this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2024
98 points (81.4% liked)

Privacy

32120 readers
309 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Related communities

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

So I was going through /all and this admin is snooping at vote counts for posts in his instance and then posting it publicly.

Just a reminder that these kind of petty people exist. Pick a trustworthy instance or better yet, host your own.

Archive: https://archive.md/oybyL

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Max_P@lemmy.max-p.me 98 points 9 months ago (2 children)

The votes are public. Kbin displays them right in the UI. Lemmy semi-hides it, but it's never been designed to be private in any way.

Changing instance won't do shit if that's a concern to you. As an admin I can see them even if my instance isn't involved with the post at all:

[–] skankhunt42@lemmy.ml 23 points 9 months ago (1 children)

So really, I just need to host my own instance to see votes. Nice.

[–] LWD@lemm.ee 33 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Meet new friends, find new foes!

A table of downvotes

What's the worst that could happen?

[–] AtariDump@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Oh boy.

Brigading is back on the menu boys! /s

(Don’t actually do this)

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] pop@lemmy.ml 9 points 9 months ago

didn't know that. thanks!

[–] LWD@lemm.ee 95 points 9 months ago (3 children)

To illustrate op's point I'm going to spin up an instance, federate with everyone, and not tell anyone what that instance is.

Then I'm going to feed all that data into my new website, called Open Lemmy Stats, where anyone can query the user data ive accumulated. The homepage will be ripe with insights, leaderboards and all kinds of data on prolific users.

Additionally, I'll display a snapshot/profile of a random user by feeding that users data to GPT4 to make inferences about the user's political affiliations and display the results.

Worst of all, I'm not going to out my instance for everyone to know it as the one to defederate. In fact I'm spinning up a few instances that will host innocuous communities that I plan to mod and support to give my instances cover for their true purpose: redundant fediverse datastreams for my site, Open Lemmy Stats.

I'll also have a store where anyone can buy my collected fediverse data for a handsome sum.

Just kidding I'm not doing any of this. But someone absolutely will or already is.

[–] Sal@mander.xyz 17 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Is the fact that I recognize this comment evidence that I use Lemmy a bit too much? 😅

[–] LWD@lemm.ee 7 points 9 months ago

Caught in 4k ~~stealingq~~ liberating a really good comment

[–] A1kmm@lemmy.amxl.com 10 points 9 months ago (2 children)

How to work out what instance(s) if someone does this: A Lemmy instance doesn't have to send the same voting data to every instance, it could send different votes to different instances (stock Lemmy federates the same thing consistently, but there is no reason a modified Lemmy designed to catch someone doing this has to), encoding a signal into the voting pattern. Then, just check to see what signal shows up. If it averages several instances, with enough signal you could decompose a linear combination (e.g. average) of different patterns back out into its constituent parts.

[–] deweydecibel@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago (2 children)

All of which begs the question why are we bothering to pretend any of this is actually democratic or that the fediverse is truly unified across instances.

On a fundamental level, this "choose your voters" thing breaks the integrity of the voting system. I understand why it needs to happen to combat rogue instances, but the level of manipulation and silent curation that is possible, without the average user's knowledge, means no one can trust the numbers they see on any instance.

There's just so many avenues for abuse here, and it's disheartening to not see more acknowledgement of that from the devs.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] clever_banana@lemmy.today 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Please do this. Its really not an issue.

The solution is simply to use anonymous accounts and change them frequently. This should be more publicized as normal lemmmy data hygene

[–] CaptPretentious@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

So 4chan but with extra steps...

Has Lemmy already jumped the shark.

[–] clever_banana@lemmy.today 5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

Wut? The data is already public. Why only allow the bad guys to access it and not everyone?

Everything you do online will be used against you unless you do so anonymously. This isn't a Lemmy problem. Its only specific to Lemmy if we as a community dont inform each other of the risks and encourage safe data hygienic practices

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 68 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Every up and down vote you make is public. Friendica, kbin, and mbin all expose who voted on every post to any user, and anyone tech savvy on any software can dig out the totals at any time.

In my mind the UI should make this very obvious (honestly I think there should be a pop-up that warns new users of this every time they vote until they check a box to disable it), because it's not what people expect. But votes are very public.

[–] deweydecibel@lemmy.world 14 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

In my mind the UI should make this very obvious (honestly I think there should be a pop-up that warns new users of this every time they vote until they check a box to disable it), because it's not what people expect. But votes are very public.

Which de-incentivizes voting, choking off the thing needed to aggregate the content. Kind of underlining the problem with the votes being public.

[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 15 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Votes pretty much have to be public in order for the whole federated system to work -- otherwise anyone could just stuff 50 votes for their favorite comment, and there'd be no way to tell where they came from. Given that, I think it's important that the software be honest with people about the situation, "disincentive" or not. Personally I'm fine with my votes being public, but an important part of that is that I know they're public and can vote accordingly.

[–] homura1650@lemm.ee 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Not nessasarily, the protocol could be written so that an instance simply tells other federared instances "X of my users upvoted this, and Y downvoted this".

The tradeoff being that instance then have less tools to work with to moderate voting. Instead of being able to do global vote ring detection, the most they can do is look for abuse on their own server, and trust that every instance they vote-federate with does the same. Even then, with every instance trying to be vigilant, no one instance would have the info to detect a cross-instance abuse.

