2 ms·

> You might have solved all of this in a way that doesn't depend on trolls being poor or getting bored easily. I would argue that most markets in existence are

> You might have solved all of this in a way that doesn't depend on trolls being poor or getting bored easily. I would argue that most markets in existence are fundamentally based on that holding true. And somehow the world, for some reason inexplicable to me hasn't collapsed yet. > Wikipedia is a great example of something working really well In the general case, yeah I agree. However, there have also been cases where authority on Wikipedia has been blatantly misused to overrepresent personal views of privileged contributors and censor contradicting contributions. I'm not saying that permissioned information/knowledge gathering platforms like Wikipedia have no right to exist - as with any centralized system they probably have efficiency gains - but I think there are some properties of it that can be improved upon.

pwinnski 8y ago
Most markets in existence are in meatspace, and trolls in meatspace risk life and limb. Online, the costs of trolling are much lower, which is why trolling threatens to destroy everything good on the internet. If your solution is counting on "some reason inexplicable" that took me literally two sentences to easily and accurately explain, I'd worry. If you think trolling hasn't caused collapses, well, I note that your site has four pictures of people who are unlikely to experience what I'm talking about. Wikipedia definitely has issues, but most of those issues involve exactly the sorts of things we're talking about here: trust, and who has it. Most of their issues would be solved with more centralized control, not less, and still the issue of who to trust with that control remains.
- hobofan 8y ago
  > Most markets in existence are in meatspace, and trolls in meatspace risk life and limb. Online, the costs of trolling are much lower, which is why trolling threatens to destroy everything good on the internet. Yes, since traditionally the cost of trolling is ~the cost of the time of the troll. Do you think the internet would look the same if there would be enforceable fines on slurs in Tweets or Youtube comments? More relatedly, have trolls managed to destroy Bitcoin and Ethereum, which are based exactly on those anti-trolling mechanics of rational players being in place?

pwinnski 8y ago

Most markets in existence are in meatspace, and trolls in meatspace risk life and limb. Online, the costs of trolling are much lower, which is why trolling threatens to destroy everything good on the internet. If your solution is counting on "some reason inexplicable" that took me literally two sentences to easily and accurately explain, I'd worry. If you think trolling hasn't caused collapses, well, I note that your site has four pictures of people who are unlikely to experience what I'm talking about. Wikipedia definitely has issues, but most of those issues involve exactly the sorts of things we're talking about here: trust, and who has it. Most of their issues would be solved with more centralized control, not less, and still the issue of who to trust with that control remains.

hobofan 8y ago
> Most markets in existence are in meatspace, and trolls in meatspace risk life and limb. Online, the costs of trolling are much lower, which is why trolling threatens to destroy everything good on the internet. Yes, since traditionally the cost of trolling is ~the cost of the time of the troll. Do you think the internet would look the same if there would be enforceable fines on slurs in Tweets or Youtube comments? More relatedly, have trolls managed to destroy Bitcoin and Ethereum, which are based exactly on those anti-trolling mechanics of rational players being in place?