3 ms·

This is a great idea. I would love to use a service like this. One of the downsides of anonymity that many people raise (fallaciously) as an argument against i

This is a great idea. I would love to use a service like this. One of the downsides of anonymity that many people raise (fallaciously) as an argument against it is that too many of the anonymous people are just trolls, therefore it is a negative quality. Having it be people that are known to the person brings about an assumption of character that can solve this issue, so long as the user associates with people that they tolerate (which is a mostly fair assumption, considering how private groups and similar functions operate on the established platforms). One problem that I could see is that someone could be found out simply by virtue of being the only person that would say something like them. I guess this could be alleviated by filtering in public posts from others, but this could cause other problems while not solving what it's supposed to. The other issue for this is the Gab problem, which cannot be easily solved: that if you're using this service, you're a bad person who needs to be blocked/fired/etc. Unfortunately the mobs you're working against work to destroy with little rhyme and no reason, and they work for free (often literally unemployed). This problem is hard to get around, but I think could be mitigated with marketing it as a platform first and a solution second. Nonetheless, I wish you the best. This is a very interesting concept and could really do a lot of good in the world.

chiefmcloud 6y ago
Thank you. I think it’s a really important problem and honestly wish it was already built so I could just use it. The Gab problem is core. Reddit bans a bunch of assholes so they go off and find alternative platforms. Free speech is great as a principle, but in practice nobody else wants to hang out with these people. My idea is that a new model of interaction could get around the problem. I’d want this to be a link people would feel comfortable sharing to their LinkedIn network. Using the site doesn’t mean you were banned from other platforms, just that you think this way of communication is better.
TimJRobinson 6y ago
I've been thinking about the gab problem a lot and have a solution: moderation and votes should be user centric rather than wisdom of the crowd based. Explained further here: https://adecentralizedworld.com/2020/06/a-trust-and-moderation-system-for-the-decentralized-web/ https://adecentralizedworld.com/2020/06/a-trust-and-moderati...
- collyw 6y ago
  Won't that just turn echo chambers into even bigger echo chambers?
  - TimJRobinson 6y ago
    It's a chamber that you decide vs one the group decides. If you want to only surround yourself with people that are exactly like you that's up to you. If you want to be an intelligent thinker and surround yourself with believable truthful people who expand your worldview that's also possible. It puts the power back in your hands instead of the site operator or group consensus.
    - jwarden 6y ago
      One of the reasons people use social media is to get a feel for the generally environment of opinion, even if we disagree with it. We want to know what "people are saying" and understand the rapidly-changing boundaries of what is socially acceptable. That's why I follow people on Twitter and Facebook that I don't trust at all. I would not want to use a decentralized trust system to consign myself to an echo-chamber, even if it is full of believable truthful people. But the system TimJRobinson describes is flexible: you don't have to simply filter out the less trustworthy posts. You could simply flag them somehow as low-trust. Right now the major social sites are designed to amplify the voices of users that produce content that drives engagement, even though the most engaging content tends to be offensive or inaccurate. That's why the people I least trust on Facebook always show up on the top of my feed: I sometimes engage with them by telling them I think their posts are inaccurate. So I can see your system being used not just as a filter for what the users sees in their feed, but as a feedback mechanism for people's posts. I think a more responsible social site would optimize for positive outcomes, and not just engagement: employing algorithms and techniques to optimize for accuracy, quality, and civility. I think decentralized moderation could be one of those techniques.
      - collyw 6y ago
        That sounds like a step backwards to me. The problem we seem to be seeing just now is lots of echo chambers have formed without input from "the other side of teh argument" on Facebook, Twitter, whatever social media you choose. What you are suggesting is rather than group level echo chambers which will validate maybe 80% of your views and go against maybe 20%, you are now going to have a fully customized echo chamber that echos your views 100%. I think that will make things worse. Personally I try to get views from both sides, but I think I am in a minority for doing this.
numpad0 6y ago
> too many of the anonymous people are just trolls, I have a different take on this: trolling becomes an optimal farming method when reward mechanisms isn’t working. When being a squeaky wheel is the best way to get the oil, people tries to be the worst shaped wheels. Fittest survive. P.S. to parent: > who cares if someone on the Internet is wrong. ( ಠ_ಠ)...

chiefmcloud 6y ago

Thank you. I think it’s a really important problem and honestly wish it was already built so I could just use it. The Gab problem is core. Reddit bans a bunch of assholes so they go off and find alternative platforms. Free speech is great as a principle, but in practice nobody else wants to hang out with these people. My idea is that a new model of interaction could get around the problem. I’d want this to be a link people would feel comfortable sharing to their LinkedIn network. Using the site doesn’t mean you were banned from other platforms, just that you think this way of communication is better.

TimJRobinson 6y ago

I've been thinking about the gab problem a lot and have a solution: moderation and votes should be user centric rather than wisdom of the crowd based. Explained further here: https://adecentralizedworld.com/2020/06/a-trust-and-moderation-system-for-the-decentralized-web/ https://adecentralizedworld.com/2020/06/a-trust-and-moderati...

collyw 6y ago
Won't that just turn echo chambers into even bigger echo chambers?
- TimJRobinson 6y ago
  It's a chamber that you decide vs one the group decides. If you want to only surround yourself with people that are exactly like you that's up to you. If you want to be an intelligent thinker and surround yourself with believable truthful people who expand your worldview that's also possible. It puts the power back in your hands instead of the site operator or group consensus.
  - jwarden 6y ago
    One of the reasons people use social media is to get a feel for the generally environment of opinion, even if we disagree with it. We want to know what "people are saying" and understand the rapidly-changing boundaries of what is socially acceptable. That's why I follow people on Twitter and Facebook that I don't trust at all. I would not want to use a decentralized trust system to consign myself to an echo-chamber, even if it is full of believable truthful people. But the system TimJRobinson describes is flexible: you don't have to simply filter out the less trustworthy posts. You could simply flag them somehow as low-trust. Right now the major social sites are designed to amplify the voices of users that produce content that drives engagement, even though the most engaging content tends to be offensive or inaccurate. That's why the people I least trust on Facebook always show up on the top of my feed: I sometimes engage with them by telling them I think their posts are inaccurate. So I can see your system being used not just as a filter for what the users sees in their feed, but as a feedback mechanism for people's posts. I think a more responsible social site would optimize for positive outcomes, and not just engagement: employing algorithms and techniques to optimize for accuracy, quality, and civility. I think decentralized moderation could be one of those techniques.
    - collyw 6y ago
      That sounds like a step backwards to me. The problem we seem to be seeing just now is lots of echo chambers have formed without input from "the other side of teh argument" on Facebook, Twitter, whatever social media you choose. What you are suggesting is rather than group level echo chambers which will validate maybe 80% of your views and go against maybe 20%, you are now going to have a fully customized echo chamber that echos your views 100%. I think that will make things worse. Personally I try to get views from both sides, but I think I am in a minority for doing this.

numpad0 6y ago

> too many of the anonymous people are just trolls, I have a different take on this: trolling becomes an optimal farming method when reward mechanisms isn’t working. When being a squeaky wheel is the best way to get the oil, people tries to be the worst shaped wheels. Fittest survive. P.S. to parent: > who cares if someone on the Internet is wrong. ( ಠ_ಠ)...