pull down to refresh
Sorry, which part?
The concept of "crossposting" in the abstract is:
TERRITORY >--many-----many--< ITEM --one -----many--< COMMENTThe implementation from earlier this year solves this by:
TERRITORY >--many----- one-- ITEM[id, territories[], children[]]i.e. the relation of territories-to-items is a list of identifiers intrinsic to the item. This makes it so that the item - which in turn carries comments - is leading, within the strictest constraint set by territories.
However, you could also design the relation to be an instance of Item.
TERRITORY --one -----many--< ITEM_INSTANCE[item_id, territory, children[]] >--many----- one--ITEMThen, a different set of items (because they're instantiated against territories), can carry different rules, and suddenly, I could block a post on ~AI that is scamming people but you could let it sit.
The problem with that is that you need to have an entry-point into a territory, i.e. like Reddit would do with subreddits (but they copy the item, so it's different) and that is where it gets tricky from a UX perspective and the current UX makes it more intuitive, at the cost of territory "sovereignty".
Nevertheless, the reason why I ask is because we discussed this before and as you may remember, I expect abuse. Of course, it is easy to gamble that it may not happen, until it does. Like with every other thing that can be abused right now either being abused, or if you pay attention to some details, is being set up to be abused, such as territory owners getting a 70% discount on boosts, territory owners being able to defame other stackers and setting the comment fee high (profiting off defamation) and so on. There is a lot of naive things right now (systematic trust assumptions towards territory owners being one - and we know about the whale-bias we have at the moment too) that I know with 100% certainty will be abused in the future. Doesn't take a degree to figure out who has already gamed this out.
I’m just thinking about it from the standpoint of territory owners having the presumed right to set the rules for content in their territories.
That may result in certain cross-posts being impossible. I believe that could happen now with item type restrictions in territories.
I’m not sure what should happen to a cross-post to a moderated territory that gets removed by the moderator. Either it gets entirely removed (all moderators have veto power) or only that one territory association gets removed. I lean towards the latter but I could be swayed towards the former.
Principally (basically meaning: "as long as it can still make sense in terms of UX") I'm with you on both counts (right to set rules, and removal of territory association). I'd gladly orphan slop out of ~AI by refunding my 70% of the post cost, instead of downzapping it.
But the other day, when @grayruby said some things regarding territory usage that I did not expect, at least not coming from what I consider to be the most developed sub-community on SN, I am no longer sure if territories are still communities. I think they ought to be, but perhaps, since cross-posting, that has lessened and territories are more like labels to categorize posts on the front page now and maybe like a feed to subscribe to - but with the slop the latter is tedious too.
If it (socially) develops further into a label and away from community, there will be increasing value in curation. No one except whales is going to spend time on curation if money is the only moderator though - it's extremely annoying (and can get expensive) if you need to defend your post against trolling.
You think this because the relation of territory->item is inverted in the code?