rglullis

1. You are still trusting the instance admin. What if the admin pushes a code patch that transforms every like into a dislike based on a keyword?
2. Your history will never be fully portable.
3. It creates some weird dynamic: are we going to start dividing ourselves into "instances that obfuscate voting" and "instances that prefer transparency"?
4. What is the criteria for "malicious"?

We can fix that by having moderators that can establish clear guidelines and show enough authority and can be trusted by the community. And yes, if the guidelines include something like:

Downvotes are not for disagreement. It's fine to downvote if the argument is false or deliberately misleading, but if someone is making a good faith argument that you disagree with, either make a constructive response or simply let it go

Then the mods would be completely justified to call out users who are drive-by downvoting.

I mean in the specific case of "giving vote visibility to everyone will cause more harassment based on who-voted-on-what". It's theoretical because this has not been implemented yet.

Then what is the point of hashing the data? Just use an UUID.

Anyway, this is all pointless bike shedding because the activity needs to be associated with the actor, as it can only be accepted if the signature can be verified.

Not privacy-protecting. You can easily deduct the voter by enumeration.

environment more hostile to discussion and honest exchange.

"Voting" and "discussion" are separate things. The old forums did not have voting but still had polarization, personal attacks, hellthreads, etc.

The problem is that Reddit/Facebook turned "voting" from a tool meant to measure "quality" (e.g, this post is relevant to the community, this comment does not add to the discussion) into a tool to measure "popularity" (I agree with this, so I vote up. I don't like this, so I downvote).

Either get rid of voting altogether, or let's bring back a culture where "votes" are meant to signal quality.

Yeah, I do my best to avoid cliched references, but this is 100% a "blue pill/red pill" dilemma. The majority of people seem to prefer to live a comfortable lie than face the harsh truth.

How would it work? The other instances still need to know what actor is behind the activity.

Also, why? This is social media, not official elections. "Votes" here are completely meaningless.

Every comment/post/vote made in a community is sent as an activity to the community's subscribers.

The problem is not with ActivityPub, but the implementations. No one ever claimed that it should be only a push-based system, but it seems that everyone working on AP software can only think in terms of server-to-server interactions to get the data and then reinvent the wheel by developing their ad-hoc API.

AP is fine if we treat it as a messaging protocol and use it to power offline-first applications. The devices do not need to have all the network's data, just the one that the user has actively interacted with.

You can have your client talking to all the servers and grabbing votes for whatever you’re subscribed to, and losing votes for anything you’re not subscribed to. It works basically exactly that way for one-user instances already.

It works like that for servers because servers are assumed to have high uptime, so (in theory) push-based communication should be enough. However, we see that this is not true even for servers (e.g, medium-sized instances getting out of sync with LW because they can not keep up with all the data being sent to them) and this will be specially true in the case of a network with tens/hundreds of thousands of separate clients. No server will be willing to push activities to all those inboxes, so we will need to have some pull-based form of communication as well.

I ran curl "https://mbin.grits.dev/u/mozz/outbox?page=1" -H 'accept: application/activity+json' and I could see your outbox. Apparently mbin does not put Like/Dislike activities in there, only your comments/posts/notes.

In a world where ActivityPub is only used in server-to-server, this would be fine. If we ever get to a (IMNSHO, better) scenario where we have more clients talking AP directly, then this will not work, and mbin will have to add those as well.

All of this to say:

• the debate about "what Lemmy devs are doing" vs "what mbin is doing" vs "what PieFed is doing" should be seen as tremendous conflict with the idea that "The good thing about the Fediverse is that we can all talk with each other, regardless of where we are".
• There is no sane way to square this peg into a round hole. Privacy and "Social Media" are inherently incompatible. The advice about not putting anything online that you are not willing to ever be made public is evergreen, and anyone that does not follow it will eventually have to learn it the hard way.