data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/df997/df997c37c44d663a8d6f54d1602be6ca208c83ab" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/fd89d/fd89d60f281bc5b809b177d43f1fc4e389d2c82a" alt=""
Do you have a link to any discussions on this? I have browsed local posts on piefed.social but can’t find it. I’d be curious to see more context in support of the trusted instance concept.
Do you have a link to any discussions on this? I have browsed local posts on piefed.social but can’t find it. I’d be curious to see more context in support of the trusted instance concept.
Yeah I guess for me I don’t really trust any admins. At the end of the day that’s a permanent database of user activity which could be passed along to anyone, so ideally the minimum threat surface would be that it exists only on the home instance.
Also, I kind of just don’t get the point of obfuscating for some and not others unless there are some politics going on behind the scenes, which just gives me even more cause for concern. I think this is a killer feature for piefed and really addresses a major concern I have with Lemmy so it is just disheartening to hear that the functionality has been nerfed for seemingly no good reason.
That is stupid and defeats the point and makes me rethink my decision to support piefed.
There are plenty of ways to handle double voting without plaintext user strings. The fact that it’s done this way is just lazy and poor design and doesn’t actually do anything to prevent a rogue instance from vote spamming with fake users.
Right, they don’t support the advanced login protocols some providers like outlook require. That was a deal breaker, because deltachat was pretty much the last encrypted messaging service which worked in China.
Unfortunately Lemmy itself has too much cringe tankie baggage to be a real home. More like a refugee camp while this new social media epoch sorts itself out. But it’s very hard to want to support a project which has been so petty and openly hostile to so many users. “Get a different instance” only gets you so far here.
Hah, I am all over that first thread already. Also in that second thread. This discussion is getting pretty out of band at this point, but I’ve actually thought about proper cryptographic solutions to this problem, but it would require modifying activity pub itself. Which is why I’m very much in favor of voting agent anarchy to force the issue.