pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 9 replies \ @Spartan 6 Jul 2022 freebie \ parent \ on: I feel like this site has a better Signal to Noise ratio than Bitcoin Twitter bitcoin
Reposting from my reply below:
In terms of moderation, I think it would be good to do something along the lines of the "Orange Checkmark" in that users post sats to get "Verified" and through that mechanism allowing the community to enforce moderation.
So for instance, you need to post 100,000 Sats to get verified, and if you break the rules of the forum people can report you. If it is found that you did break the rules, you will be docked sats from your verification. The docked fee could then be split amongst the reporter and the platform in order to fund the moderation at the platform level and incentivize reporting at the user level.
This could be implemented for both the posts and the comments and would likely take care of the vast majority of spam.
The docked fee could then be split amongst the reporter and the platform in order to fund the moderation at the platform level and incentivize reporting at the user level.
I was also thinking along these lines but I decided not to pursue it since you are basically rewarding people for mass reporting. This can lead to very ugly situations where wrongthink is punished and only the "most agreeable" opinion rises to the top.
I think minimal moderation really is key to foster free and open discussion. Just something along the lines of: "Not bitcoin or bitcoin-tech related? Delete." should suffice. The current system, I think, already filters most of the low-effort spam and helps fund the maintenance of the site.
I've mulled over it for a bit more and I think SN could benefit on closing its open registration once it hits a critical mass of users. Having an invite system where current users can invite new users by giving them initial "liquidity" to interact with the site can help curtail the potential for the quality of posts to go down.
reply
I can certainly respect all of that.
Just spitballing here, but what if you were able to still leverage economic disincentive, but also have it cost sats to report someone. 100% proceeds going to the platform. The users would see it as a donation to keep the platform healthy, and it would pay whoever moderates to do the job as well.
By virtue of the fact that its opt in, there would be no downside to the user.
reply
This might be a dim view on people but I can see a possibility where a reporting system can be used to weed out fringe and controversial opinions. With SN not having a "downvote", I think having a reporting system can (and most probably will) be used as a "downvote".
That's why I'm leaning towards letting the open market decide which posts get to the top and only filter out posts that are off-topic for the site. Heck, you can even argue to not have any filtering at all. Put a hard limit on the available posts, say 100, and let the tip system dictate which posts survive and which not. That would be a nice experiment to see.
Also, I think a reporting system like that also creates a weird incentive where the site profits for every reported post.
reply
What if SN had a downvote? And it cost the same to downvote as it does to upvote?
reply
I don't think adding a downvote would help. It's what made reddit a crazy echo chamber of the same ideas and thoughts regurgitated again and again. That's why I mentioned above that stacking sats on a post should not dictate the position of a post in the discussion and the default post sorting should be by most recent activity.
reply
yeah that's true, can definitely see that. doesn't matter if it's upvotes only or both, the end result is echo chamber type situation.
I like that idea a lot of the default sorting, as long as there's still other options to sort by. so the default is nothing more than a timeline, and if you want to see the "popular" thoughts you can. kinda like the latest tweets vs regular timeline on twitter.
Downvote is better than moderation imo. Its kind of leveraging the wisdom of the crowd. Free speech depend on this to survive. This has been a central argument in favour of free speech since inception.
reply
Downvote is better than moderation imo. Its kind of leveraging the wisdom of the crowd. Free speech depend on this to survive. This has been a central argument in favour of free speech since inception.
In an ideal world this would be the case. But I think reddit has shown that people will most often upvote and downvote things based on whether they agree with what was said or not. That creates a scenario where the most popular opinion in the subreddit floats to the top and the fringe and challenging ones sink to the bottom.
I think it's better to let the activity of a discussion dictate the position of posts rather than brownie points.
reply
Understand completely. Thanks for entertaining the idea and providing your thoughts on it. Love the interaction!
reply