3 ms·

There are a few solutions, and reputation is a good one. Here's another: verifiable identities. Zero Knowledge proofs and crypto/blockchains can provide ways to

There are a few solutions, and reputation is a good one. Here's another: verifiable identities. Zero Knowledge proofs and crypto/blockchains can provide ways to authenticate actual people without revealing who they are.

velox_neb 4y ago
However, then poor people would just rent out their identities to spammers to do their spamming with.
panax 4y ago
Both can be easily defeated. You can easily manipulate a reputation system one way or another with a botnet. And just because you can authenticate that a message was signed with a public key says nothing about the veracity of the content in the message. Despite all of its shortcomings, Wikipedia has been a relatively successful model. It is decentralized with an army of volunteers that try to stick to reliable sources. It leverages the fact that honest participants greatly outnumber malicious ones.
- nebula8804 4y ago
  >Despite all of its shortcomings, Wikipedia has been a relatively successful model. It is decentralized with an army of volunteers that try to stick to reliable sources. It leverages the fact that honest participants greatly outnumber malicious ones. Still results in some segments of the site becoming captured. For example, the Leftist political commentator Kyle Kulinski was a frequent target of deletion on Wikipedia from what appears to be his criticism of the Democratic establishment. This effort to delete him was ramped up during the 2020 election and was successful. I lost a lot of trust in Wikipedia editors. It exposed the possibility that older editors have spent the time building up a reputation only to be used later on when it is needed to silence some view or person. I had never thought of this attack vector before the 2020 election but I suspect dishonest actors are building up this database of "trusted people" on all platforms. Despite him being re-added in 2021 after the election season died down, the anger I experienced during the 2020 election when this happened has altered my thoughts on Wikipedia. I personally have committed to never donate to Wikipedia ever again because I have just lost (at lease some) some semblance of trust in their editors. [1]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kyle_Kulinski_(4th_nomination) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletio...
- laughingbovine 4y ago
  > Despite all of its shortcomings, Wikipedia has been a relatively successful model. It is decentralized with an army of volunteers that try to stick to reliable sources. It leverages the fact that honest participants greatly outnumber malicious ones. Also probably because the honest participants have a good reputation.

velox_neb 4y ago

However, then poor people would just rent out their identities to spammers to do their spamming with.

panax 4y ago

Both can be easily defeated. You can easily manipulate a reputation system one way or another with a botnet. And just because you can authenticate that a message was signed with a public key says nothing about the veracity of the content in the message. Despite all of its shortcomings, Wikipedia has been a relatively successful model. It is decentralized with an army of volunteers that try to stick to reliable sources. It leverages the fact that honest participants greatly outnumber malicious ones.

nebula8804 4y ago
>Despite all of its shortcomings, Wikipedia has been a relatively successful model. It is decentralized with an army of volunteers that try to stick to reliable sources. It leverages the fact that honest participants greatly outnumber malicious ones. Still results in some segments of the site becoming captured. For example, the Leftist political commentator Kyle Kulinski was a frequent target of deletion on Wikipedia from what appears to be his criticism of the Democratic establishment. This effort to delete him was ramped up during the 2020 election and was successful. I lost a lot of trust in Wikipedia editors. It exposed the possibility that older editors have spent the time building up a reputation only to be used later on when it is needed to silence some view or person. I had never thought of this attack vector before the 2020 election but I suspect dishonest actors are building up this database of "trusted people" on all platforms. Despite him being re-added in 2021 after the election season died down, the anger I experienced during the 2020 election when this happened has altered my thoughts on Wikipedia. I personally have committed to never donate to Wikipedia ever again because I have just lost (at lease some) some semblance of trust in their editors. [1]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kyle_Kulinski_(4th_nomination) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletio...
laughingbovine 4y ago
> Despite all of its shortcomings, Wikipedia has been a relatively successful model. It is decentralized with an army of volunteers that try to stick to reliable sources. It leverages the fact that honest participants greatly outnumber malicious ones. Also probably because the honest participants have a good reputation.