10 sats \ 4 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 20 Mar \ parent \ on: Million Sat Madness is a Keynesian Beauty Contest meta
The problem of how to evaluate quality independent of revealed consumer preference (price) is a vexing issue for economists. Value is subjective and therefor so is quality. I think any attempt to identify good posts, other than something like what SN does, will just be the devs imposing their preferences for content.
Sorry I'm not following you. SN devs don't decide what's good or bad. I'm talking about what individual users zap. "We" the users decide what we zap based on our own independent free thought (or that's how it should be). What I'm saying is our independent free thought has been hijacked when "incentives" are introduced. Incentives change people's behaviour. This is what SN is doing - nudging, manipulating and changing people's behaviour. Of course, one of the problems here is the term I have used myself here, which is "user". We are not "users" we are unique individual people. I have a huge issue with this as we already live in one massive mind-programming/manipulation psyop starting from birth, thru school, fiat job schemes, tv, media etc......
reply
I was responding to this line:
find a genuine and equitable model that rewards users for zapping content that is genuinely good
I think nostr gives us a glimpse of what we'd get without the incentives on SN. There are always incentives, just like there's always an algorithm, and they all have their own consequences.
reply
ahh I see, my bad, I'm tired and about to hit the sack. When I said "zapping content that is genuinely good" I meant zapping content that people themselves think is genuinely good - rather than zapping what they think will get them the most rewards.
reply
We agree that that's the goal. I was pointing out that this is a common and generally unresolved problem in a bunch of settings. Our best available signal of what's good is what people pay for.
reply