How? The ActivityPub protocol has no support for private votes. Also, private votes would be private for mods and admins as well, which would make downvote brigading and vote manipulation very hard to detect and moderate.

[–] maegul@lemmy.ml 6 points 4 months ago (6 children)

Hmmm ... is it not really possible at all? Just riffing here ... the identity of a voter isn't necessary, just a means to ensure the uniqueness of a voter so there's no duplication etc. So ... could a hash of the voter's ID be distributed with the vote to prevent duplication?

[–] SorteKanin@feddit.dk 6 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (5 children)

Hmmm … is it not really possible at all?

In ActivityPub, no, not at the moment.

How would you verify that such a hash is coming from a real user? What if an instance sends 1000 fake hashes as votes? Also you could still correlate hashes and figure out who is behind the hash by looking at voting patterns of that hash.

[–] maegul@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Yea ... that makes sense. Thanks!

Still ... intuitively it feels like if the "threadiverse" platforms weren't so concerned with interoperating with the likes on microblogging platforms, they could come up with a system that involved only sharing total vote numbers from their instance without any idenfifying metadata.

[–] SorteKanin@feddit.dk 4 points 4 months ago

Only sharing aggregate votes could also lead to a lot of issues with vote manipulation, as it is very easy to manipulate such an aggregate.

I agree that ActivityPub is biased around microblogging though. For all its flexibility and universality, it is surprisingly catered to that use case.

load more comments (3 replies)