▲ 436 ▼ YSK: Upvotes and downvotes are public information on Lemmy (lemmy.today) submitted 1 year ago* by npdean@lemmy.today to c/youshouldknow@lemmy.world 369 comments fedilink hide all child comments I recently learned that voting on lemmy is not anonymous. Anyone can get information about who has upvoted and downvoted a post or comment. In combination with your IP, this is a massive privacy (maybe even physical security) risk. Also, people can target you for your votes. Sadly, this is something where I would prefer Reddit over Lemmy. Big tech scrapes data from both places anyways, at least Reddit is safe.
[–] yermaw@sh.itjust.works 16 points 1 year ago (4 children) Seems like a good thing to me. Should be a better known feature. How would I go about seeing this information for myself? permalink fedilink source hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] irelephant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 1 year ago (2 children) lemvotes.org permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] LemmyThinkAboutThat@lemmy.myserv.one 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] irelephant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) Sure, but how many people have read the docs? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LemmyThinkAboutThat@lemmy.myserv.one 4 points 1 year ago 🤦🏻♀️okay, good point. permalink fedilink source parent [–] InFerNo@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago (3 children) This always givea me a 404 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] irelephant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 year ago your instance may have opted out. permalink fedilink source parent [–] rumba@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 year ago Just tested your post here, your instance def opted out. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Obi@sopuli.xyz 1 point 1 year ago Or just buggy results. permalink fedilink source parent [–] mic_check_one_two@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 year ago (2 children) Yeah, at worst it’s a necessary evil to prevent a rogue user on a second instance from mass downvoting. Your username is tied to your vote, because otherwise a rogue user could just spam downvotes at whatever they didn’t like. Instance 1 has a post. Instance 2 has a user who disagrees with that post. User is able to spam downvotes, because instance 2 is not binding their username to the vote. So Instance 1 has no way of knowing if the votes are multiple different users, or all one user. The only real solution here is to disable external voting, but the entire point of the fediverse is cross-compatibility and self-hosting. By binding the username to the vote, instance 1 is able to detect repeat votes and disregard them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 year ago Important to note here, too, is that ip addresses of users arent synced across instances. This is only a problem for people who care about the reputation of their user account - which is something people should be rotating out anyway if they care about their privacy. permalink fedilink source parent [–] socsa@piefed.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) Public votes do absolutely nothing to stop people from making a bunch of users on a bunch of instances and voting from those users. Voting agents are a simple solution to the issue, since you can still just ban the voting agent if it seems problematic. But there's a deeper context here, which is we are drawing a weird line between voting being a fundamental, if not critical part of the application, but also apparently grounds for imposing sanctions on users for doing it wrong? That's a fundamentally flawed mechanic no matter how you swing it, since you can't standardize any singular set of rules, and we are already seeing a rapid escalation of tit for tat vote bans. This is just unsustainable and is pushing things towards an obvious endpoint where there is such a chilling effect on voting that it negates the entire utility of the mechanic for sorting and content curation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago (2 children) This is just further evidence that we just shouldn't have a downvote option at all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] socsa@piefed.social 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) I agree, except we should leave the basic mechanic and just make it a placebo. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 1 year ago Why? I don't see a benefit to the button at all. Even being able to register disapproval is better done via comment, anyway, and having to articulate it makes you far more likely to self-reflect and temper yourself than if you can just downvote every comment in a thread permalink fedilink source parent [–] npdean@lemmy.today [S] -1 points 1 year ago (1 child) No, downvotes are more important than upvotes permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) I legitimately don't even know why someone might think this. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] npdean@lemmy.today [S] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Disagreements are more important than agreements, otherwise it just forms echo chambers permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 1 year ago You can disagree without a downvote option. It's more constructive to formulate a response for disagreement anyway. permalink fedilink source parent [–] LemmyThinkAboutThat@lemmy.myserv.one 2 points 1 year ago I posted in the wrong spot, sorry. There’s a link and screenshot here: https://lemmy.myserv.one/comment/15441289 permalink fedilink source parent [–] npdean@lemmy.today [S] 2 points 1 year ago I am not saying if it is good or bad but it is terrible that it is not made clear. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] irelephant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 1 year ago (2 children) lemvotes.org permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] LemmyThinkAboutThat@lemmy.myserv.one 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] irelephant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) Sure, but how many people have read the docs? