21 sats \ 4 replies \ @cointastical 26 Mar 2022 \ on: Daily discussion thread
So, the #1 item on SN this morning is from a fake news / satire site.
#16443 <-- Blixt in El Salvador
The cost to get it to that spot was 2 sats.
I'm assuming the WoT determined this was a good story since the party that posted has had good post history. But that person will not get dinged in the WoT much by this post. There's no downvoting. There's no flag.
I might be willing to pay to penalize this post, and cause a ding to that persons score from the WoT. (not because I want that person to stop posting, but I want a way to cause someone concerned about their WoT score to think about posting something that harms their WoT score).
But after thinking about it for more than a few seconds, it leads to tyranny of the masses. And SN becomes (or remains) an echo chamber.
Spam is not an easy problem to solve, is it?
I think handling of spam or ads will require "micro task queues", where individuals with higher trust can work (= earn sats) to resolve those. For example if I see spam I could report it. That immediately puts that post in the "spam task queue", it would cost me 10 sats to do that.
Then someone with higher trust can work on the spam task queue and decide whether the post is a spam or not. This individual would be rewarded e.g. 5 sats. (and maybe original reporter could also be rewarded some sats back for correct reporting). The spam task queue could be prioritized by the amount of sats that people pay to mark it as spam.
When the post is confirmed as spam it could be then marked as such in the UI and users can decide whether they would like to include "spam" posts or not in their view. E.g. this is not censoring, but rather letting the user to decide whether to filter some type of post out or not...
The beauty of this is that the sats flow with the incentives - common users pay for seeing less spam, other users get paid for doing spam resolution, etc...
reply
I like this a lot
reply
Yeah, I noticed it too. Two trusted users appear to have colluded.
Introducing a downvote that costs 10 sats or more, more expensive than an upvote, would deter tyranny but still allow the masses to check abuses.
Eventually too, your WoT will be different than mine and a downvote will do little more than effect what you see and what people who trust you see.
reply
Eventually too, your WoT will be different than mine
Interesting. So kind of like how Twitter tries to show me what it thinks I want to see?
I suppose, I could always use an un-authenticated session to see what normies see then.
reply