Update: Thanks mateys for participating! Our instance was really split down the middle on this vote - 49% in favour, 51% against.

After reading all the comments, it honestly seems unlikely to me that private voting will ever be a viable option for Lemmy in any meaningful way, because voting data gets federated out all across the fediverse, so I think on balance the best way forward is just to accept that reality and work under the assumption all votes are public. At least then nobody is lulled into a false sense of security.

Having said that there's an argument to be made for both sides and I don't think there's a "right" answer necessarily. Its more down to personal preference about whether you want/expect private (to the users) voting, or you want to embrace public voting. But until Lemmy can guarantee the privacy of user votes then simply pretending they are private seems like the worst of both worlds.

We might revisit the topic of public/private voting again down the road if Lemmy's developers provide privacy enhancements in that area though.

Cheers, Unruffled.


Hi again mateys!

As most of you are probably aware, since the development of Lemvotes Lemmy votes are no longer private for users.

The way lemvotes works right now afaik, is it uses an admin level account to collect voting data from all federated instances, thus enabling the identification of every voter. This method effectively bypasses the guardrails the developers put in place to keep this info more restricted.

However, the developer of lemvotes has recently developed an "opt out" for instances that don't want their user data collected in this way. So now we have a choice of whether or not to continue. For total transparency, I asked the developer to create an opt out because I wanted to give our users the option to choose that path without defederating from the lemvotes instance.

I think there are (at least) two schools of thought on this topic, which I will attempt to succinctly summarize below:

  1. Votes should be kept private to users as they were only ever meant to be viewable by instance admins. Making votes public to everyone via lemvotes, when users have a reasonable expectation of privacy when it comes to voting, is a betrayal of user trust. It also leads to arguments and a lot of unnecessary drama, caused by users trawling though each others' vote histories.

  2. It's good that voting is transparent and that users have the same tools available as admins to conduct their own investigations into other users. This creates a level playing field and helps hold everyone accountable for their voting patterns.

So now you have some of the context, I'd like to ask our community what are your thoughts on lemvotes... is it a social good or a bad idea?

Personally, I quite like it from an admin perspective - it's a handy tool, and a pretty cool project. But I also have an expectation (mainly from other forms of social media) that users' votes should be kept private from other users, so I still think it's problematic from that perspective.


Proposal: To opt out of lemvotes, so that our users' voting data is kept (at least somewhat) private.

  • To vote FOR the proposal to succeed, upvote the post.
  • To vote AGAINST the proposal, downvote the post.

This will be a simple majority vote. Similar to the last governance topic, I have no clue what the instance sentiment is towards lemvotes, so let's find out! Feel free to add your comments below.

top 90 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[+] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 75 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I don't see much point in opting out. The data will still be available to anyone who spins up an instance, and this could lead to a big game of whack-a-mole.

    Better would be to push the Lemmy devs to find a universal solution.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Against.

    Facade of privacy is worse. Opting out won't do anything, and it might give people false sense of privacy. Let everyone know their votes are public. In my head, voting on lemmy is equivalent of saying "aye" in real life, that is, you are assenting to something publicly.

    I in fact consider this to be a feature, it's helpful in detecting votes manipulation.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Against.

    To block it would just further a false sense of privacy. The votes are already public, this just makes that data very slightly more accessible. To pretend otherwise is simply burying our heads in the sand.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    I'm for the opt-out. I am aware of the fact that anyone who has looked into the subject knows that it's easy to get that info, but there's a difference between "I need to actually put a small amount of effort into it" vs. "I just copy the URL". If someone wants to look it up and jumps through the hoops, that's fine by me, but it shouldn't be an everyday thing.

    I personally vote on nearly every post and comment i read, and even tho i don't want to push any agenda or discriminate any user, someone who i perceive as a bad actor or who regularly comments stuff that screams "i need to touch grass" might construe (wrongly) that i target them. Tbh, most of the time i don't look at the username when voting.

