68
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2023
68 points (100.0% liked)
Fediverse
28311 readers
366 users here now
A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, KBin, etc).
If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to !moderators@lemmy.world!
Rules
- Posts must be on topic.
- Be respectful of others.
- Cite the sources used for graphs and other statistics.
- Follow the general Lemmy.world rules.
Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration), Search Lemmy
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Also without identifying the user it becomes hard to know what's a unique like and what is a duplicate. I suppose a workaround would be for the user's instance to keep a record of who liked what, and then just issue just the unique like IDs (which can be traced back to the user only on their home instance).
It would need to be a bit smart. Say the same user toggles their upvote on and off. The upvote for a given topic I think would need to be a hash of the topic/comment ID + user ID so that the same ID would be re-issued to prevent the upvotes/cancels falling out of sync.
It's a lot of effort really for keeping something such as a like private.
What if the post is edited at a later time? Then all those votes become invalid. It's not practical with the way ActivityPub is designed. Honestly, it's designed the way it is for a reason... if you aren't willing to own your participation on a public forum, you shouldn't be on a public forum.
Why would editing do that? I was talking about using the ids which wouldn't change on an edit.
In any case, I don't have a problem with this info being federated. Some people do, so it's worth talking about ways it could be done.
Because using a hash based on elements in the post would change on an edit is why I said that
I was suggesting (I actually clearly said it in both comments) hashing the post/comment ID + userid NOT the content. Just enough info to get a unique ID. We don't need it not to be non-reversible. Just a unique ID for the like.