3 ms·

I think as soon as people see "verified humans" posting things they utterly disagree with, the temptation to call those people "bots" will be too great to resis

I think as soon as people see "verified humans" posting things they utterly disagree with, the temptation to call those people "bots" will be too great to resist. A substantial portion of internet commenters will sooner call a human verification system into disrepute than admit that some real people really do earnestly disagree with them. They'll spin conspiracy yarns about how "the other side" controls the verification process and allow their own bots to participate. I think the solution to all of this is smaller tight-knit discussion groups where all the participants know and trust each other. Echo chambers will inevitability form. I don't think there is any way around this.

pessimizer 4y ago
You're just poisoning the well. edit: I find it very bizarre and very fashionable to defend the integrity of a verification service that does not exist, and to already dismiss the non-existent people who could suspect that this hypothetical system of verification was corrupt as conspiracy theorists.
- LarryMullins 4y ago
  Your response is very strange. I have not "defended the integrity of a verification system", nor am I inclined to because I do not support the creation of such verification systems in the first place. And I have no clue what "well" you think I'm poisoning. My point was not that such verification systems are incorruptible. My point is that such verification systems are pointless because they will inevitably be perceived as corrupt. Whether or not the verification system is actually corrupt makes no difference. Such systems are worthless because people won't trust them. Any system will be accused of being corrupt by "both sides" of any heated debate, and they're not both going to be right. But it doesn't matter of one, the other or neither are correct. What matters is that the system won't work because people won't trust it.
  - Faark 4y ago
    Sure, people will complain. But at the end of the day, you platform either has it or will actually be drowned out by bots. Just like everyone is complaining about moderators, but all the "free speech" have them anyway. Bots doing their part to split society & boosting echo chambers sounds reasonable, but i doubt verification system will have much impact.

pessimizer 4y ago

You're just poisoning the well. edit: I find it very bizarre and very fashionable to defend the integrity of a verification service that does not exist, and to already dismiss the non-existent people who could suspect that this hypothetical system of verification was corrupt as conspiracy theorists.

LarryMullins 4y ago
Your response is very strange. I have not "defended the integrity of a verification system", nor am I inclined to because I do not support the creation of such verification systems in the first place. And I have no clue what "well" you think I'm poisoning. My point was not that such verification systems are incorruptible. My point is that such verification systems are pointless because they will inevitably be perceived as corrupt. Whether or not the verification system is actually corrupt makes no difference. Such systems are worthless because people won't trust them. Any system will be accused of being corrupt by "both sides" of any heated debate, and they're not both going to be right. But it doesn't matter of one, the other or neither are correct. What matters is that the system won't work because people won't trust it.
- Faark 4y ago
  Sure, people will complain. But at the end of the day, you platform either has it or will actually be drowned out by bots. Just like everyone is complaining about moderators, but all the "free speech" have them anyway. Bots doing their part to split society & boosting echo chambers sounds reasonable, but i doubt verification system will have much impact.