814
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2024
814 points (97.9% liked)
Fediverse
28353 readers
196 users here now
A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, KBin, etc).
If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to !moderators@lemmy.world!
Rules
- Posts must be on topic.
- Be respectful of others.
- Cite the sources used for graphs and other statistics.
- Follow the general Lemmy.world rules.
Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration), Search Lemmy
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
They'd get defederated.
Ok, yeah, theoretically.
But we're talking about putting voting info into the UI for anyone to see. Not highly motivated and skilled bad actors.
And the "we should not make it available for the public at large because it will lead to abuse" is also theoretical.
Anyway, I'm already on record saying that I don't like the voting system and that we should get rid of it altogether. Voting on content used to be about collective curation, not a constant popularity contest.
I'm also on record saying that we need to stop relying on systems that only give us the illusion of privacy and depend on the software developers for culture shaping.
If making the vote public gets people to be exposed to these fundamental issues of the current design, and leads us to search for better solutions, then I'm all for it.
It's not theoretical to se how people consistently behave when there's less friction for toxic behavior. You should look into it if you're not already aware of the very predictable negative outcomes that stem from removing those frictions.
I mean in the specific case of "giving vote visibility to everyone will cause more harassment based on who-voted-on-what". It's theoretical because this has not been implemented yet.
Except that it plainly obvious that it's a reduction in friction for doing so and therefore will increase the behavior.
I've addressed this in another comment. At first, it's quite likely that we'd see an increase in behavior. But the way to correct this would be by reporting "serial downvoters" and brigaders to moderators, which could then be empowered to enforce "don't downvote just because you disagree" guidelines.
Hackernews, for all its faults, does this very well. Their moderation team is quite small, yet it rarely falls into screaming matches between users. Their guidelines are clear and let people understand what is/is not acceptable. Mods are rarely seen threatening to ban someone, but often calling out bad behavior and simply asking people to stop doing whatever they are doing before it escalates further.
We've already seen that kind of harrasment on major platforms including X and those owned by Meta.
This feels a bit of a conversation-shutting argument. Lots of things (good and bad) will happen on a platform that has billions of users. The real question is to about many of those instances happened solely due to the data being (easily) available to the public.
In any case, I really don't think that the solution to the problem of targeted harassment is by providing quote-unquote-privacy. Today, people want to obfuscate votes. Tomorrow it will be subscription lists and later it will be even posts/comments. By then it will be better to just use a closed network or just go full darknet. I'd rather we spent more time educating the people on how to use actually secure and private communications platform instead of sacrificing Transparency and Accountability for the sake of a vocal minority who will keep trying to turn the "Open Social Web" (which is meant to be open and public) into their exclusive, cocooned service.
That's because it's supposed to be. I was on Reddit for a decade until their management shit the bed, and these kinds of problems weren't a thing there despite the much larger userbase.
For the record, to me it's less about privacy and more about setting expectations. I'm not anonymous online, I'm pseudonymous, I've had this handle for a long time. I am my online identity, and when I post and vote I don't feel anonymous, even if I'm relatively protected from someone knocking on my door or messaging my boss about a statement.
If voting "ledgers" aren't presented in the discussion, that's because they aren't intended to be part of the discussion. This reduces the value of influential individuals votes (ooh Bill Gates liked X, Kamala Harris disliked Y etc.) and shifts focus to how the community values of the content. It’s the same reason that we follow communities rather than individuals. We get an internet "hive mind" of sorts without cult of personality.
These specific kinds of things were not a problem, yet it didn't stop the mob from doxxing people "by mistake", getting the police breaking into people homes based on false allegations or getting people fired over something stupid that was said years ago...
If this is about "expectations" of privacy, then it would be better to just expect the worst always and only write/post/share things when you are 100% sure you don't mind them being ever attributed to you.
Expectations of what is part of the discussion, not expectations of privacy.
As for doxxing, that's a problem with all social media - but possibly worse on the "regular" ones (people having mobs attacking their houses, being arrested in countries with censorship laws etc.)
Ok, I think I get your point, but I can tell you that in my experience is the exact opposite:
The hivemind effect is strong, and a lot perfectly-acceptable content gets up/downvoted by people just because the score is already high/low.
I have been posting quite a bit since I joined Lemmy in the different niche communities from the instances that I run. Invariably I see downvotes from people who are not subscribers. I've sent DMs to some of them asking what was wrong with the post, and the answer was simply "this is not interesting to me". I replied saying "Look, this isn't Reddit. There is no algorithm. If you are not interested in the content from this community either block it or don't browse by all". Their response was a basic "how dare you tell me how to browse Lemmy?!" Unsurprisingly, when I tried to bring this up for general discussion, I was mass downvoted for the majority that thinks that "downvotes-as-disagreement" is okay..
So, yeah... In my view, for better or worse votes are part of the conversation. If people were using votes as a valid filter for content quality, I'd totally agree with you. If there is a mass of people downvoting a comment or post that seems to be aligned with the community's values, I feel like I should know why about the comment is deserving of the downvotes. At the very least, I think it's important to know who is downvoting for legitimate reasons and who is downvoting just because they are a whiny brat that should be ignored/muted/blocked.