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LemmyThinkAboutThat@lemmy.myserv.one 4 points 1 year ago 🤦🏻♀️okay, good point. permalink fedilink source parent [–] InFerNo@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago (3 children) This always givea me a 404 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] irelephant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 year ago your instance may have opted out. permalink fedilink source parent [–] rumba@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 year ago Just tested your post here, your instance def opted out. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Obi@sopuli.xyz 1 point 1 year ago Or just buggy results. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] LemmyThinkAboutThat@lemmy.myserv.one 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] irelephant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) Sure, but how many people have read the docs? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LemmyThinkAboutThat@lemmy.myserv.one 4 points 1 year ago 🤦🏻♀️okay, good point. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] irelephant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) Sure, but how many people have read the docs? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LemmyThinkAboutThat@lemmy.myserv.one 4 points 1 year ago 🤦🏻♀️okay, good point. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] LemmyThinkAboutThat@lemmy.myserv.one 4 points 1 year ago 🤦🏻♀️okay, good point. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] InFerNo@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago (3 children) This always givea me a 404 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] irelephant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 year ago your instance may have opted out. permalink fedilink source parent [–] rumba@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 year ago Just tested your post here, your instance def opted out. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Obi@sopuli.xyz 1 point 1 year ago Or just buggy results. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] irelephant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 year ago your instance may have opted out. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 year ago Just tested your post here, your instance def opted out. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] mic_check_one_two@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 year ago (2 children) Yeah, at worst it’s a necessary evil to prevent a rogue user on a second instance from mass downvoting. Your username is tied to your vote, because otherwise a rogue user could just spam downvotes at whatever they didn’t like. Instance 1 has a post. Instance 2 has a user who disagrees with that post. User is able to spam downvotes, because instance 2 is not binding their username to the vote. So Instance 1 has no way of knowing if the votes are multiple different users, or all one user. The only real solution here is to disable external voting, but the entire point of the fediverse is cross-compatibility and self-hosting. By binding the username to the vote, instance 1 is able to detect repeat votes and disregard them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 year ago Important to note here, too, is that ip addresses of users arent synced across instances. This is only a problem for people who care about the reputation of their user account - which is something people should be rotating out anyway if they care about their privacy. permalink fedilink source parent [–] socsa@piefed.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) Public votes do absolutely nothing to stop people from making a bunch of users on a bunch of instances and voting from those users. Voting agents are a simple solution to the issue, since you can still just ban the voting agent if it seems problematic. But there's a deeper context here, which is we are drawing a weird line between voting being a fundamental, if not critical part of the application, but also apparently grounds for imposing sanctions on users for doing it wrong? That's a fundamentally flawed mechanic no matter how you swing it, since you can't standardize any singular set of rules, and we are already seeing a rapid escalation of tit for tat vote bans. This is just unsustainable and is pushing things towards an obvious endpoint where there is such a chilling effect on voting that it negates the entire utility of the mechanic for sorting and content curation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago (2 children) This is just further evidence that we just shouldn't have a downvote option at all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] socsa@piefed.social 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) I agree, except we should leave the basic mechanic and just make it a placebo. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 1 year ago Why? I don't see a benefit to the button at all. Even being able to register disapproval is better done via comment, anyway, and having to articulate it makes you far more likely to self-reflect and temper yourself than if you can just downvote every comment in a thread permalink fedilink source parent [–] npdean@lemmy.today [S] -1 points 1 year ago (1 child) No, downvotes are more important than upvotes permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) I legitimately don't even know why someone might think this. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] npdean@lemmy.today [S] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Disagreements are more important than agreements, otherwise it just forms echo chambers permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 1 year ago You can disagree without a downvote option. It's more constructive to formulate a response for disagreement anyway. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 year ago Important to note here, too, is that ip addresses of users arent synced across instances. This is only a problem for people who care about the reputation of their user account - which is something people should be rotating out anyway if they care about their privacy. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] socsa@piefed.