4 ms·

Would only work if the network in question has solved the Sybil[1] identity problem, which is clearly not the case in any network today. [1]: https://en.wikipe

Would only work if the network in question has solved the Sybil[1] identity problem, which is clearly not the case in any network today. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sybil_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sybil_attack

trevyn 6y ago
What’s the state of the art here? Is it solvable but nobody’s implemented it yet?
- saurik 6y ago
  The best known "in the field" solution is Proof of Work, and the best contender being deployed now is Proof of Stake.
specialist 6y ago
It's killing me that no one is talking about authentic speech. We have very little. Social mediums (Twitter, HN, Instagram, Yelp, etc) must also support verified identities. Opt-in. Just like metafilter.com. With onerous penalties for impersonation. The outrage machine apologists (select examples below) are trying to post-authentic inauthentic speech. Algorithms will save us. This cannot work. Ever. Because the belligerents in the computational propaganda arms race will always overwhelm authenticity. Tristan Harris - The Social Dilemma Casey Newton - The Verge Philip N. Howard - Lies Machines Frédéric Filloux - News Quality Scoring Project All tortured performant whining about censorship and bias and Section 230 is not helping. No one is going to take away anyone's favorite chew toy. The food fight over lies and bias will continue unabated. -- Said another way: Journalism is real simple. Show your data, cite your sources, sign your name. Support authentic journalism, with real infrastructure. Give people an alternative to the outrage machine.
- trevyn 6y ago
  There is a flaw in your argument: Anonymous journalism can be perfectly valuable if it can be corroborated by other means.
  - specialist 6y ago
    You think authentic and inauthentic speech are mutually exclusive? Why? Because slippery slope? So I can't have any authentic speech ever because someone might want to remain anon. What am I missing here? On the internet, no one knows you're a dog. We are all anon. There is no verifiable authentic speech. Would you trust unsigned apps? How much science is done anonymously? We insist that websites are authenticated (using HTTPS). But not Freedom Speeches™. Totally different. Authenticating any speech whatsoever is... Is what? How does authenticated speech harm any one? How?
tunesmith 6y ago
What about Nextdoor?

trevyn 6y ago

What’s the state of the art here? Is it solvable but nobody’s implemented it yet?

saurik 6y ago
The best known "in the field" solution is Proof of Work, and the best contender being deployed now is Proof of Stake.

specialist 6y ago

It's killing me that no one is talking about authentic speech. We have very little. Social mediums (Twitter, HN, Instagram, Yelp, etc) must also support verified identities. Opt-in. Just like metafilter.com. With onerous penalties for impersonation. The outrage machine apologists (select examples below) are trying to post-authentic inauthentic speech. Algorithms will save us. This cannot work. Ever. Because the belligerents in the computational propaganda arms race will always overwhelm authenticity. Tristan Harris - The Social Dilemma Casey Newton - The Verge Philip N. Howard - Lies Machines Frédéric Filloux - News Quality Scoring Project All tortured performant whining about censorship and bias and Section 230 is not helping. No one is going to take away anyone's favorite chew toy. The food fight over lies and bias will continue unabated. -- Said another way: Journalism is real simple. Show your data, cite your sources, sign your name. Support authentic journalism, with real infrastructure. Give people an alternative to the outrage machine.

trevyn 6y ago
There is a flaw in your argument: Anonymous journalism can be perfectly valuable if it can be corroborated by other means.
- specialist 6y ago
  You think authentic and inauthentic speech are mutually exclusive? Why? Because slippery slope? So I can't have any authentic speech ever because someone might want to remain anon. What am I missing here? On the internet, no one knows you're a dog. We are all anon. There is no verifiable authentic speech. Would you trust unsigned apps? How much science is done anonymously? We insist that websites are authenticated (using HTTPS). But not Freedom Speeches™. Totally different. Authenticating any speech whatsoever is... Is what? How does authenticated speech harm any one? How?

tunesmith 6y ago

What about Nextdoor?