4 ms·
Another way to counter bot accounts - arguably allowing inherently at least a slightly higher default trust possible - are paid subscription fees. Even at $1/m
by loceng 3y ago
Another way to counter bot accounts - arguably allowing inherently at least a slightly higher default trust possible - are paid subscription fees.
Even at $1/month for an account, 5 bots would cost $60 per year, and for most that is arguably increasing the cost too much to run a sophisticated bot net - though there certainly will be domestic and foreign bad actors wanting to infect a system for their censorship-suppression-narrative control apparatus and will be willing to spend $ billions if not $10s of billions annually - as a war-invasion-infiltration cost - but at least then they are paying into the system that their adversary controls.
This is a problem I am going to face system design wise in the next few years as I'll want to launch my solution to many problems. A core value for the network of platforms and central platform with many feature sets, is that it will not have advertising - no ads - as I believe cheap-shallow advertising is very harmful and dangerous to society. Not only do ads capture our attention that has already been, for many if not most, been compromised, it also increases the costs of goods and services - because you're funding their advertising budget when you are manipulated to purchase from them, paying for yourself to be manipulated and perpetuating that system, it also influences design decisions.
It's going to be a very challenging and ongoing cost to strike a balance, as you say, between trust and isolationism - determining what limited "Free" accounts get access to do functionality wise vs. providing a low enough cost and a high enough value to sooner than later have the masses signup, with having a large enough % of paying subscribers to cover or subsidize the cost of the free accounts holders.
I'm most torn at whether free accounts will have any ability to publicly comment, post, etc - but my current intuition is telling me that in most circumstances, no. Doing proper moderation for posts and comments from paid subscribers alone, which will include bad actors-paid shills or uncritical indoctrinated-misguided ideologues party to a mob believing and parroting propaganda-narrative talking points, that will certainly be the most important and overwhelming task from my estimation.
I think we need to rally the awake and most conscious people of the world, who arguably will also be successful in their own right, where say paying $5/month for general access is pocket change in comparison to the importance of a well-designed and desperately needed system for our security-safety and leading the charge or holding the line for peace. Likewise, I wonder then if a version of Reddit's forum, at least one method that can be enabled to limit interference, are introducing mechanisms like say $0.25 to $1/month to be part of that forum. That could then help subsidize the cost of paid moderators, who arguably would be less likely to be bad actors attempting to inject bias, etc.
My greatest concern though is that as the tyrant wannabes with global totalitarian state wet dreams start to lose their grip, as they appear to be in certain parts of the world, that they will go "full tyrant" with major false flag attacks including manufacturing consent to have censorship capabilities for not only internet but private communications; and so then an online platform is moot.
- PeterisP 3y agoI strongly disagree, and you can look at Twitter for an example, with bots now often using 'verified' accounts. For someone running a bot business, paying $1000/year for some bots doesn't change anything for their business, they're already paying much more than a few bucks per month to people who post with the bots. On the other hand, that payment will absolutely be a barrier of entry for the genuine users.
- loceng 3y agoA bot with massive reach is worth paying for to the bad actor, but that is also due to the algorithms giving an outweighed reach due to their numbers. And your point is anecdotal and not from a scientifically derived process - intuitively, logically, cost does reduce the amount of bots by at least some degree. Whether the value of allowing a "free" and open wild wild west environment, with its externalized-unpaid for costs, outweighs the limiting of access - filtering through a process before people qualify as trustworthy enough and/or contributing enough to the platform (if unable to pay yet - where bartering with oversight is a possible option, an energy exchange type program for access) would be very difficult to calculate but intuitively I'd argue slowing the actions of potential bad actors or an ideological mob who's arguably less likely to pay for a platform where truth that "hurts" them is allowed due to relatively free speech on the platform, would far outweigh the drowning that bad actors would attempt to do by weaponizing an ideological mob to interfere in critical-adult conversation, attempting to blind people by stirring up emotions, echoing-parroting propaganda narrative talking points to trigger dormant programming, etc. I'd next propose that government fund each person a stipend to spend at the centralizing platform(s) of their choice, if society as a whole considers access to such communications-systems as a necessity; I'm not one for liberal-excessive spending on social programs, however all-or-nothing thinking isn't useful either - and certain base needs, if we're going to lift everyone up with a rising tide, getting their feedback - allowing them a voice and necessary tools in today's age - and preventing them from drowning, then a certain amount of minimal support is necessary, but no more than that so hard work and merit is what then is rewarded.