Several months ago I have PieFed users the option to vote privately, where an alt/sockpuppet account automatically votes on their behalf. Since then I've been watching to see how it turned out.

  • Finding bigots who upvote transphobia (etc) is harder. To work around this, piefed shares the real vote with trusted instances, BUT:
  • trusted instances Announce votes using the primary to untrusted instances, so the privacy doesn't work most of the time
  • Maintaining a list of trusted instances is a pain in the ass.
  • People always ask why their instance isn't trusted
  • Figuring out who the primary account is, could be quite easy if you have technical skills and a little knowledge of how ActivityPub works. It's not truly 100% private.

Plus, cases of admins/mods abusing their knowledge of who downvoted them have been very rare, lately. This removes most of the reason for private voting in the first place.

I'm starting to feel like private voting is not working and can't really be made to work. Thoughts?

63% Get rid of private voting
14% Keep private voting and make no changes
23% Keep private voting and try harder to make it work
35 votes - ended 1 year ago
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (17 children)

Why are there trusted instances? Why not remove them so only the instance casting the vote knows?

Personally private voting is my primary motivation for using piefed, it’s awful that with Lemmy everyone knows every little thing someone likes or dislikes. There is a reason voting IRL is private. The government can equally see that you are liking things that may one day put you at risk. Being able to upvote posts criticizing certain politicians from a my server in Canada without getting detained at the border is invaluable in this day and age.

Edit: I've given my best effort to try to convince people that handing all the worlds corporations and government granular data on everything we like/dislike is bad. Why pay and strike a deal with Reddit when the fediverse will hand it over for free?! If the feature is removed, I'll just create a fake account or not vote until someone implements this feature because I feel strongly on this issue.

  • source
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Isn't the answer to have an acct not tied to your real identity?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    The entire issue is that every action on Lemmy is public and that data gets vacuumed up by everyone and everything on the network. If I get doxxed in reddit, I am pretty sure that all my activity won't get leaked, but on the fediverse it's everywhere. You are putting every single thing you do into a huge archive for any malcontent, asshole or even state actor to record in an incredibly trivial way

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Why not both? This stuff has levels. If I was a democracy activist in China, logging in with anonymous details on a VPN combined with private voting would be great. I’m a Canadian citizen, I just want the modest barrier of being able to vote on and disagree/agree on stuff without broadcasting it to the whole world.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 4 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    In principle I agree with you.

    In practice I've found that occasionally admins have a legitimate need to access to voting information. To detect vote manipulation and to detect abusive people. It is very hard to provide that access, in a federated environment with lots of different software, while also being private. At the moment I don't see a way to make it truly work.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Can't the admins just ban the voting agents?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Yes, they can and as long as there are only a handful (like PieFed in the early days) they won't mind the extra work. They probably won't even notice.

    But if they get tired of doing it dozens or hundreds of times they might take the easy route and defederate your whole instance. Especially if it is a very small instance with no communities of interest to them.

    I wouldn't, but others might.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    I guess I don't understand what the difference is between banning an agent versus banning the user in terms of vote manipulation. And the idea that politics is the real issue here rather than technology just seems terrible.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

    They can work with the admins of other instances. A set of tools to flag accounts and communicate issues. Defederate “voting” only on instances that don’t address issues.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    They can work with the admins of other instances

    this isn't realistic if you are reviewing hundreds of accounts potentially involved in vote manipulation.

    the votes themselves aren't the only signal useful for identifying these accounts, other user activity can help a lot to reduce the number of false positive.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Frankly, as a user this isn't my problem and is orthogonal to the reasons I care about private voting.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    private voting has already been changed to non-federated voting, so the original point is no longer relevant, but it absolutely is your problem if you want your votes to have any meaning. otherwise you could just not vote. if your instance is just telling me there are 20 accounts that vote very similar and I don't have means to verify authenticity of those accounts I'd rather ban them all and if you get caught in that then your votes don't matter anymore at all, at least as far as federation to my instance is concerned. otherwise I could just create a bunch of alts and downvote all your content, after all nobody could verify if this is coming from authentic users.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    The work has to be done at the account creation stage by the home instance, motivated by the fact that if they let people signup with little scrutiny then their instance won't get to participate in voting. The ease of unaccountable creation of accounts is the real issue here. We can all create fake accounts and manipulate votes still, the tools to address that across a decentralized network is what's needed most. I think there is a lack of willingness to think through and build these solutions because they are indeed hard work but they are worth it. Wouldn't the fediverse be better if we could limit a person to one vote on all their accounts? It's a thing we really could figure out, but we don't have a chance if as a community we struggle to imagine what the power of this will be when it lands in the hands of someone we hate. AI companies don't have to make a deal with Reddit anymore, governments don't have to get a warrant from a judge, we're just giving it all to them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    this basically boils down to requiring globally unique identifiers of users, and then still having them tied to voting, to ensure people can't just sign up on multiple instances to vote multiple times.

    this isn't an issue with hard work, this is an issue with how much identifying information are you willing to collect and store, as well as requiring users to provide this. maybe you would be okay with providing your id on signup, but the majority of people won't be okay with that. this is also not data that i would want to store as a server operator, as this is a huge liability.

    once you have this kind of unique identifier, and that allows you to prevent the same person from voting again, how do you imagine this could be done in a private fashion? it is just not possible. especially when considering your arguments about law enforcement requests, this would be even more transparent.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    @Paige @rimu I always assumed the purpose of publishing websites was to publish stuff, and if we didn't want to publish something we could not publish it.Not sure mine's the prevailing opinion though!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    This seems like a semantic argument. The general public do not see casting a vote as "publishing a vote" and have a expectation of voting carrying a certain level of anonymity. Comments and posts in public, that's understood to be something we can hold people accountable for.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    this depends a lot on the platform is presenting this to users. some platforms make votes always visible to all users, others only expose numbers to the average user. a huge part of the issue at hand is the disconnect between users thinking votes are private and the reality of them not being private.

  • source
  • parent