Asklemmy

43983 readers

949 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
[email protected]: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Why doesn't Lemmy implement an anonymous post feature? (lemm.ee)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

42 comments fedilink hide all child comments

How many times have we seen people create throwaway accounts on these types of platforms? People often want to share something valuable yet intimate without having it be tied to their online identity for privacy reasons. Some folks create new accounts for this reason. Others decide to remain silent.

Why doesn't Lemmy offer a simple checkbox when creating a post to indicate whether the OP wants their username to be publicly displayed or simply show up as anonymous? Furthermore, any comment that the OP makes on their anonymous post should be anonymous as well.

Benefits

fewer throwaway accounts in the Lemmy database
user will have ability to track their anonymous post(s) from their primary Lemmy account
potentially less bot activity because anonymous posts will be originating from established Lemmy accounts instead of new accounts with no history.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 71 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (7 children)

It's difficult to see how this could work without keeping the association between those posts and the person entity in the database. All it would take is one so-motivated instance admin to reveal the identity of the poster. It might still have value for low-stakes stuff, but it might give the end user the incorrect idea that their posts are truly anonymous.

[–] Metasyntactic 24 points 1 year ago (4 children)

But an evil instance admin would also be able to log the IP of the throwaway account too. So that’s not any better. The bigger issue is with the moderation side - how do admins deal with troll anonymous posters? Blocking an account is less useful when there’s no account. Arguably it could be a community-specific option to allow anonymous posting.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I could be wrong, but I don't think I can see the IP addresses of remote users. What I'm pointing out is that if a post was marked as anonymous on instance A, even if you trust admin of instance A the identity could be revealed by the admins of instance N.

[–] Metasyntactic 5 points 1 year ago

Arguably if you are worried about remote admins, that’s not a problem-you just issue the creation of the Note without an owning user or pointing to a magical AnonymousCoward user and change the server code to allow that. Then when the note propagates across instances nothing links it to the original user. Of course the downside is the original user won’t get notified of replies to the post and such, but so much is the price of anonymity, I guess

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (4 replies)