pull down to refresh

what if

I think someone was asking for a controversial tab

reply
12 sats \ 39 replies \ @optimism 5h

The problem I see is that if you're not logged in to SN, those downzapped posts are fully outlawed. So any post on SN is only guaranteed discoverable by your subscribers, and people with negative infinity filter.

this doesn't have much to do with trust, it has to do with removal of sum(log10(up))-sum(log10(down))

reply
214 sats \ 34 replies \ @k00b 4h
it has to do with removal of sum(log10(up))-sum(log10(down))

This has more to do with trust than it seems because without trust it assumes one account equals one person. e.g. if I'm a troll, I will create 100 sock puppets to downzap 10 sats each. Put another way: trust is how we were counting people before.


I'd like to come with a solution to this that doesn't rely on one account equaling one person. One random idea: an account can only downzap as much as it has zapped any given day.

reply

I'd rather see how this plays out than reach for more complexity.

reply

I'll tell you how it likely plays out. The scope of people to downzap narrows after people will unhide their cowboy tools and thus the cost lessens. Compliance with an aggressor because they're sick of their posts being desperado'd all the time, is the status quo in 99% of stackers' day to day.

reply
214 sats \ 5 replies \ @k00b 3h

master removes gun/horse from everywhere but a stacker's profile page. That'll ship with more substantial changes in the next few days.

reply

That's actually a cool change. Reactive, but cool.

reply

I dunno abt this, I feel like we are letting one vandal significantly change the way the platform works.

101 sats \ 4 replies \ @Scoresby 3h

Currently the downzapper is at a 3x disadvantage. In order to downzap my post 100 sats, the downzapper actually has to pay 100 sats. On the other hand I only have to pay 30 sats to zap my own post 100 sats (as long as I use a sock puppet or anon to do the zapping). This is already a pretty strong bias against downzapping.

reply
103 sats \ 3 replies \ @optimism 3h

I don't think that that's reality. That's a theory that everyone has a sockpuppet.

In reality this happens:

  1. I pay a fee to post. Say 100 sats, these are all the sats I have
  2. You zap me 100 sats, i get 70
  3. Downzapper zaps down 244
  4. My post is now invisible.
  5. Now I can boost 70 sats, my post will still be (barely) visible, but at least I got my non-invisible post out, which cost me 100 sats

It's not 3x more expensive for the downzapper. It's 1:1.

reply
101 sats \ 2 replies \ @Scoresby 3h

Thinking about @k00b's point that it causes problems to assume that one account = one person, perhaps it does make sense to treat boosts (self-zaps from your own account) like a sockpuppet self-zap rather than the current 0 sats from a boost go directly back to the booster -- some possibly do via rewards.

If the reality you describe is what often happens, it means we have a easily gameable distortion built in: if someone uses a sockpuppet to zap themselves, it is clearly one-sided in the self-zappers favor:

If we assume both poster and downzapper start with the same number of sats:

actionposter balancedownzapper balance
starting500500
poster pays 100 sats post fee400500
downzapper downzapps post 100 sats400400
poster sock-puppet zaps 200 sats340400
downzapper downzapps post 200 sats340200
poster sock-puppet zaps 300 sats250200
downzapper downzaps post 200 sats2500
poster sock-puppet zaps 200 sats1900

Perhaps SN needs to operate on the premise that using a sockpuppet never gives a stacker an advantage over using their own account.

112 sats \ 6 replies \ @optimism 4h
if I'm a troll, I will create 100 sock puppets to downzap 10 sats each.

Now though, one account is enough. Haha.

I get what you're saying though: the log10() doesn't help against megatrolls and can be gamed, exactly like now.