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) Public votes do absolutely nothing to stop people from making a bunch of users on a bunch of instances and voting from those users. Voting agents are a simple solution to the issue, since you can still just ban the voting agent if it seems problematic. But there's a deeper context here, which is we are drawing a weird line between voting being a fundamental, if not critical part of the application, but also apparently grounds for imposing sanctions on users for doing it wrong? That's a fundamentally flawed mechanic no matter how you swing it, since you can't standardize any singular set of rules, and we are already seeing a rapid escalation of tit for tat vote bans. This is just unsustainable and is pushing things towards an obvious endpoint where there is such a chilling effect on voting that it negates the entire utility of the mechanic for sorting and content curation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago (2 children) This is just further evidence that we just shouldn't have a downvote option at all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] socsa@piefed.social 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) I agree, except we should leave the basic mechanic and just make it a placebo. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 1 year ago Why? I don't see a benefit to the button at all. Even being able to register disapproval is better done via comment, anyway, and having to articulate it makes you far more likely to self-reflect and temper yourself than if you can just downvote every comment in a thread permalink fedilink source parent [–] npdean@lemmy.today [S] -1 points 1 year ago (1 child) No, downvotes are more important than upvotes permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) I legitimately don't even know why someone might think this. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] npdean@lemmy.today [S] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Disagreements are more important than agreements, otherwise it just forms echo chambers permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 1 year ago You can disagree without a downvote option. It's more constructive to formulate a response for disagreement anyway. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago (2 children) This is just further evidence that we just shouldn't have a downvote option at all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] socsa@piefed.social 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) I agree, except we should leave the basic mechanic and just make it a placebo. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 1 year ago Why? I don't see a benefit to the button at all. Even being able to register disapproval is better done via comment, anyway, and having to articulate it makes you far more likely to self-reflect and temper yourself than if you can just downvote every comment in a thread permalink fedilink source parent [–] npdean@lemmy.today [S] -1 points 1 year ago (1 child) No, downvotes are more important than upvotes permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) I legitimately don't even know why someone might think this. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] npdean@lemmy.today [S] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Disagreements are more important than agreements, otherwise it just forms echo chambers permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 1 year ago You can disagree without a downvote option. It's more constructive to formulate a response for disagreement anyway. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] socsa@piefed.social 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) I agree, except we should leave the basic mechanic and just make it a placebo. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 1 year ago Why? I don't see a benefit to the button at all. Even being able to register disapproval is better done via comment, anyway, and having to articulate it makes you far more likely to self-reflect and temper yourself than if you can just downvote every comment in a thread permalink fedilink source parent
[–] anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 1 year ago Why? I don't see a benefit to the button at all. Even being able to register disapproval is better done via comment, anyway, and having to articulate it makes you far more likely to self-reflect and temper yourself than if you can just downvote every comment in a thread permalink fedilink source parent
[–] npdean@lemmy.today [S] -1 points 1 year ago (1 child) No, downvotes are more important than upvotes permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) I legitimately don't even know why someone might think this. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] npdean@lemmy.today [S] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Disagreements are more important than agreements, otherwise it just forms echo chambers permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 1 year ago You can disagree without a downvote option. It's more constructive to formulate a response for disagreement anyway. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) I legitimately don't even know why someone might think this. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] npdean@lemmy.today [S] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Disagreements are more important than agreements, otherwise it just forms echo chambers permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 1 year ago You can disagree without a downvote option. It's more constructive to formulate a response for disagreement anyway. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] npdean@lemmy.today [S] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Disagreements are more important than agreements, otherwise it just forms echo chambers permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 1 year ago You can disagree without a downvote option. It's more constructive to formulate a response for disagreement anyway. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 1 year ago You can disagree without a downvote option. It's more constructive to formulate a response for disagreement anyway. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] LemmyThinkAboutThat@lemmy.myserv.one 2 points 1 year ago I posted in the wrong spot, sorry. There’s a link and screenshot here: https://lemmy.myserv.one/comment/15441289 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] npdean@lemmy.today [S] 2 points 1 year ago I am not saying if it is good or bad but it is terrible that it is not made clear. permalink fedilink source parent