3 ms·

I fear that a decentralized web that can’t be moderated also creates a 4chan like culture with extra steps. People, when anonymous, seem to race to the bottom i

by prox 5y ago

I fear that a decentralized web that can’t be moderated also creates a 4chan like culture with extra steps. People, when anonymous, seem to race to the bottom in terms of ethics and accountability. Trust comes from when I know who the other person is, not just his/her/its attributes. A good debate comes from strengthening the things that bind us in an open forum. Sofar blockchain seems to be about making money (and I agree with OP on this point) and doing its version of the .com bubble. Not saying that nothing of value might come from it, but at this point I don’t see anything of that kind.

zozbot234 5y ago
People can be anonymous but still accountable. Require users to post a cryptocurrency bond to post, and let others lay bets against the user's future score in some sort of crowd-sourced karma system. This lets other users gain if they successfully predict that the user's post will be disapproved of (get paid for reporting, e.g. obvious spam!) while conversely rewarding the user for good content that others are maliciously trying to bury or "cancel".
- prox 5y ago
  Is this an already implemented system, or is this a potential technology?
- valdiorn 5y ago
  Ok. Who is the arbitrator then? A centralised party? If not, then maybe people who stake the most? Because that way you can literally pay for the right to decide what is "truth".
  - prox 5y ago
    It reminds me of the democratic bus analogy. A bus with no driver and everyone with a steering wheel. All the input gets averaged out. Such a bus would get nowhere.
    - ModernMech 5y ago
      Reminds me of this https://www.theverge.com/2014/2/17/5418690/play-this-twitch-plays-pokemon-crowdsourced-gaming https://www.theverge.com/2014/2/17/5418690/play-this-twitch-... They did manage to get through some of the game at least!
    - api 5y ago
      Has anyone ever tried this? Sounds like a fascinating experiment. Of course it's basically all game theory. If a critical mass of people cooperated it could work.
      - prox 5y ago
        I read it in a really old science magazine at a family gathering, and I think it was an article on democracy by some science institute. That’s all I remember. It would be an interesting thing to research, but it should be in the literature already.
  - smoldesu 5y ago
    The best (or at least, most successful) answer to this has come through federation. Platform owners are allowed to create and moderate their own groups with their own distinct rules and regulation. From there, each group decides which of the other groups it would like to interact with, as well as ones that it would like to ignore. The result is a system where everyone can live happily; 4chan trolls can federate with 4chan trolls, mainstream instances can block objectionable content, and people who want to use both can freely make accounts for either group. The result is a pretty good balance of freedom with highly-moderated content, even highly sensitive groups have had a pretty good experience using this tactic, since if all else fails the group can defederate from everyone else and choose only to interact with other group members, or selectively federate with other groups that share their same values.

by prox 5y ago

zozbot234 5y ago

People can be anonymous but still accountable. Require users to post a cryptocurrency bond to post, and let others lay bets against the user's future score in some sort of crowd-sourced karma system. This lets other users gain if they successfully predict that the user's post will be disapproved of (get paid for reporting, e.g. obvious spam!) while conversely rewarding the user for good content that others are maliciously trying to bury or "cancel".

prox 5y ago
Is this an already implemented system, or is this a potential technology?
valdiorn 5y ago
Ok. Who is the arbitrator then? A centralised party? If not, then maybe people who stake the most? Because that way you can literally pay for the right to decide what is "truth".
- prox 5y ago
  It reminds me of the democratic bus analogy. A bus with no driver and everyone with a steering wheel. All the input gets averaged out. Such a bus would get nowhere.
  - ModernMech 5y ago
    Reminds me of this https://www.theverge.com/2014/2/17/5418690/play-this-twitch-plays-pokemon-crowdsourced-gaming https://www.theverge.com/2014/2/17/5418690/play-this-twitch-... They did manage to get through some of the game at least!
  - api 5y ago
    Has anyone ever tried this? Sounds like a fascinating experiment. Of course it's basically all game theory. If a critical mass of people cooperated it could work.
    - prox 5y ago
      I read it in a really old science magazine at a family gathering, and I think it was an article on democracy by some science institute. That’s all I remember. It would be an interesting thing to research, but it should be in the literature already.
- smoldesu 5y ago
  The best (or at least, most successful) answer to this has come through federation. Platform owners are allowed to create and moderate their own groups with their own distinct rules and regulation. From there, each group decides which of the other groups it would like to interact with, as well as ones that it would like to ignore. The result is a system where everyone can live happily; 4chan trolls can federate with 4chan trolls, mainstream instances can block objectionable content, and people who want to use both can freely make accounts for either group. The result is a pretty good balance of freedom with highly-moderated content, even highly sensitive groups have had a pretty good experience using this tactic, since if all else fails the group can defederate from everyone else and choose only to interact with other group members, or selectively federate with other groups that share their same values.