    (but it is pretty interesting that i have submitted around 71000 votes since the API reddit exodus lol)

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 48 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    Personally I vote against because security through obscurity, isn't. People who want to get this data for malicious purposes can easily get it. It will only affect people trying to do it causally (i.e. To check if someone is a chud).

    I personally find the whole voting system in lemmy flawed but that's another story.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] [S] 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Yeah I've had a change of heart about lemvotes. After reading through all the comments, and realising people only need a kbin or mbin account to see all the votes anyway because of how activitypub works, there is basically no point imo. As many commenters mentioned, opting out of lemvotes will only give the illusion of privacy, and doesn't address the underlying problem. And given our genAI mods rely on that tool to assess troll accounts, I'm kinda hoping it won't pass now.

    But really if we were to go along with the public voting paradigm that is part of activitypub, then I think Lemmy should really embrace it. Like create a toggle that allows instances to enable public voting, so any user can see who voted on what in the default UI. Might also help reduce vote manipulation once everyone knows its fully public.

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

    Why flawed? Please elaborate, genuinely curious.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Because up and down don't provide anywhere enough for signal. I would prefer them be specific positive/negative emojis which would help with filtering and sorting, lead use properly and avoid misunderstandings

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 46 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Votes are public though, pretending that they're not is just deceiving users.

    Anyone who admins a federated instance, and any of their friends, knows vote counts.

    But I also have an expectation (mainly from other forms of social media) that users’ votes should be kept private from other users

    This is literally just reddit and hackernews, some of the worst and most astro-turfed socmed. Twitter post nazification too I guess.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    I dislike the comments I sometimes see which threaten people downvoting certain things and imply that the only possible reason anyone would downvote is because they are and that they will be stalked and shunned for doing so. I see these kinds of comments in situations where something probably got downvoted because the person was being an asshole or an idiot rather than because downvoters are on the opposite side of their ideology or hateful. So it's like they want to prevent criticism through chilling effects and bullying. I get that it's tough to see that people don't like what you have to say, and that sometimes this is not useful information, but that's what options to hide vote scores are good for, just cut yourself off from this information if you can't engage with it in a healthy way or acknowledge that you might not understand the unstated thoughts of the people clicking up or down.

    Even if it is not ultimately concealable information, I think this kind of measure is good because it at least sends a message that toxic vote stalking is disapproved of.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Against

    This information is already public. Something like kbin or mbin which already shows votes could theoretically be used to show them for any federated instances anyway. It's pointless trying to obscure this information as it's not actually protected in a technical manor. If you didn't want this information public you chose the wrong platform.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 29 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Against.

    • Does not stop voting being public
    • Does nothing for privacy, it doesn't stop how federation sends the info required to vote
    • Useful for moderators in communities where they have haters despite being self contained.
    • Useful for users to know when they have a dedicated hater/fan.
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Voting for the proposal, would be nice to opt out of extra tracking beyond what already gets tracked/logged during typical Lemmy usage.

    But in the grand scheme of things this is more of a Lemmy network problem, if that site exists then surely other sites/tools exist (or will soon) to do the same thing. I've always kind of figured it doesn't take much to start up a Lemmy instance, federate with others, & just start logging the info being sent across the instances (in this case upvotes/downvotes).

    You've kind of got me wondering how Piefed handles that but that's another topic really.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I'd like to opt out of lemvotes

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Against.

    Pretty much eeveeryone have clarified the good reasons Against already, and I share most of them. The one that I want to emphasize more is that regarding this point:

    But I also have an expectation (mainly from other forms of social media) [...]

    Half the point of lemmy is that it's not like other forms of social media, at least the big ones. This is not Twitter where we know already everyone is nazis, or Reddit where people can just brigand and go bomb-review software projects or stuff like that with impunity. The other half is that it's federated and public. That, by nature, has to somehow include the votes.

