lalo

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago

There's nothing stopping a malicious user from doing that right now. Be aware that anyone who wants can already see your votes.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

We already depend on trusting instances for a lot of what's going on here, I don't see why we shouldn't be able to defederate untrusted ones.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)
  1. Currently, any admin can modify any local user activity, can't they?
  2. Not really, your local instance may still hold the vote data for validation. And therefore could be ported and resigned.
  3. Don't see the problem.
  4. Today, each instance decides whomever they want federation with. The ones who decide the criteria should be the same ones who decide whom the instance federates with.
[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Your first comment expands on both privacy and security. There is no privacy without some type of security.

Now to answer your questions: Yes and yes. Users from c/all were downvoting posts from a small community I'm a part of because they don't agree with. I couldn't see the posts from small communities that are important to me because of that. Now we have the possibility to sort by "scaled", which fixes that. Sometimes there are discussions that are very relevant as to who is voting for what. But that discussion has nothing to do with privacy, which was your first point and went unacknowledged on your second comment.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 3 months ago (4 children)

Not only admins can see the votes, but anyone on Fediverse (except regular Lemmy users) can see them.

Security through obscurity is prone to failure when it is used by itself. If people want their votes to actually be private then another method of securing their privacy should be created.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 months ago (2 children)

User choice would be best indeed. The problem is that currently the votes are public but hidden from Lemmy regular users. Anonymize votes seems to be such a big problem the devs don't even want to consider it.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 months ago (3 children)

I completely agree with the idea of more accountability. We are real people in acting public right here, we should be constantly aware that our actions have consequences. If you don't want your pseudonym associated with a vote, don't do it. It's kinda like the opposite of 4chan, where instand of anonymous controversial content on top, here we have human-curated content being pushed up.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 months ago (6 children)

What it the instance signs the activity? Then it propagates to others instances after local validation. That way only local admins would have access to voting data. Malicious instances could still be defederated/blocked/have votes disregarded.

 

Currently, almost anyone in the Fediverse can see Lemmys votes. Lemmy admins can see votes, as well as mods. Only regular Lemmy users can't. Should the Lemmy devs create a way to make the votes anonymous?

There is a discussion going on right now considering "making the Lemmy votes public" but I think that premisse is just wrong. The votes are public already, they're just hidden from Lemmy users. Anyone from a kbin/mbin/fedia instance can check out the votes if they are so inclined.

The users right now may fall into a false sense of privacy when voting because the votes are hidden from Lemmy users. If you want to vote something and not show up on the vote list, please create another account to support that type of content and don't tell anyone.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 months ago

Can you name one that isn't?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Works with CUDA and RDPing on a 2x2 monitor grid?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

You said you used river, so I've checked their wiki https://github.com/riverwm/river/wiki/Recommended-Software#output-configuration

Maybe you can add your tool there as well.

view more: next ›