![](https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/pictrs/image/cf061b83-a216-4b7c-8434-8924a3a71f14.png)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/eb9cfeb5-4eb5-4b1b-a75c-8d9e04c3f856.png)
Link is detected without the emoji in my app. You might wanna hardcode the link as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/😂
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/😂](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/😂)
Keyoxide: aspe:keyoxide.org:KI5WYVI3WGWSIGMOKOOOGF4JAE (think PGP key but modern and easier to use)
Link is detected without the emoji in my app. You might wanna hardcode the link as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/😂
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/😂](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/😂)
That isn’t really going out of your way, it is the base mode of how the fediverse works. Looking at something on a different instance.
Plenty of people just use mbin and see this, without any action at all.
The point is that as it stands right now, there are already basically no restrictions. The only thing perhaps missing is the knowledge that you can simply copy paste a link into fedia or another mbin instance to view upvotes.
You can open an issue on mbin about it, to restore a semblance of restriction. But currently as it stands, all restrictions are about as fallen as they could be.
You can ofc argue that we shouldn’t open another equivalent hole in lemmys webui and api, so that you can in the future remove the ability from mbin.
I would in turn argue that this system has always been egregious, and that in the same sense as banning encryption you never hit those you want to hit using incomplete restrictions. Regular users are led to believe their votes are private, while the worst dataminers or trolls will always have their instances to query all of that info.
And how could you inform people that their votes are public without at the same time telling them how to get access to that info?
If mbin removes the info, you will get another fediverse software showing it. You will get fediverse activity pub log info pages, specific vote info pages, it will never end.
Has reddit ever managed to kill the 200ᵗʰ removeddit clone?
Please instead put your effort into changing the way lemmy federates, the only way to fix this is to make vote details private, between only a select few instances. An mbin dev in the other thread mentioned PeerTube as an example implementation where you could remove vote details like that.
This would solve some of the problems. If only 2 instances know about the votes, post instance and sublemmy instance, you can reasonably expect to get most instances to never release that info. It would allow either the sublemmy or post instance to manipulate around in the votes, but most manipulation would be detectable by the respective other instance.
It would open the door however to manipulating around with internal posts made from the instance in a sublemmy on the instance. And it would allow the post instance to drop votes selectively, though I think that is possible currently all the same.
Votes being sent to both the sublemmy and the post instance simultaneously would make manipulation a lot harder. And for cases like internal posts, you could add another involved “judge instance” that receives the vote details directly from source, and is merely there to confirm the total. Instances that hand out non-independent “judge instances” could be labeled as untrustworthy in the lemmy community.
So you end up with a list of instances per post that votes are reported to, to which you add the post instance, sublemmy instance, judge instance, and maybe some more.
In terms of implementation, I think the activitypub protocol needs an origin for votes, right? I would say an instance can just report the votes coming from a stock of obviously fake accounts, like “masked_upvote_1” to _999999 … and “masked_downvote_1” to _XYZ.
About the votes, I am not sure. It could be done as a lemmy-internal feature where lemmy instances and other instances knowing of the lemmy protocol send the info to all the relevant instances, while any votes from external instances only arrive at I guess the post instance and that then forwards it on to all other instances. This way the checking doesn’t work for software unaware of that lemmy specific vote implementation, but everything is still compatible.
You could then even for those lemmy-external votes add an interface on the judge instance, that would confirm via pm if your vote has arrived.
Do you think this could work?
In my case I would like them to be private, but currently they are not. I don’t think it is good to try to hinder the visibility into a fundamentally transparent system.
I don’t see a technical way to make votes private either, that doesn’t prevent bad actor instances abusing the vote system. As an admin of an instance I could just add 5-10 votes to all of my interactions whenever I feel like it, and noone would be able to tell it didn’t come from legitimate users on my instance. The accounts of vote origin are needed as proof, hence moderators on lemmy having access to them.
Do you perhaps have any idea how this could be accomplished?
That’s a pretty reasonable compromise, and probably explains my confusion.
Why didn’t you do the same for remote upvotes?
Then maybe it is still around on some instances?
Either way, it is only a matter of time for another fediverse software to show downvotes, or someone to spin up a vote info page which gets its information via undisclosed legitimate fediverse instances so you cannot defederate them.
There is a “Reduces” tab on mbin, which shows downvotes
Your world does not correspond to reality given that mbin already shows individual votes.
Head over to your comment on fedia.io and see who voted on your own comment.
Do you want to only vote on instances that defederate all mbin instances, and commit to keep doing so in the future?
So the technical-skill-bar is transforming a lemmy link into the equivalent on an mbin instance? That is huge.
Yes
I think the correct tool for my purpose would be something like Popup window, if you care about that part.
SSB is still around, but also not what I was looking for. I just wanted a frameless window (and no other pwa functionality).
Fullscreen I disabled using my window manager. Under Linux you can commonly use alt+F3 to bring up the “right click on titlebar” menu, then disable fullscreen there. Generally ever window manager can disable fullscreen for windows, in a more or less accessible way (cough ms windows dll calls cough).
As mentioned below, This is recovery. I could ban kiosk mode to a separate profile, but unless you invent a time machine this won’t undo having opened kiosk mode in an in-use profile.
Yes, this is more of a recovery operation. Whatever the fix may be, modifying the browser itself to open a window without decorations would be easier.
There are some usecases in which you really don’t want to restart your browser.
The easiest way to update your kernel is to restart your pc, yet there is a market for live-patch kernels.
If someone accidentally infects their instance with kiosk, it may occasionally be preferable for them to follow a complex procedure to recover the instance, rather than doing the “simple” thing of restarting it.
Restarting may solve many problems, but there is a more difficult but less invasive solution almost every time.
Much like reinstalling may solve even more problems, but you can see that doing a reinstallation is not usually the right course of action.
Kiosk mode doesn’t just force fullscreen, it disables right click, the tab and title bar, …
Basically the browser is close to unusable until kiosk mode is ended, which I currently only know how to do via restarting Firefox.
And F11 is also disabled by kiosk mode. Interestingly, on the windows that were started before kiosk mode, it puts them into proper kiosk mode (after which F11 stops working of course).
All oleds do it at lower brightnesses. They can’t dim very far, so they need to flicker to get a usable color-depth
you can physically wire A into C, it’s the same protocol. This won’t be broken like other adapters because neither device even knows about it
Even with OCR, couldn’t your copy at least in theory be laced with strategically placed minor word changes? Say throughout the book you pick 30 spots to change a word without changing the meaning of the text, or you introduce a typo. If every copy gets a different set of those that would be a unique identifier.
I think I have heard that being done with imperceptable changes in films sent for showings in theaters.
You can compare total better than per user at these scales.
Lemmy needs a certain amount of performance to keep up with federation, but once you have all the images and posts and comments you don’t need second versions until you scale to a size that mandates multiple machines. Which I would guess is more in the 6+ digit user range, where you start averaging requests per second not minute.
In some sense, every lemmy user is a user of your instance via federation. You need to pay the performance for all 100k of us whether your instance has 10 or 10k of those. Local users are just a bit extra demanding on your hosting resources.
I suspect the bias we see here with larger instances paying a bit more (50-ish instead of 10-ish) is more due to reliability and snappyness than actual performance needs too. You tend to get optional smaller-gains pricier perks you might not go for for a smaller instance.