    We're on lemmy. Let's own it.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [M, B] 27 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

    Acknowledged governance topic opened by https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/u/flatworm7591 Early Bird: a parrot, orangered colors Jolly Roger: an icon of pirate jolly roger skull wearing a hat, in orange-red, black and white colors A book with a loaf of bread in the cover  in orange-red, black and white colors Deck Hand: An icon of anchor crossed with two staves in orange-red, black and white colors First Mate: a pirate ship's steering wheel, orangered color

    This is a simple majority vote. The final tally is as follows:

    • For: Vouched: a minimalist compass icon. Orangered color (3), Deck Hand: An icon of anchor crossed with two staves in orange-red, black and white colors (3), Salty Dog: An icon of two crossed cutlasses with a skull in the center in orange-red, black and white colors (1), First Mate: a pirate ship's steering wheel, orangered color (2), Powder Monkey: An icon of powder barrel in orange-red, black and white colors (2)
    • Against: Vouched: a minimalist compass icon. Orangered color (4), MVP: a star icon, in orange-red, black and white colors (2), Threadiverse Enjoyer: An icon of a doubloon with a black hole in the center in orange-red, black and white colors (3), First Mate: a pirate ship's steering wheel, orangered color (2), Salty Dog: An icon of two crossed cutlasses with a skull in the center in orange-red, black and white colors (1)
    • Local Community: +0.6
    • Outsider sentiment: Very Positive
    • Total: -0.4
    • Percentage: 49.00%

    This vote has concluded on 2025-08-09 01:29:16 UTC


    Reminder that this is a pilot process and results of voting are not set in stone.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (2 children)

    Waat the hek du thees emoji signifie? (si, soy Nederlandishe)

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

    It's the instance's voting system that classifies users according to their description upon registration and/or their donation to the instance, see this thread: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/35557475 (it's linked in the sidebar)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 25 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

    Against. As Lena has indicated, this does not require spinning up a full instance and admin account, but just to spin up a copy of LemVotes, which is open source. Easier than that, I've also read that votes are available without admin rights through queries to the Lemmy API. Even easier, the votes are also already public through the *bins and friendica.

    EDIT: Lena has clarified that Lemvotes does depend on having a Lemmy instance, and that votes are only available through API to admins.

    I understand the use of having a small hurdle to dissuade people, I regularly build them into my scripts at work so people can't accidentally break shit with them. But my point is, removing our instance from LemVotes does not raise that hurdle to any significant degree.

    This is a core limitation of ActivityPub. Votes must be sent with username attached for federation to work properly. The data is already out there. Any ActivityPub system that doesn't make them public is just doing so on the front end. It's set dressing, not actual voting privacy.

    I don't like that it works this way, but I've chosen to accept it as the cost to be part of the Fediverse, to be uncensorable.

    If you want privacy, the path is the same it always has been: rotate accounts regularly.


    As far as I'm aware, the only true workaround is in piefed (I think it's piefed at least) where a hidden account with a randomized name is created with your real account, and the hidden one's name is attached to your votes instead of the real account. So it would require your own instance admin to see the link in vote and identity. Or basic levels of observation skills to connect the person posting negative replies is the random username also downvoting.


    I also don't like the idea of even being able to opt out. It creates an entirely false sense of security and privacy, and could be seen as a signal that our instance doesn't intend to participate in the wider fediverse transparently and in good faith.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    As Lena has indicated, this does not require spinning up a full instance and admin account, but just to spin up a copy of LemVotes, which is open source.

    Lemvotes currently depends on a Lemmy instance, though I could make it independent with Fedify if I had the time and energy.

    Easier than that, I've also read that votes are available without admin rights through queries to the Lemmy API.

    https://lemmy.readme.io/reference/get_post-like-list

    the API is admin-only, though votes are federated through activitypub, that's why instance admins can see them. That's just how activitypub works.

    I also don't like the idea of even being able to opt out. It creates an entirely false sense of security and privacy, and could be seen as a signal that our instance doesn't intend to participate in the wider fediverse transparently and in good faith.

    yeeeeah, this was the db0 admins' idea, otherwise my instance might have gotten defederated, which I prefer doesn't happen. The solution would be, as I said, to make Lemvotes its own fediverse actor, but I don't have the expertise or energy to do so.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    otherwise my instance might have gotten defederated

    Umm, wait what?

