pull down to refresh

Edit: PS: your gql scripts can answer your initial question - just query comments by sats, re-sort by boosts. Then you have a name.

A name as in who's doing it? I don't think the public API exposes the zaps table (who zapped or downzapped who). But I can definitely get posts/comments and sort them by boost / downzap / zap

Boost is always to self, so that is why you can <3

reply

Ah... hmm hmm! Good point.

Though, if I make a post exposing them, they could change their tactics and use sock puppets to zap their own posts, rather than boosting.

reply

Yeah. I personally wouldn't give much more attention to it than we're already doing, really. People like attention.

reply
126 sats \ 16 replies \ @ek 25 Jul

What about privacy? Shouldn't such a privacy leak be fixed? Are @k00b and @sox aware of this?

reply

What privacy leak? You boost your post it shows in details?

reply

You in #1532229:

your gql scripts can answer your initial question

The initial question was this, afaict:

Who's downzapping everyone?

So I thought you were saying that we can see who is downzapping.

reply

Yes, but you need one more heuristic. Which you can get off top->stackers. There is a privacy leak but it is only for the top spender. The fix is to not display lists of how much anyone zapped / earned / etcetera (or naturally if the top spenders are all in anon mode)

reply
There is a privacy leak but it is only for the top spender.

Sounds like the one who needs privacy the most.

Honestly surprised you, of all stackers on here, are trying to justify a privacy leak, and even pretended there isn't one in #1532595 with "what privacy leak?" afaict.

To be clear, I don't really care about the privacy leak, just about the integrity of stackers.

I think he's saying that

(1) If you assume that whoever's downzapping is also the one mass boosting their own items

(2) Then you can infer the downzapper by looking at the most widely boosted items (since a person can only boost their own posts)

I don't know if this would be considered a privacy breach? It relies on an untested assumption (1), and public information (2). And it's all pseudonymous anyway.

reply