pull down to refresh
465 sats \ 11 replies \ @k00b 31 Jul 2022 \ on: how to prevent this place from getting overrun by altcoiners? bitcoin
The best ideas I have for overcoming this long term
- allow users to mute users they don’t like
- allow users to flag posts and allow other users to set how sensitive they want to be to flagging (e.g. hide posts if 2 users flag it as altcoinery)
- allow users to have their own trust graphs which influences which posts and comments they see
- raise costs to post
I’m open to other ideas. Moderation doesn’t scale IMO, so I think the path forward is giving users more control over what they see, who can interact with them, and what it costs to get their attention.
I think you have the opportunity to play with community moderation. Hacker News uses upvoting and downvoting to do this, but you can only downvote after a certain amount of reputation. You can use sats earned as some quasi-reputation score and use that to give such people some power to downvote for some sats. Personally, I think downvotes should be way more costly than upvotes. It's a serious accusation to be making and most people don't do it unless it's serious. You also don't want it to be abused. Thus, making it more expensive will make people think twice about it.
The idea of staking to post is good as well. It has the nice side-effect of preventing spam. So posting might cost 10 sats, but also 10000 sats in a stake. If you try to flood the place, you're going to lose 10,000 sats per post. It can really become a market based moderation system. Bad posts simply go down. Obviously, this is not going to be easy to balance, but you have way more tools than Hacker News or Reddit does. Also, if you figure this out, it will monetarily incentivize good comments even more than they are now.
reply
I really like the incentives around staking and I want to experiment with it at some point. My main concern is it might be hard to communicate, but there are probably solutions to that.
reply
Simple MVP: downvoting costs 5x the upvoting.
Slightly more difficult: each post costs a "deposit" of 10,000 sats which will be refunded if you have a non-negative score within 24 hours. If you have a negative score, you give up your deposit and it goes to the distribution pool for the next day.
reply
I dig it. Downvotes will make it clear whether your stake should be returned.
Downvoting seems to have the unintended consequence of encouraging trolls though. It gives them feedback (rather than crickets) which probably motivates them - but if they also lose money perhaps it doesn’t make it worth it.
reply
It sucks if I post something Bitcoin related, then an army of shitcoiners comes in to downvote my post. If no moderation is done, I will effectively loose my deposit for no reason. Although they loose their sats, it affects me as well.
reply
In that case, they're literally paying for the attention. And given it goes to the community pool, there's some interesting economics at play here. Would people tolerate trolls if they're getting paid for it? I'm actually curious how much trolls are willing to pay and at what limits they stop.
reply
I think we would probably converge on something like 20 trolls pay for 80 users.
reply
So we're back to advertisers?
reply
Not exactly, but also note the difference that those "advertisers" would pay the users directly...
I think its also important to figure out how to communicate the rules to the members, especially the new comers. Getting banned is one way to learn but there might be better ways.
Btw, I think we are currently treating (or we could/should be) SN as one Bitcoin maxi community. That's IMHO the best way to get things started, but there is potential for SN to grow into a platform with many communities.
reply
SN has a great thing going for it with value-for-value. I feel like it should try to solve these problems without creating algorithmic echo chambers, whether user defined or not.
Assigning cost to online behavior is the innovation here. Let's see what it's capable of!
reply