• rglullis@communick.news
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      30 days ago
      1. You don’t need to be federated to read people’s activities…
      2. Even if there was some type of “authorized fetch” involved, one could bypass it easily by writing a bot on LW to get the data. Then what?
      • Rimu@piefed.socialOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        30 days ago

        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.

        • rglullis@communick.news
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          30 days ago

          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.

          • Iceblade@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            30 days ago

            We’ve already seen that kind of harrasment on major platforms including X and those owned by Meta.

            • rglullis@communick.news
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              30 days ago

              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.

              • Iceblade@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                30 days ago

                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.

                • rglullis@communick.news
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  29 days ago

                  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.

                  • Iceblade@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    29 days ago

                    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.)