pull down to refresh
11 sats \ 3 replies \ @Turdinthepunchbowl 1 Dec \ parent \ on: Where do we draw the line on free speech on stacker news? alter_native
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.
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