pull down to refresh

Any of those solutions are as sloppy as AI itself. There are only two solutions to this, which are the ones that will reign by the sheer weight of their pragmatism:
  • KYC'ed social media.
  • Pay-to-post for anonymous media. Bitcoin "proof of work" fundamentals remain king.
As simple as that.
I think peer-verification tied to verifiable content (events) and backed by a contextual follow and endorsement system and the Pagerank algorithm is the ultimate solution.
Pay-to-post relies on a level of private key literacy that we are decades away from, if the amounts are meaningful at least. Even creating an anonymous account here on SN is beyond the capabilities of most people.
Granted, most people do not want KYC'd social media, but they are comfortable with the process due to online banking, which is not true of private keys.
You really need a bridging solution that combines the positive features of each solution, even allowing KYC-style verification as an option where there is demand from people who don't trust any other type of verification. They can then choose who to engage with, setting their own social filters.
reply
Cost, that's the only thing that matters. Any peer-verification scheme is as hackable as any current social media algorithm. If it's costless, needed numbers are granted. Otherwise if identity could be verified at no cost, Bitcoin would need no PoW, but could use that same peer-verification algorithm. It's not the case for a reason.
reply
Peer verification is nowhere near as hackable if tied to verifiable content (events), and it's far more robust than pay-to-post if the highest layer of peer-endorsement is patronage (monthly donation).
Compared to what I'm describing (a proof of work system for nurturing social consensus within domains and geographic spaces) pay-to-post is just proof of stake.
reply
the highest layer of peer-endorsement is patronage
But that's exactly what I'm saying. Cost is implied. One way or the other. You're validating my take there, just burying it deep down the argument.
pay-to-post is just proof of stake
It's fundamentally different. Proof of Stake applies to emission-based protocols (that's why stacking is possible in them), so things can be paid for at no cost out of interests. If you pay with, say, bitcoin, there's work implied in one way or another (to mine it or to buy it), which is what gives bitcoin its worth.
reply
That's not pay-to-post, it's earned reach by gathering patrons, it's demonstrate value by getting paid.
Pay-to-post is pay for influence, and influence generates income. Its proof of stake when scaled up.
reply
That's not pay-to-post
As I said, then cost is implied one way or another. There's people paying per post, directly or indirectly.
Pay-to-post is pay for influence
In no way, otherwise we would all be famous here in SN. It's like saying that paying the fee for your bitcoin transaction makes you rich.
Its proof of stake when scaled up
It's like saying that the fee scheme of bitcoin is proof of stake.
reply
No it's the opposite, fundamental distinction. The future is paid-to-post (proof of work), not pay-to-post (proof of stake). Its a distinction as basic and obvious as the distinction between a pro gamer and a pay-to-win game.
SN is just a basic rudimentary version of pay-to-post, like social media back in the innocent days, you have to carry things to their limit, imagine what they'd be like as the dominant paradigm.
Pay-to-post necessarily amplifies the content of the people who can afford to pay more rather than the content people want, the best content within a domain, topic, space, or discipline.
reply
pay-to-post (proof of stake)
That's a fundamentally flawed comparison, as explained, so the argument do not makes sense.
Pay-to-post necessarily amplifies the content of the people who can afford to pay more
The exact same can be said about people who is paid to post, as they can afford more time to do it, amplifying their content. That's why it's all about costs at the end, be it directly or indirectly.