this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2024
97 points (81.3% liked)
Privacy
31975 readers
238 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
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don't promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
Chat rooms
-
[Matrix/Element]Dead
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
It's a fundamental property of the federated system. The devs need to acknowledge it the same way you need to acknowledge that people can lie. It's a fact, there is no easy way around it and everyone knows it.
They could always federate an aggregate statistic instead of one that discourages involvement. Then we could acknowledge both federation and the lie!
A smarter system won't just take the mean of the votes from different instances but rather discard outliers as invalid input (flagging repeat offenders to be ignored in the future) and use the median or mode of the remainder. The results should also be quantitized to avoid leaking details about sources or internal algorithms; only the larger trends need to be reported.
Of course you could always just keep the collected data private and only provide it to customers willing to pay $$$ for access, which handily limits instance operators' ability to reverse-engineer the source of the data. And nothing prevents you from using separate instances for public and private data sets.