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

    Lemvotes gets data from my instance, so if I hadn't made the opt-out option, this community vote would still be run, with the difference that there would be the option of defederating me instead of opting out.

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

    Ah, I see. It sounded quite threatening, tbh (and it technically still is a threat, but now at least I get why it would be necessary to prevent the votes from being counted by Lemvotes...). I hope it won't be necessary, the poll is close to tipping over to not opting out...

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

    I doubt there's any practical way to keep votes 100% private, there's always a workaround. Playing whack a mole on this stupid little thing is not worth it

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    voting for. i understand the info is available either way, but im in favor of raising the hurdle for this data to be collected.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 59 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (10 children)

    Hi, Lemvotes dev here. As you can imagine, I believe votes on the Fediverse should be public, because that's just how ActivityPub works. Votes are sent out to every subscribed instance, which can then do whatever it wants with them.

    We need to stop pretending votes on Lemmy are private, they're not. By letting anyone view votes (well, they can do that without Lemvotes by setting up their own instance, Lemvotes just lowers the entry barrier), users can see, for example, who's serially downvoting their posts or a community's posts.

    Also, I don't think votes being public ruins Lemmy. They're public on bluesky and (virtually) no one is complaining. Additionally, platforms like kbin and mbin, which are part of the Fediverse, already make votes public. So even without Lemvotes, people can view the votes on posts. Lemvotes just makes it a bit more convenient.

    The only way to fully prevent anyone other than dbzer0 admins from viewing votes is to disable federation.

    The way lemvotes works right now afaik, is it uses an admin level account to collect voting data from all federated instances, thus enabling the identification of every voter. This method effectively bypasses the guardrails the developers put in place to keep this info more restricted.

    Just a technical nitpick, this is inaccurate. Lemvotes queries the Lemmy database directly, so instance admins can plug it into the db and Lemvotes is running. I was considering making Lemvotes its own Fediverse actor, so that (1) setting up an instance of Lemvotes would be easier, and (2) opting out would be simpler by simply defederating lemvotes.org (or wherever the instance is running), but after working on it for a bit (the results of my work are on this git branch), I realized I don't know enough about ActivityPub, and that I don't care enough about Lemvotes or Lemmy to spend my time on this, as I have other projects to work on. In case anyone wants to develop that themselves, they're free to do so! Lemvotes is open source.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] [S] 16 points 1 year ago

    Thanks for adding your voice here Lena, and for clarifying the technical details.

    Also, I don't think votes being public ruins Lemmy. They're public on bluesky and (virtually) no one is complaining. Additionally, platforms like kbin and mbin, which are part of the Fediverse, already make votes public. So even without Lemvotes, people can view the votes on posts. Lemvotes just makes it a bit more convenient.

    Having read through all the comments (thanks everyone), I'm voting against the proposal. But of course we will respect the voting outcome, whichever way it lands.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 31 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Thanks for this insight, it swayed me to vote against the proposal. If votes are already semi-public through federation I'd rather it be transparently public than giving the illusion of privacy.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [B] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (4 children)
  • I think this is a great write up and shows why it doesn't make sense to opt out, votes on the fediverse like anything else shared over activitypub are public, an opt out doesn't change that.

    Personally I think that a service like Lemvotes should fight against this as much as possible, some people have and admins have made slanderous and outright evil accusations towards them as a result but it ultimately doesn't matter. This place is open and public, all activitypub data is shared publicly. If someone running a server doesn't like that, they should move to whitelist mode or turn federation off entirely.

    Providing server admins with easy opt-out while still remaining public hurts the viability of a server like that and encourages decisions based on a false sense of privacy.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago

    I'm not exactly sure what you want here.

    1. If you'd like votes to not be federated at all, that would mean instances would only have the local count of votes (i.e. only votes cast by users from that instance), which brings little benefit, and would make small instances unusable.