With the down limits, I just upzap my puppet on my territory and with 9% loss I downzap away. Costs 50k a month to do that.

reply
112 sats \ 5 replies \ @k00b 4h

If I'm the average troll, I'd guess I'm less likely to buy a territory than set up sock puppets. But yeah, not a silver bullet by any stretch.

reply
175 sats \ 4 replies \ @k00b 4h

Other random ideas:

  • add the ability to block accounts (hiding your content from trolls)
  • as an alternative to blocks: if you downzap someone beyond X sats, you are forced to mute them with some cool down period
reply
236 sats \ 2 replies \ @DarthCoin 2h

Make this experiment for a month: you can downzap ONLY with CCs.
hahahaha SS will cry for my zaps with CC

reply

LMAO

Darth always come up with the most assholish solutions

112 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism 4h

Block will be abused like this:

post(k00b is a dick) && block(k00b)

Then you make k00b2 and I rinse and repeat.

I think that, and forced mute, will probably make it into a Sybil war more than prevent one

reply
101 sats \ 13 replies \ @Lux 4h

atm this post has more positive than negative zaps, but nowhere near top in LIT, just wondering why, maybe the difference is too small?

reply
212 sats \ 9 replies \ @k00b 4h

The difference doesn't tell the full story. With lit how recent the zaps and downzaps are matters. A downzap of 120 sats after 4 hours only counts for 60 sats, likewise for a zap of 120 sats (half life of four hours).

reply
22 sats \ 8 replies \ @Lux 4h

May I suggest a 2 hour half life for downzaps, or less

reply
145 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b 4h

You may. I was going to move it to 3 hours next week.

reply
1 sat \ 0 replies \ @Lux 4h

yes but both, i want the troll to pay

68 sats \ 5 replies \ @DarthCoin 4h

reply

Good for meme Monday

1 sat \ 1 reply \ @Lux 4h

downxapped!

34 sats \ 2 replies \ @optimism 4h

The moment of zapping counts since last weekend. Not the moment of posting.

reply
101 sats \ 1 reply \ @Lux 4h

works same with downzapping?

reply
34 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism 4h

Good question. Was checking the code earlier but haven't checked that part. I expect it to be though

reply
112 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b 5h

Everything below your (or anon’s) sat filters can be viewed here: https://stacker.news/new/desperados

reply
12 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism 4h

This works nicely in browser. Not in gql yet but that's on my thing not on yours. I think that that's caused by the sheer amount of items returning for desperados type

reply

Wait, is that right? I thought the entire concept of outlaw was deprecated. But I didn't know there was some differentiation between logged in and logged out users

reply
79 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism 5h

Outlaw is replaced by filters. Default 10, and 200 for anon, I think

here

reply

TOPDOWN.
We are only downzapping. For fun.

reply
236 sats \ 9 replies \ @Lux 12h

BOTTOM
DOWNED
END
ABYSS
NUKED
GULAG

reply
55 sats \ 8 replies \ @Scoresby 10h

Back when downzapping could outlaw a post, I thought it would be cool if there was an outlaw hideout

But maybe WILD WEST is better.

reply

HELLHOLE
SIN TOWN
GUNSLINGER

reply
256 sats \ 6 replies \ @Lux 10h

JAIL
DODGY
BROTHEL
SHOOTOUT
DEADWOOD

reply

SHOWDOWN
GUNFIGHT
FACE OFF

reply
136 sats \ 4 replies \ @Lux 10h

TOMBSTONE

reply
147 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b 10h

SYPHILIS

34 sats \ 0 replies \ @Scoresby 10h

Deadwood and Tombstone are both pretty cool!

164 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism 9h

I have an idea that doesn't rely on @k00b, but does this in the coveted p2p way. Stay tuned.

Edit

had to fix my sn cli a bit, but I've prioritized it and the bot is on it

PS: these bots suck so bad sometimes. lol

reply

Later today or tomorrow you could make a post asking for this filter, with a list of possible names. The stackers would pick two or three options, then in another post you could run a poll with the 10 most voted ones for the final choice.

reply
1 sat \ 0 replies \ @Lux 10h

seems you have it figured out, be my guest

reply

PARASITES

reply