Fact is, the Lemmy ecosystem needs money to handle the growing server reqirements as more people migrate as well as the development cost of new features (I know Lemmy is OSS but the devs should still get some compensation for their effort).

Seeing how much some reddit users love awards so much that they cant stop giving money to Reddit to award posts protesting the api change, this could be a great way for users to voluntary support the ecosystem. It can be easily ignored by users not caring about them (clients could even add an option to hide them), but users liking the feature can go wild and this time the money goes to volunteers keeping this alive instead of greedy admins, power mods and investors.

Though there would be some big organization questions attached: attached:

Which server handles the payment? A centralized one, the one where the post was made or the one where the user giving the award account was created.
How will the money be shared between the Devs and the individual instances in a way that is fair but cant be abused easily.

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

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well, one upside is that it lets voting be a thing, since ActivityPub is public by nature.

I mean I wouldn't call that an upside in this context since the argument starts from the basic assumption that up/downvotes exist.

If votes by nature have to be public due to necessary operations of the ActivityPub protocol the entire argumentation becomes meaningless.

I still maintain that I prefer making accessing this this information harder rather than easier. Yes, a dedicated user can still spin up their own instance and check, but that added bothersome task is going to be enough to deter a lot of people.

It's kind of like a door lock. You can't stop anyone from getting into your house if they really want to, but locking your front door still reduces the risk of having your possessions stolen due to the added friction.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If votes by nature have to be public due to necessary operations of the ActivityPub protocol the entire argumentation becomes meaningless.

They do, that's why I said having them public is what lets voting be a thing.

There are instances out there that already hide some aspects of voting, beehaw.org doesn't show downvotes in their interface for example. But I expect that someone who's keen on being a troll or stalker will gravitate towards instances that have that information at their fingertips. Hiding the information from the interface of a particular instance doesn't make the actual data go away and a different instance can show it just fine.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

That's what I'm trying to get at though. I understand that voting data will ultimately be accessible to anyone who is dedicated enough (they can spin up their own instance). You yourself seem to see why some instances might want to obfuscate this information seeing as you brought up BeeHaw. You yourself state that trolls and stalkers would like all this information at their fingertips. These are valid arguments for making this data more bothersome to access.

What are the positive benefits that motivates an instance to go in the opposite direction and make everything easily accessible and public? Whats the completion of the sentence "I think it's good that everyone can see who up/downvotes them because ___"?

The only two arguments I've gotten so far is that it might help identify bots/vote manipulation and a more general "it's technically publicly accessible by anyone so might as well just show it to everyone".

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's not just technically publicly available, though. Anyone can go to an instance that displays it (which is basically all of them) and take a look right now.

This is a thoroughly unbottled genie, the only way you're going to get it back inside is if every instance was to agree to hide this information and defederate from any stragglers that don't. It's infeasable at this point. IMO hiding the information on a few individual instances is only going to give a false sense of security.

Whats the completion of the sentence “I think it’s good that everyone can see who up/downvotes them because ___”?

Then they know the information is out there, and they can use it themselves to spot people who are abusing the system.

And regardless of whether you think it's "good", the information is out there.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

(which is basically all of them)

This is true for Kbin, but I don't believe I have come across a Lemmy instance that shows you who up/downvoted you. Hell, as far as I know most Lemmy instances hide "karma" too. You have to check these things from the Kbin side (unless you spin up your own Lemmy instance). Which is the reason this whole thread started.

the only way you're going to get it back inside is if every instance was to agree to hide this information and defederate from any stragglers that don't.

While it will be impossible to prevent those actively seek out this information, most people will still flock to the largest instances. A percentage of those will be inclined to want to abuse voting info. If the big instances obfuscate it, maybe some amount of harassment can be avoided. Even the friction of having to switch accounts to check will be enough to prevent some heat-of-the-moment reactions.

IMO hiding the information on a few individual instances is only going to give a false sense of security.

I guess that's the trade-off. Having everything easily and openly accessible makes things easy for trolls, stalkers and harassers; obfuscating it might mislead users into thinking they're anonymous.

Then they know the information is out there, and they can use it themselves to spot people who are abusing the system

Thank you for the answer. I'm still not convinced it's not worth trying to hide it, but that's a very fair and valid stance.

And regardless of whether you think it's "good", the information is out there.

That's true. And regardless of how an instance decides to run it's voting policy, it's an important fact to make the users aware of.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Wasn't aware Lemmy was missing this information in their UI. I suppose that should satisfy those who want to avoid it, for now anyway.