Currently, almost anyone in the Fediverse can see Lemmys votes. Lemmy admins can see votes, as well as mods. Only regular Lemmy users can't. Should the Lemmy devs create a way to make the votes anonymous?

There is a discussion going on right now considering "making the Lemmy votes public" but I think that premisse is just wrong. The votes are public already, they're just hidden from Lemmy users. Anyone from a kbin/mbin/fedia instance can check out the votes if they are so inclined.

The users right now may fall into a false sense of privacy when voting because the votes are hidden from Lemmy users. If you want to vote something and not show up on the vote list, please create another account to support that type of content and don't tell anyone.

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

[–] halm@leminal.space 21 points 2 months ago (2 children)

The point of privacy is pretty shaky in this context, tbh. Anybody using the fediverse is ensured pseudonymity already, the privacy issue should be whether your account(s) can be linked to your real life identity against your will.

In that regard I can only see positives to making voting public. Foremost it could create some accountability to the system, and maybe minimise the lazier drive-by, doom scroll votes?

[–] lalo@discuss.tchncs.de 13 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I completely agree with the idea of more accountability. We are real people in acting public right here, we should be constantly aware that our actions have consequences. If you don't want your pseudonym associated with a vote, don't do it. It's kinda like the opposite of 4chan, where instand of anonymous controversial content on top, here we have human-curated content being pushed up.

[–] RustyShackleford@literature.cafe 5 points 2 months ago

The problem with every system is it will eventually be broken down by someone smarter and used to manipulate the user-base that grew to trust its safety to market something. Be it ideas or products, the only true safety net we have is a choice in the decision. The second a choice is forced, is the second groups split away. Each user at least deserves the safety of choice if we expect them to trust in any larger system. Decisions being made by a smaller group of individuals for the larger whole, doesn’t exactly have the best history if we look at the world around us. Don’t get me wrong… Trust would be great, but we have to trust that going from one extreme to another will inevitably create a another new problem.

[–] halm@leminal.space 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Couldn't agree more, and if we passed around imaginary gold on Lemmy, I'd give you a dubloon for this.

[–] rglullis@communick.news 2 points 2 months ago

I'm so, so glad to see I am not the only one that thinks this way.