923 sats \ 9 replies \ @k00b 19 Sep 2023 \ on: Muting, blocking, downvoting? meta
I'm hoping to have (1) done within the next few weeks along with personalized ranking.
I've always found (2) weird but maybe I don't understand the motivation very well.
The effect of any person's upzaps and downzaps will depend on the viewer, ie if I trust you a lot then you have a big impact on what I see. You will only experience the "censoring" you want (hopefully).
I am thinking there should also be transparency about the zaps and unzaps. A way to see each post or comment zaps with a list of users that zapped and how many sats in total for each user.
Apologies if this is already possible. I couldn't find it.
reply
No you're right, we don't show the list.
Can you help me understand why you want to see who is zapping?
reply
I was thinking this after the introduction of the concept of unzaps. If the list of unzaps is public, then maybe people would think it twice before doing the unzap if it is not totally justified.
I've been thinking about this more and it could prevent some autozapping spam if we can see some users always receiving zaps from certain accounts that are not active commenting for example. This is specially important when you receive rewards for zapping early.
The whole idea needs to be discussed at least.
reply
It's an interesting point in general -- in real communities, these sorts of reputational things do a lot of work: if you're a dick to my friend, I will take note of that, and treat you differently as a result. The list you're describing could enable things like that, although at scale those sorts of forces tend to not work, or get weird.
So many interesting SN experiments that could be run!
reply
my opinion is it'd be better to keep the zap list private, but I don't have a sense for the business angle of the decision.
I didn't know there was an un-zap feature but I'd never use that anyway :)
reply
Cool, thanks. Wrt motivation of #2: I used to find it weird too (on Twitter) but I came around.
The idea that I like is that it shouldn't be free to "turn someone off." If you are such an asshole that I want to knock you out of my personal universe, then I should pay a price too. If you really are that bad, then fine, nothing lost in not seeing anything that you're involved with. But if you're like 10% thoughtful in the midst of being a 90% aggressive asshole, or if other people think you're full of insight for some reason, then I should think carefully about losing access to that 10% of action and the follow-on action that ensues. It is culturally consequential to cut someone off.
I think blocking achieves something like that. Imperfectly, of course.
reply
I think I may be a bit confused. Are you saying blocking has costs for the blocker or the blockee?
reply
Btw, I think maybe I should have said explicitly: by "a cost" I mean like "a deadweight loss of life experience", not that people should literally pay in sats to block, or be fined if they're blocked by others.
A danger to talk about "costs" on a site that's experimenting with economics and incentives ;)
reply
Yup. If I block you, esp with the algorithm I described, you suffer because you get less distribution for your thoughts (I don't see them and won't interact with them) and I suffer bc I don't see your stuff or the interactions that result from them.
If you are literally worthless and produce nothing but noise (which is true of one of the people I have in mind), then my "suffering" is nearly at zero for blocking you -- the only loss to me is that some non-worthless person might reply to you, and I'd lose out on that, which would be unfortunate, but maybe a price worth paying.
reply