling into an app for a trade union that needs total anonymity even from admins? It’s not totally unusual!

        IMO it makes sense to do this at a platform level just because there’s a unified implementation of obfuscation across all the fediverse for any platforms that want to use, rather than a bunch of unique solutions that would be duplicated effort.

  • irelephant [he/him]🍭OP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    61 month ago

    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?

    • @RobotToaster@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      151 month ago

      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.

    • irelephant [he/him]🍭OP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      130 days ago

      Asumming you meant “do”, go to friendica (friendica.world) and paste the fedilink (press the rainbow button) into the searchbar.

  • @iltg@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    229 days ago

    this is an icky issue because lemmy sends votes with empty addressing, so remote instances should count them but not show them to anyone. however mastodon (and *key) sends likes with empty addressing too, but considers them public. lemmy is (surprisingly) right here and should request that the rest of fedi respects the protocol and hides stuff based on its addressing. maybe open issues on mastodon and friendica

    also this issue probably exists when seeing lemmy posts on any microblogging instance

    • @douglasg14b@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -1
      edit-2
      24 days ago

      Oof, hell no. That’s some Facebook level cancer right there when they removed downvotes.

      It’s just a form of white washing that makes the same people who made up being offended by “black lists” and “master branch”.

      Edit: Y’all do realize the irony of exercising your ability to downvote a comment that is defending your ability to downvote?

  • @Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    229 days ago

    That’s pretty cool. Sometimes in an argument there’s that (1/-1) thing going on, would be funny to see how both are downvoting each other.