    2. If you'd like only vote counts to be federated, but not who cast the votes, that would allow people to make accounts spamming votes, with admins from other instances being unable to figure out where the spurious votes are coming from. As in the previous example, it would bring little benefit (votes would be private, sure), but it would cripple moderation tools and make post and comment ranking untrustworthy because of potential (virtually) undetectable bots.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [+] 23 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [+] 22 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Against.

    A harder question for me is whether or not to get rid of public downvotes altogether. I think most interactions would be less hostile without the downvote option at all.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I don't think so, votes are public by nature, and it is useful to be able to find where and how users vote to make judgements based on vote manipulation. I say this as someone who has dealt with huge amounts of vote manipulation in my own communities.

    Although the fact they are offering opt outs from instance admins instead of making it censorship/defederation hardened does make me lose faith in the integrity of lemvotes as a service since it no longer will show a majority of votes due to admins opting out.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I'm voting FOR. To be honest, after reading the comments, I do find the argument convincing that we shouldn't enable the illusion of security. But, on the other hand, I strongly believe that creating a tool to specifically investigate particular individuals, even if it was already technically possible, is ripe for abuse.

    Literally any barrier to entry can give some angry individual a chance to cool down before they go on a brigade against the target of their rage. I'd slightly prefer if we don't enable them.

    All that said, if it's not this tool it will probably be another, so my vote is mostly symbolic.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Maybe it would be better for everyone to have access to this tool, rather than just a select few who have the time or know how to setup their own instance to collect this data?

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

    I mean, maybe, I really can't say for sure. Taking this to its logical extreme - should everyone have access to Clearview or one of the many facial recognition databases? There are clear upsides and stark downsides.

    Obviously this case is a lot less everything than that hypothetical, but I think it's all part of a larger conversation about privacy and access to ostensibly private information, or even how private information should be.

    I'm not prepared to believe that humanity is ready for all the privacy we've enjoyed to be lost so quickly.

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

    In my opinion, it's a good thing. Anyone wanting the information for nefarious purposes only needs to spin up their own instance and they get it. This just gives the tools to everyone easily.

    I think the illusion that votes are private should be crushed, because they aren't and you should be aware of that.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    As others have said, it seems that comments and votes on Lemmy are public by default, and the issue of anonymization should be directed towards redesigning how Lemmy and even ActivityPub shares information.

    That being said, we on db0 have less control over those softwares because they underpin our instance here on Lemmy. For what we do have control over, I'd expect this instance to preserve the privacy of its users as much as possible.

    I also agree with others that opting out of Lemvotes means one more deterrent for bad actors to abuse the system. We don't want to make it easier for people to spy on and stalk others, even if this opting out doesn't fix the root cause.

    I vote Aye for now, only so far as we continue this conversation to address privacy overall in the Fediverse.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I'm against opting out. Whether Lemvotes, vote federation, or the voting system as a whole are good or bad isn't the matter at hand. This vote is either for or against plugging our collective noses and pretending everything eternally smells like lilacs.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago* (6 children)

    I support it but it feels pointless given it's just trying to treat symptoms and not the core issue which is the ability to get them in the first place. I don't think that there's even any good solution for that given the decentralised nature of the fediverse which sucks.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    It is complicated but possible.
    You can anonymize votes, peertube is doing something like that.
    I can imagine even more complicated systems that limit the instances with that info to 2-3, a number small enough to make it plausible no leaks happen, while still making it very hard to fake votes with a malicious server.

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

    Interesting, is it actual anonymity or just static obfuscation where after simple data analysis you'd be able to tie all past and future data to the user moving forward? Do you have the source for that? I have issues finding anything despite trying out different keywords.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    Anything that makes it harder for the average .world brigarder to harass people because of their voting patterns is a welcome change. So naturally I'm voting "aye" and for opting out of any further such tools/other instances of them when they will eventually pop up.

    I am aware that votes are not private, but the bar for exploiting that is on the flor when you just have to copy a URL

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›