• IlovePizza@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    Good point. Would it be useful to somewhat anonymize them by giving every user a unique code? So admins would see these codes but not easily know what users they represent.

    • SorteKaninA
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      4 months ago

      I’m afraid this may enable a malicious instance to use this mechanism to manipulate votes while making it much harder to detect. I think transparent voting is much preferable.

      • Iceblade@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 months ago

        If we look at any of the big social media platforms with public votes, that has not prevented voting abuse through bots and the like. Rather it has served to fuel online harrassment campaigns and value of influential individuals votes (ooh Bill Gates liked X, Kamala Harris disliked Y etc.)

        Aggregating votes rather than having individually visible votes serves the purpose of shifting focus to how the community values of the content. It’s the same reason that we follow communities rather than people.

        • SorteKaninA
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          Vote aggregates would be insanely easy to maliciously manipulate. Also, the underlying protocol has no support for vote aggregates so this isn’t even an option in the first place.

          • Iceblade@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

            Votes already are presented to the end user in an aggregated fashion, as opposed to how it is on kbin/mbin. In any case, even in the current implementation manipulation is relatively easy, as an admin can just spin up extra accounts. The fediverse relies on trust.