pull down to refresh
32 sats \ 1 reply \ @ThrillerX_ OP 5 Oct 2021 \ parent \ on: What does everyone think about different topics for SN? Or should we just stay Bitcoin & Lightning? bitcoin
I would like to add a counter to that if I may just to hear your explanation?
Why build SN at all? If were going to still require a centralized group of moderators making judgment calls based on an agreed set criteria that could be misinterpreted by random human error?
It would be basically Reddit with a tipping feature. I believe SN can be greater than just that. Not trying to sell the “government” idea short just not sure how to avoid it from becoming /bitcoin Which if I may add has become a terrible place to find news or insights on Bitcoin and Lightning over the years.
Curation incentives by individual Stakers makes more sense based on what you have outlined probably something that hasn’t been brought up yet that could satisfy both “government” and “market.”
Great discussion…btw.
It would be basically Reddit with a tipping feature.
This is precisely the value proposition of SN, in my opinion. Discussion forums, Q&A sites, social networking sites, etc. have been around since the inception of the Web. It's only recently that microtransactions have become feasible.
I think the discussion maybe gets a little muddled because we're talking about creating a social networking site that talks about Bitcoin but also about a social networking site that uses real money. I'm all for a general purpose social networking site that uses real money but, as of right now and in my opinion, it requires technical users who understand and are passionate about this particular subject, Bitcoin, enough to discuss it and use it.
To your original question:
Why build SN at all?
SN is a place where, in my opinion, people who are passionate about Bitcoin can talk about Bitcoin, using Bitcoin. My hope for SN is that it provides a HN style of discussion for Bitcoin (and maybe cryptocurrency in general). HN is actively hostile to cryptocurrency/Bitcion discussions. Reddit degrades into memes of Wolf of Wall Street, Anime references and superficial discussions about price and "HODL"ing. That stuff is great and I enjoy it but I also want a community that is better than 4chan once removed.
I would like to see communities that use the microtransactions idea but, in my opinion, buying into the community, using Lightning wallets etc. is still has too much friction. The only community that is invested enough to overcome this friction is one that specifically focuses on Bitcoin.
Without being something specific to a certain community, one runs the risk of being everything to no community. From what I can tell, SN has some momentum in terms of community and investment. The elevator pitch is basically "A community of people who are passionate about Bitcoin that can talk about Bitcoin, using Bitcoin".
I'm pretty much a bystander, so I encourage @k00b (or you?) to experiment with whatever you think will work but I'm trying to point out that there is a vacuum that SN is filling ("HN but for Bitcoin"). Trying to shoe-horn it into a more general Reddit style community could result in a dilution of attention because sites like Reddit, HN etc. exist and, in my opinion, do the general purpose news aggregation better, most likely due to their large user base. My opinion is that focusing on the user base that differentiates SN from everyone else will be more fruitful. One can always branch out later when there is a more established user base, but for right now, the user base that seems best served is one that is moderately technical and focused on Bitcoin.
In terms of moderation, I want to list a few of my assumptions:
- Microtransactions have the potential to drastically curtail spam and other bad behavior. Perhaps unironically, Bitcoin used the proof-of-work idea that was originally proposed to curtail spam. Now it's come full circle and we have the possibility of using money-as-proxy-for-energy to limit spam.
- Microtransactions allow for economic incentives to post quality content and be rewarded monetarily for it
- Cost of posting allows for the possibility of dissuading shit-posting and other low quality content/comments
- Monetary rewards open the possibility of a more sustainable community. One way to allow for this is to reward operators or moderators who traditionally would work for free and get burned out. Now there's financial remuneration involved, directed at people who could make the community better.
Any "governance" I'm proposing is under the above framework. For example, I've heard that Facebook moderators have to wade through the dregs of content. Microtransactions allow for a two-fold response, reducing the amount of bad content that is available for them to moderate while giving them monetary incentives to keep moderating.
Any moderator role I'm proposing is under the assumption that algorithms or the "market" is doing the "heavy lifting" of filtering bad content. For example, a "flag" option could be available to indicate a post or comment should be looked at by a moderator (potentially putting a bounty on the content so that moderators receive the staked flag amount? Provide some other facility to avoid a moral hazard?).
My concern is that without some guidelines and people to enforce those guidelines, even if it's very gentle or low frequency, has the potential to steer the community in a bad direction.
Without explicit governance, a sort of impromptu government gets setup and is one that is not necessarily in line with the ideals of the people maintaining it. I would rather be explicit about it, even if it needs to change later. There's a question of voting and making it more democratic but at the very least I think there needs to be some guidelines and minimal ways of enforcing them.
reply