3 ms·

long post, i'll do my best: > what is a "baseless claim", who gets to decide that, and how? the idea is that everyone int he system can decide for themselves

long post, i'll do my best: > what is a "baseless claim", who gets to decide that, and how? the idea is that everyone int he system can decide for themselves what is baseless and what is not. every single statement, every single claim can be evaluated by all parties to decide, is this true, is this false. there are plenty of things people have claimed publicly and then recanted - like, say the made up allegations of gang rape (http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/06/uva-fraternity-to-sue-rolling-stone-over-false-rape-accusation/ http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/06/uva-fraternity-to-sue-roll...) - the idea is that anyone who latched onto that ahead of time and said "this is true" gets that tracked and responded to later.

PavlovsCat 11y ago
> every single statement, every single claim can be evaluated by all parties to decide, is this true, is this false. Okay, but then where does this translate to people getting "tagged" as trustworthy or not, etc.? What effect does that have on statements they made? Even if it's up to the users -- that text really makes it seem like tagging people as trolls just because X trusted people tagged them so as desirable or useful. To me there are kind of two ways to look at trust (or affinity in general), as something by which we weighs actions or opinions of another person ("if enough people I trust label X as Y, that influences how I view them"), or as a short-hand for how we feel about the individual decisions of another person ("all these people did ask for evidence when most people were ready to lynch X for Y, which increases my trust for them"), maybe using that as the first assumption when faced with new things they do or have opinions on, but generally just being a "bonus score" after the fact, if you will. In practice it's a bit of both. But if you have to follow the chain of arguments anyway, or the reasons why someone is labeled as something, what use is the label? And if you don't follow it, and just "assume there is a good reason for the label", you get fun stuff like a 17yo girl telling a boy she's 18 like he is, them having sex on her initiative, and him being labeled a sex offender for 20 years even though she pleaded for him to be left alone. It's not "sex offender for having lied to by a girl with stuck up parents who was 17 when he was 18", it's just "sex offender". The same with "troll", "(not) reputable", etc. The truth is as fine-grained as the actual course of events, and while labels are sometimes useful, it can be dangerous when they develop a life of their own so to speak, in our imagination. > anyone who latched onto that ahead of time and said "this is true" gets that tracked and responded to later By those who came to the conclusion. Likewise, everything who says "hah, it's not true", get "responded to" by everyone who insists it's true regardless. So what was gained?

PavlovsCat 11y ago

> every single statement, every single claim can be evaluated by all parties to decide, is this true, is this false. Okay, but then where does this translate to people getting "tagged" as trustworthy or not, etc.? What effect does that have on statements they made? Even if it's up to the users -- that text really makes it seem like tagging people as trolls just because X trusted people tagged them so as desirable or useful. To me there are kind of two ways to look at trust (or affinity in general), as something by which we weighs actions or opinions of another person ("if enough people I trust label X as Y, that influences how I view them"), or as a short-hand for how we feel about the individual decisions of another person ("all these people did ask for evidence when most people were ready to lynch X for Y, which increases my trust for them"), maybe using that as the first assumption when faced with new things they do or have opinions on, but generally just being a "bonus score" after the fact, if you will. In practice it's a bit of both. But if you have to follow the chain of arguments anyway, or the reasons why someone is labeled as something, what use is the label? And if you don't follow it, and just "assume there is a good reason for the label", you get fun stuff like a 17yo girl telling a boy she's 18 like he is, them having sex on her initiative, and him being labeled a sex offender for 20 years even though she pleaded for him to be left alone. It's not "sex offender for having lied to by a girl with stuck up parents who was 17 when he was 18", it's just "sex offender". The same with "troll", "(not) reputable", etc. The truth is as fine-grained as the actual course of events, and while labels are sometimes useful, it can be dangerous when they develop a life of their own so to speak, in our imagination. > anyone who latched onto that ahead of time and said "this is true" gets that tracked and responded to later By those who came to the conclusion. Likewise, everything who says "hah, it's not true", get "responded to" by everyone who insists it's true regardless. So what was gained?