I agree that it would be better if people used votes as a marker of quality, but strongly disagree on moderation action based on voting.
Personally, there's three scenarios when I use downvotes w/o commenting:
Someone has already voiced the reason
I don't have time/energy to comment
The target is a censored echo-chamber that will ban anyone who disagrees (can't vote/show disapproval if you're banned) - example would be .ml communities having moments about how stalinist USSR did nothing wrong.
Anyway, once a post from a community rises sufficiently to pop up on all, it becomes a part of the larger discussion, and voting will shift towards the opinions of the larger fediverse. This is also usually when communities get discovered by more people. If a community doesn't want the engagement of the wider user-base, a closed blog may be more suitable as a forum, or alternatively have an instance w/o downvoting.
When browsing all or new I do so both to break out of my bubble and to vote on content (usually stuff I find interesting).
Yeah, unfortunately it seems that I am in the minority when it comes to how this "should" be used. I genuinely believe that one of the reasons that open platforms are better is because it's not designed to constantly get me engaged. If they are not meant to keep me constantly engaged, then I shouldn't be repeating/missing the behaviors that were learned when using the more addictive platforms. This means:
This is why you'll never see me commenting on stuff like politics/news. Not only I find these discussions boring beyond belief, I feel like they are completely pointless. These places serve only as a "two minutes hate" type of thing. No amount of voting/commenting/arguing will ever change anyone's minds.
i am from the post usenet and pre facebook internet generation (i hope that is vague enough) so using my real name on the internet or signing up for accounts with my real name email acount is strictly verboten by indoctrination, so my opinion may be out of date or invalid somehow, but i can not see how your lemmy account's up or down voting history violates privacy in any meaningful way
It's in the mbin ui already
So the technical-skill-bar is transforming a lemmy link into the equivalent on an mbin instance? That is huge.
It's not quite that simple. As far as I'm aware, it's difficult to fetch from another instance "after the fact" what all the votes are for a particular user or comment; you have to be signed up to receive updates on it, and then after the fact you can go hunting around in your own instance's DB and see what all the votes were (or your UI can do it, if it's supported).
But, yes, there are instance softwares that will do it, and no one's defederating from every one of those instances (nor I think should they). Someone posted a link to an mbin instance breaking down the votes for this post. Votes are not private.
I ran
curl "https://mbin.grits.dev/u/mozz/outbox?page=1" -H 'accept: application/activity+json'and I could see your outbox. Apparently mbin does not put Like/Dislike activities in there, only your comments/posts/notes.In a world where ActivityPub is only used in server-to-server, this would be fine. If we ever get to a (IMNSHO, better) scenario where we have more clients talking AP directly, then this will not work, and mbin will have to add those as well.
All of this to say:
Yes. That's what I said. I'm actually not 100% sure about it; for all I know there's some way to get it, but AFAIK all the existing softwares don't publish votes "after the fact", only at the time to current subscribers. But then, of course, it's kind of a moot point because you can just grab it from any mbin instance's DB through the UI without needing to do anything special or any particular knowledge.
Not really. You can have your client talking to all the servers and grabbing votes for whatever you're subscribed to, and losing votes for anything you're not subscribed to. It works basically exactly that way for one-user instances already.
Tru dat. 100% agreed. It seems like there are all these people in this thread arguing that their votes need to be private. Their votes are not private, and will never be private, for as long as ActivityPub is what they're using. I can see some value, maybe, to making it slightly difficult to extract the information instead of just giving it for free to everyone, but holding onto the idea of your votes being private is a gateway to unhappiness and only unhappiness.
It works like that for servers because servers are assumed to have high uptime, so (in theory) push-based communication should be enough. However, we see that this is not true even for servers (e.g, medium-sized instances getting out of sync with LW because they can not keep up with all the data being sent to them) and this will be specially true in the case of a network with tens/hundreds of thousands of separate clients. No server will be willing to push activities to all those inboxes, so we will need to have some pull-based form of communication as well.
Oh, yeah, at that point it'll be a scalability clusterfuck. No idea what the solution is. Maybe something with persistent caches run by third parties or something? That actually would be fine, since all the actions are signed with the private key of the actor, I think.
ActivityPub is not to me a real great designed protocol but it's whatever. Usually the key part for social networks is the "social" part of it; the protocol or the web site can be pure shite and if people like interacting with the other people there then it's fine. But yes, you are correct that beyond a certain point of scalability there are some dragons lurking that don't have obvious weak spots.
The problem is not with ActivityPub, but the implementations. No one ever claimed that it should be only a push-based system, but it seems that everyone working on AP software can only think in terms of server-to-server interactions to get the data and then reinvent the wheel by developing their ad-hoc API.
AP is fine if we treat it as a messaging protocol and use it to power offline-first applications. The devices do not need to have all the network's data, just the one that the user has actively interacted with.
How do you know who you're defederating with? When I set up my instance, the list of federated instances was thousands. How do you know which one is scraping the data?