10 sats \ 4 replies \ @kr 15 Feb \ parent \ on: [draft] snip-0006: engagement-based zapping meta
i’m also concerned about time-based autozaps, and this week @k00b convinced me to reconsider my views on click-based autozaps too.
comment-based autozaps give stackers full control of where their money goes (without limiting their browsing/curiosity) and seem like the easiest to implement.
comment-based autozaps may also have the effect of improving discourse online (especially if the feature was a default setting for all).
if you’re giving someone money every time you respond to them, this may stop trolls and chronic reply-guy complainers from creating low-value comments without stopping well-meaning critics from correcting errors or honestly pushing back on ideas.
Good point.
I also failed to bring up the vast wealth disparity. Many of us can easily drop hundreds or thousands of sats, but for some people that is a substantial investment. We certainly want to tax trolls and spam, but not at the expense of muting the voices of the poor.
I understand it would be "opt-in" (and I would), but at some point it might be converted to "opt-out" (default opted in). Or even mandatory with a minimum 1 Sat or something...
reply
reply
just the idea that a troll has to pay money (however little) directly to the person they’re attacking might be enough to make them think twice.
Sounds like what you want is to apply what we planned for DMs to comments as well: custom fees for replies. For DMs, I envisioned that it should be possible to set different fees per user (give some users a discount for DMing you) so if you feel like someone is trolling you, you could punish them with higher fees if they are replying to you.
Details and UX might be tricky though.