pull down to refresh
686 sats \ 5 replies \ @Turdinthepunchbowl 1 Dec \ on: Where do we draw the line on free speech on stacker news? alter_native
I just ignore/mute and downzap. Not a fully formed thought, so someone rightfully point out where the issue is with this. What if we increased the power of a downzap? Right now it only really hurts the ranking/visibility of the post, but not sure it matters for the comment at all, but no real penalty for the user itself. Is there a way where if the users post or comment gets a certain amount of down votes, not by sats but instead by unique number of users downzapping them within a period of time, they have a temporary penalty. Could be anything from temporary higher posting/comment fees or even a higher percentage of zaps received going to reward pool instead of the user. Again, only for a temporary time period, like a time out for the user. After time in the penalty box they are back to normal until the next time they shit post or try to scam and the clock resets.
I've only given this 5 mins of thought so interested to hear how we could penalize users/abusers but not censor them.
I think this is a really interesting idea. It does seem if something is being down zapped by multiple stackers there could be a bigger penalty without actually censoring. I could get behind this.
reply
I don't know exactly where the number of users down voting would be to involve the penalty, but it probably needs to be based on a number of users each over a certain amount. Perhaps it's best for most people to not even know those limits. But it needs to be enough where it would be prohibitive for one person to make multiple accounts to envoke the penalty by itself.
However, I think it would be a useful mechanism to prevent abuse/scammers like that Cowboy who was begging for sats on Thanksgiving and then accidentally posted for a second account and got caught. If enough people downzap then they get less and less sats as a percentage since they'd be sent to rewards pool instead for a period of time. They'd still be able to post/comment, even if it's more expensive, so you aren't censoring but collectively you are sending a signal that their presence isn't currently appreciated. Currently there is nothing like that and this you get people just posting question after question and tons of posts to farm zaps.
reply
That makes sense. I am sure there is a lot to think through by someone who is much smarter than me.
reply
Hopefully some others poke holes in the ideas laid above, but one more thought. New accounts should have a higher % fee to rewards pool, for a probationary period to make creation of sock puppet accounts less lucrative to engagement farm and require a longer personal investment in time. Wonder if there is some way to handle or discinentivize multiple accounts if they are identified and used in a scam like the user the other day.
reply
You are full of interesting ideas.
reply