3 ms·

Nice to see more work in this area. However as others have said a reputation system for participants is absolutely key. Any platform like this has to assume it

Nice to see more work in this area. However as others have said a reputation system for participants is absolutely key. Any platform like this has to assume it is going to be flooded by bots trying to influence opinion on behalf of corporations, foreign governments and activists. A reputation where users gain reputation slowly (through work, by verifying sources, etc..) become more able to influence opinion, but the reputation drops quickly if they are found to be misleading people. How this actually works is harder than it seems if you want a truly robust system. When I think of platforms like this I think of Galileo[0]. He was perceived as a troll or heretic in his time, but of course he was right. How do you create a platform that allows correct ideas to flourish even when they go against conventional wisdom? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei

YazIAm 8y ago
I 100% agree that the reputation system will be they key to scaling this. I'm currently seeing promise with my experiments with reputation scoring. As for "How do you create a platform that allows correct ideas to flourish even when they go against conventional wisdom?" Great question, however my goal here is a bit more modest, it's to create a platform that allows facts which are provable by public primary sources to stand out from everything else. I think a platform that focuses on simply that can add a lot of value to political discourse.
- SamBam 8y ago
  The bots would be a serious issue if this ever became big enough, since they can add to each other's reputation. Reddit probably has thousands of code-hours devoted to this, and bots are still a problem. There is also the problem that humans will probably tend to upvote "facts" that they agree with, and visa-versa. I'm not sure that reputation is the solution. And yet "expert" verification introduces trust. I'm not sure what the solution is.
  - teleclimber 8y ago
    Yes it's a super tough problem, not to be underestimated by anybody working on such a platform. If there is any easily automatable way gaining reputation, then the bots will use that, and if you can easily pass reputation too, then the rep system won't hold. > I'm not sure what the solution is. Ditto, and I've ben pondering this on and off for years :/

YazIAm 8y ago

I 100% agree that the reputation system will be they key to scaling this. I'm currently seeing promise with my experiments with reputation scoring. As for "How do you create a platform that allows correct ideas to flourish even when they go against conventional wisdom?" Great question, however my goal here is a bit more modest, it's to create a platform that allows facts which are provable by public primary sources to stand out from everything else. I think a platform that focuses on simply that can add a lot of value to political discourse.

SamBam 8y ago
The bots would be a serious issue if this ever became big enough, since they can add to each other's reputation. Reddit probably has thousands of code-hours devoted to this, and bots are still a problem. There is also the problem that humans will probably tend to upvote "facts" that they agree with, and visa-versa. I'm not sure that reputation is the solution. And yet "expert" verification introduces trust. I'm not sure what the solution is.
- teleclimber 8y ago
  Yes it's a super tough problem, not to be underestimated by anybody working on such a platform. If there is any easily automatable way gaining reputation, then the bots will use that, and if you can easily pass reputation too, then the rep system won't hold. > I'm not sure what the solution is. Ditto, and I've ben pondering this on and off for years :/