reply on: Should you have to pay to mute on SN (and do other things too)? \ stacker news

pull down to refresh

231 sats \ 1 reply \ @optimism 15 Apr \ parent \ on: Should you have to pay to mute on SN (and do other things too)? meta econ

but it relied on counting people, because it favors sybils

I remember - we discussed it when you shipped no-trust and it makes sense that in lieu of anti-sybil mechanics there is no such dampening possible on rank.

As media/news consumers, we want to know what consensus is.

Yes, and this is why it's worth talking about this. I still agree with reputation being a potentially useful tool in this, just it is hard to meet both that and your ELI5 requirement for post ranking, and then to make it non-hierarchical, avoid bubbles / winner-takes-it-all schemes.

I'm still running my mute experiment. I prolonged it because it's bliss. I have not muted any new bots though, and I'm considering removing the existing ones from my list. That wasn't what made this bliss. What did was muting "top" stackers that waste my time. Probably I am wasting yours, so feel free to mute me if I am bothering you. Or just say "zip it opti" - I can handle it.

177 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b 15 Apr

I still agree with reputation being a potentially useful tool in this

Reputation, as we've defined it, seems to differ from trust in that it isn't subjective. But not being subjective, and with SN being retardedly transparent, that makes it more gameable than trust. So in the ideal of either reputation or WoT we have a dilemma: gameability vs subjectivity.

Or just say "zip it opti" - I can handle it.

Nah! I've found our chats informative. You hold ideals and pragmatics in superposition (as do many stackers) while also understanding uniquely digital problems well.