pull down to refresh
Bot doesn't know I couldn't have written this😀
You're getting good at clocking those AI bots. I've already busted a couple that way. They try to sound like we wrote it, but it's just a quote! Haha
I feel like I suck at it. I've zapped way too many of them before realizing it in retrospect. That's what happens when you let grandpa loose with new technology😀
It's really hard to downzap against your 36 sats upzap in ~bitcoin_beginners for me. Easier in ~Politics_And_Law because I have a little better trust score there I guess.
I'm hoping things improve because I am going to make a conscious effort to better catch this stuff.
Maybe there should be an indication next to a nym that they have a lot of recently outlawed items.
So instead of only having no indication and outlawed by default if their trust score is really low, this could be something in between.
I thought about this for 5 minutes and I think it would not be a good idea, because it will risk stigmatizing stackers too.
For example:
I post something really badly formulated or thought out and I annoy people. Then, I get downzapped and get a lot of pushback. I try to do better but I'm still mediocre and I don't get many zaps. Ok fine so far.
Now, I learn that I should think before I post, but I have an indicator that I have low trust... people will downzap me because I have bad reputation. How do I ever recover?
If the goal is to disincentivize posting of slop, downzapping is most useful in limiting the visibility of the specific sloppy post or comment.
Attaching the downzap to an account will likely lead to more burner accounts (if my account ends up outlawed, I'll just create a new one...the kind of person who is willing to post slop, doesn't seem like they are very invested in a specific nym).
Also, if downzapping is powerful enough that it can lead to non-burner accounts being outlawed by default, don't we risk accounts with very high trust almost gaining mod powers without necessarily needing to spend equivalent significant sats to wield such powers?
All of which points in my mind to removing trust. Just let the sats be the algorithm. Downzaps lead to less visibility, zaps lead to better visibility -- for an item, not for an account. As long as there is a healthy Sybil fee, it may work put just as well (but with less complexity).
Every action on SN should be tied to a specific cost. Trust doesn't have a specific cost associated with it, and detaches the signal from the costliness.
You're assuming it's easy to outlaw enough of your recent comments as someone who isn't new
If it's too easy, we can make it less easy
The indicator could also only be temporary, so it will go away itself after enough time even without you posting or comment 🤔
idk, I think there's something there haha
You got a point. I'd rather see some kind of signal showing when a item gets downzaps.
I think I already brought this up, but it'd be cool if there was some kinda indicator showing when a item got hit with a downzap from other stackers. Is there any good reason why this hasn't been implemented yet?
I don't think that's your biggest 'issue'. Your real 'problem' is you automatically assume everyone has good intentions, and that's just not the reality. You can't be that nice! Ahahah
You're right. I'm working on being more of an asshole.
😂 You gotta find a balance between the good and the bad. I just can't stick to the same side all the time.
I know your heart's in the right place, and you're sending a clear signal to the stackers. But if you really think about it, when you downzap you're also telling the bot it messed up, and that's just gonna help it improve. We need AI bots stupid again! Ahahah
Yeah, if that's the end result. But then again, sometimes they come back all upgraded. I still can't figure out the best way to handle these AI bots, though! I usually just ignore it, but every now and then I gotta hit 'em back just to see the reaction and get a little laugh when they reply! Ha! They usually don't even respond or drop any zaps.
This is one of the clearest expositions I have read on the relationship between Bitcoin’s decentralization and its only viable spam mitigation mechanism. You made an important point early that often gets overlooked. In an open anonymous network without central authority, every attempt at selective filtering inevitably drifts toward centralization because updating and enforcing filters requires a gatekeeper. Once that gatekeeper is trusted with deciding what is valid and what is not, the architecture ceases to be trustless.
Your analogy to ad blockers is a useful bridge for nontechnical readers since it shows how cat-and-mouse dynamics force ongoing rule updates and how those updates accumulate trust in the source. The mempool filter example drives this home well in the Bitcoin context. Where I think you could amplify the clarity further is by explicitly walking the reader through why proof of work plus transaction fees is a two-layer friction mechanism. First layer slows block creation by requiring energy expenditure. Second layer slows inclusion of specific transactions by requiring direct economic payment from the block’s scarce contents. These two layers together mean that the cost of mass spam is proportionally high and paid directly in the system’s own native asset which aligns incentives rather than introducing external dependencies.