So, federated network advantages here: you can always modify your instance’s hosting code to patch this out, at least for the users on your instance.

What you cannot do is prevent other federated instances from publishing the votes submitted to content on their instance. But if you’re accessing that content through your local instance, they can modify the upvote button to pop up a dialog saying something like: “The instance that hosts this content has elected to make usernames visible for upvote/downvote. Would you still like to vote?”

Personally: In many ways I don’t mind. I’m on the internet with my real name. I don’t mind being accountable for my behaviour online. I might be a little more cautious about upvoting something controversial or NSFW, but largely it wouldn’t change my behaviour.

I would say no. I don’t want some dumbass to interogate me about why I downvotes thia and why I upvoted that.

I don’t want votes to be public, but they already are, so.

Someone can easily host a website to leak this information and people should know, instead of believing they are private

Already had one person today mention my down votes .

It didn’t validate their argument at all and without context it can be interpreted in any fashion to make it seem malicious

Should be a server setting, just like how some servers can choose to show combined votes or separate up/down votes.

Hard no. I’ll move on like I did a year ago from Reddit, and I was on that site for 14 years.

Just from a political/nation-state viewpoint, it would needlessly expose information to make it easier for countries and political parties to keep some kind of “social score” and decide when to do something to you. China already does this kind of stuff.

We need to make it easier for everyone/anyone to do this? Think about all of the super-divisive issues at hand. People can already get a sense of your views from your responses, and that should be it.

If this mean we’d be able to see who has up- / downvoted a comment on our own and possibly on other people’s posts then I’m all for it. This would be highly useful at filtering out the people here I want nothing to do with.

I was really confused seeing this post, because I always assumed that Lemmy votes were public. Because how else are instances going to sync them? And indeed, the API exposes them completely, this change will just it easier.

Then I was really confused when I saw so many comments being against it. A lot of “I’ll leave if votes become public” in here. That’s a lot of people who somehow assumed Lemmy was private. Aren’t we all supposed to be Linux nerds in here?

Nah I’ll fuck off.

Yes make it public.

No real reason not to.

I have continuous doubts if a grandiose tankie with nick after Jean-Jacques Dessalines can exhibit any grown up behaviour. It’s like 15 year old pretending for a while to be all democratic and responsible but who knows what’s in that edgy head.

Still, undoubtedly it will be a fun ride whatever happens

No thank you. I’ve already had one person go off on me because of some perceived offense: https://lemm.ee/comment/13768482

I support opening up vote logs to moderators in their own communities. Voting records add useful context to the nature of the exchanges happening, eg. if two people are having a back and forth, but neither is downvoting the other, it contextualizes the disagreement as less hostile.

I don’t think it’s a good idea to give every new user the burden of using that information responsibly. A minority would use it to retaliate, stalk, and harass, and there would be too many of them to reasonably hold them accountable.

Allow it to be configurable by server or community. Some communities may benefit from allowing the public or mods to see votes, while others would be hurt by it.

Baked in visibility of votes and blocking that only works one way makes Lemmy (and anything based on ActivityPub) less functional from an end user standpoint. Wish I knew a decent, somewhat popular alternative that implemented these features