pull down to refresh
I don't know about the 1 sat. Some stackers single sat upzap too, so ultimately it'd be as much driven by generosity both ways?
Brain dump:
I don't mind spending sats on downzapping, but what I do mind is that I have to downzap massively to get something off my feed and the damage that does to discoverability for others. I don't want my opinion or taste to be forced upon other stackers.
I'll be honest: I'm of the nasty opinion that a lot of stackers are total degens and I don't really want to see their crap. It is off-putting and distracting to me, as in personally, as a consumer and rewarder of news and articles that I do appreciate. If I downzap them massively to get them off my feed, that's a rather hostile move. I simply think it would be more humane to downzap once, and (auto-)mute. Same amount as an upzap a good post gives. More if it's egregious, just like the upzap is more when it's really great content.
But not to destroy, not to wage war. That would also beat the purpose of the peace I desire because then I'll be consumed by the war on a topic that I'd like to pretty please not have ruining my day: I prefer to be a happy opti, not a warlord. But what I dislike may very well interest another stacker. I've seen stackers upzap scammers after I gave 'em a big down. Who am I to decide what other people can or cannot see? Who am I to decide they should not get rekt? Maybe they should, then when there's a real crisis there will be actual people defending Bitcoin, and not just talking bs and assmilking. I think that in the end, all I should give is my 2sats. Or 200. Or 2000. Up, or down.
Unfortunately, right now, the only way to be rid of content for my own peace of mind is through mute. But we mute stackers, not content. And that's honestly no bueno either. The greatest retard can sometimes say something smart - living proof yours truly, assuming I ever said something smart, but I do think I have been that lucky. So mute sucks too, I agree, and although I understand the economic reasons, the pre-emptive ad hominem strike against another stacker is at least as bad, I think. Muting territories could work, if people remembered to properly x-post. But that's not truly effective either: every shitcoiner will still post in ~bitcoin, of course.
Bottom line, we can't have plutocracy decide the content I get exposed to; not against my will. That's oppressive oligarchy and imho very, very wrong. I can watch fox or aljaz all day and be brainwashed by rich people if I wanted that. So there's got to be balance, somehow. Yes, there was balance with the trust scheme, but, that didn't favor some stackers either - I never saw a sports post on the front page until trust was removed.
To be clear:
- I like the auto-item-mute feature idea
- I don't like plutocracies deciding content
- Without some kind of collective memory or a constant zap war being waged
npeople will need to pick up the samempieces of trash- folks who are logged out or lazy or whatever will see lots of trash and leave
The benefit of SN is the commons. It's a level playing field - you don't need to be an influencer to influence - just someone that shared something valuable to someone(s). That becomes less true as:
- a plutocracy decides content, or
- it turns into a trash heap that non-trash doesn't want to inhabit/visit
imo the commons needs some memory, or zap militants, to avoid becoming a trash heap. Neither demands a plutocracy - just something clever in terms of incentives, signaling, or mechanism that I'm unaware of.
I'd say that most distinctively trust is a belief, so it needs a starting point (iirc that's what we had - trust flows from central points.) Reputation, how I see it, is more factual and measurable. Its not based on a belief but on merit. You build and lose it over time, but its not hierarchical. So your reputation doesn't have to influence mine in our interactions.
I understand that that doesn't solve the Sybil problem on its own though. I think John had written something about that not too long ago, but that was localized signal instead of globalized - and inherently still based on trust because of a LinkedIn style "connection of connection" legitimization. I don't think that that is suitable for a globalized "commons" approach, because the bias starts where the trust starts.
So I'm thinking a matrix more than a tree?
Maybe a good time to revive some old collaborative filtering ideas I've had?
https://github.com/stackernews/stacker.news/discussions/2648
These methods allow you to construct similarity scores between posters and and between items, and individually preference rank items by posters.
Doesn't solve the problem of people with no data behind them, but their rankings could be some social aggregate using people with more data.
I like it, but that makes the problem worse unless it's paired with something else - lurkers and casuals will still be exposed to the trolls, and even more so if we're 1 sat downzapping to mute posts/comments.