pull down to refresh
200 sats \ 2 replies \ @Scoresby 10h \ parent \ on: Calle On Core/Knots bitcoin
If the goal is to disincentivize posting of slop, downzapping is most useful in limiting the visibility of the specific sloppy post or comment.
Attaching the downzap to an account will likely lead to more burner accounts (if my account ends up outlawed, I'll just create a new one...the kind of person who is willing to post slop, doesn't seem like they are very invested in a specific nym).
Also, if downzapping is powerful enough that it can lead to non-burner accounts being outlawed by default, don't we risk accounts with very high trust almost gaining mod powers without necessarily needing to spend equivalent significant sats to wield such powers?
All of which points in my mind to removing trust. Just let the sats be the algorithm. Downzaps lead to less visibility, zaps lead to better visibility -- for an item, not for an account. As long as there is a healthy Sybil fee, it may work put just as well (but with less complexity).
Every action on SN should be tied to a specific cost. Trust doesn't have a specific cost associated with it, and detaches the signal from the costliness.
accounts with very high trust almost gaining mod powers
I have it on my own territory like that as I have ultimate trust there, so I think that this is a valid point. I don't want to have mod powers, but I do want to be able to downzap significantly.
Doesn't have to mean content gets outlawed even, just if someone types some reply that is half-thoughtful and someone pastes slop, I'd like to be able to make it be at the bottom, so that it's not as impactful. You'll basically have to scroll past the lazy takes to get to the zero effort c&p takes.
reply