[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 5 points 9 months ago

That would make it possible in general for any instance operator to game the system in ways that are by design impossible to analyze, for dubious benefit.

It would also involve some pretty substantial changes from the current ActivityPub protocol (not just a new way the protocol works, but a change to some of what are currently its core operating principles about e.g. deduplication of entities across the network). You'd have to either talk the authors of every ActivityPub software into accepting your new way, or else abandon the idea of your software being able to interoperate with other ActivityPub software.

[–] AngryishHumanoid@reddthat.com 46 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Lol:

"All those account outside of monero.town are most likely angry commies that just follow posts from here to downvote."

People outside my echo chamber think I'm an asshole, it must be a conspiracy!

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 42 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

We do see the votes. Publicly posting them sounds like poor form, but then what do you expect from crypto bros?

Pick a trustworthy instance or better yet, host your own.

Running your own instance isn’t going to hide your votes.

[–] On@kbin.social 8 points 9 months ago (3 children)

I'm curious, If I delete my account periodically, are the profile and activity like comments/votes still out there in other instances? are votes deducted? I'm not sure if this is the right question but does deleting accounts federate?

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 7 points 9 months ago

I’m not one to half-ass it, so someone more knowledgeable than me will have to field these.

[–] taladar@sh.itjust.works 4 points 9 months ago

I am not sure about the details of intended behaviour but it certainly won't federate to anyone deliberately disabling that part of federation so for privacy purposes you might as well assume that it doesn't federate.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] crispy_kilt@feddit.de 37 points 9 months ago (8 children)

Guys. The person running the website you use always can do and see everything

This has nothing to do with lemmy

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] CaptPretentious@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Oh good, Lemmy had no privacy. Not like that ability isn't going to be abused.

Either make it public right from the start everyone sees everything. Or make this crap not possible.

You're going to get echo chambers that start witch hunts. Someone is going to dox someone because they don't like how someone votes... Yadda yadda someone gets swatted or someone just shows up... Then someone's going to start cheering "We did it Lemmy!"...

Honestly at least with Reddit you had one single evil entity that would abuse their power and trust of users.

[–] LWD@lemm.ee 4 points 9 months ago

That's an interesting point. One company, like Reddit, might see human beings as nothing more than content mills, but that created incentives to be a little private at least.

Lemmy servers are run by anybody, including Facebook, and you don't even have to accept someone else's server rules for your data to transfer onto it. The process occurs passively.

[–] Annoyed_Crabby@monyet.cc 7 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I think the main complain anyone would have with this is, only we admin can look at the vote, and no one else can. This isn't a problem in Kbin or any other platform that allow one to do so.

I only check the vote to see if there's any brigading, other than that, i have no issue with other admins snooping or whatever. Ohh to be clear, all of us admin can see the vote everywhere, getting a new instance yourself will not solve anything.

[–] Asudox@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

A new PR allowing mods to see the votes was merged a few weeks ago.

[–] Maestro@kbin.social 6 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

Why not allow anyone to see the votes? Anyone already can by using kbin or spinning up their own instance.

[–] RedWizard@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 9 months ago

I think there is an assumption that is rooted in how reddit worked, that votes are anonymous. People operating under that assumption might not like having that blanket ripped off. It would be different if it was up front from the start.

[–] Annoyed_Crabby@monyet.cc 3 points 9 months ago

Yeah, but for that you have to open a ticket suggesting that.

[–] EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

What's the instance?

Or is it right in front of my face and I'm not seeing it?

[–] Limitless_screaming@kbin.social 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (3 children)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

From what I understand votes are publicly available data, Lemmy just chooses to hide them to prevent the "chilling effect" where people feel afraid to vote honesty for fear of repercussions. Then they reintroduced it for admins so they can do their duties in stopping vote manipulation, for example people who go onto your profile and downvote literally every comment you make (it's already happened to me like 3 times) or those who use all of their alts to try and sway momentum on a comment their main makes. There's also times where there's no justification for a comment being upvoted; perfect example is when a nazi says "based" in response to an article about someone being racist and it gets like 20 upvotes. I don't think anyone reasonable would be against a banwave on something like that.

Obviously admins can see everything that goes through their servers for what should be obvious reasons, so this is more of a convenience thing. Moral of the story: don't join shitty crypto instances.

[–] amju_wolf@pawb.social 3 points 9 months ago (5 children)

perfect example is when a nazi says “based” in response to an article about someone being racist and it gets like 20 upvotes. I don’t think anyone reasonable would be against a banwave on something like that.

I would absolutely be against that. Voting should not be bannable outside of vote manipulation itself. If the content is offending, remove that (and possibly ban the user), but not people who vote on it. That's just stupid "guilty by association" nonsense. And besides, voicing stupid opinions (in moderation) is still better than suppressing free speech.

Lemmy just chooses to hide them to prevent the “chilling effect” where people feel afraid to vote honesty for fear of repercussions.

I find that kinda stupid as well. It leads people to think that their votes are private when literally anyone can view them with a bit of work. Sure the chilling effect sucks but it's better than misleading people. At the very least they should be warned when they sign up.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›