4 ms·
It would be neutral which is current status quo, not that bad? The nice part is that it would work the other way around as well – from article/subject back to
by mirekrusin 2y ago
It would be neutral which is current status quo, not that bad?
The nice part is that it would work the other way around as well – from article/subject back to people who endorse or object it – in case you want to follow (attract/repel their pov).
In reality who to follow should be easy as it would be recursive – if you follow MIT and MIT follows ie. Noam Chomsky – you wouldn't have to directly follow Noam as your trust would already exist as transitive one from MIT etc.
- yorwba 2y agoThe status quo is not neutral. It is extremely biased, particularly against spam, vandalism and low-quality content. Its defense against sybil attacks and sockpuppetry is a single global truth, collectively patrolled by all users. If you tried to do a neutral wiki anyone can edit, it would be full of ads and porn.
- mirekrusin 2y agoIt's neutral in the sense that it's not trust-weight-filtered by observer. It can be created yes, just like any web page can be created, but won't surface for anybody because nobody will endorse it. If it's endorsed by sybil accounts – it'll be visible to sybils and their followers – ie. nobody real. To rephrase it – following somebody means it alters your view and nothing else – it's uni-directional (but recursive).