Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2024 Poal.co

612

I think that users should be able to endorse other users (creating a web) and then users not in this web could be labeled "untrusted". For this to work you would have to be able to tell why a user is trusted so the names of endorsements would have to be public. This might also be overkill for poal at the current size, but if we got to 10k users or something it would be pretty nice to know who is vouched for my people i trust, and if i have a legit good conversation with someone i could mark them as trusted.

I think that users should be able to endorse other users (creating a web) and then users not in this web could be labeled "untrusted". For this to work you would have to be able to tell why a user is trusted so the names of endorsements would have to be public. This might also be overkill for poal at the current size, but if we got to 10k users or something it would be pretty nice to know who is vouched for my people i trust, and if i have a legit good conversation with someone i could mark them as trusted.

(post is archived)

[–] [deleted] • 4 pts

Why do you want to setup high school cliques here?

[–] • 0 pt

It wouldn't be groups at all, it would be that people would be established as being good actors or not.

Think of reddit, do you trust powermods? no, but those are the people with the largest following (maybe). So you don't trust them, but do you trust go1dfish? yes, and he trusts people as well. when a branch gets cancerous you can remove it. Again, this is only for you, no one else (unless they rely on you for a branch, and then you are removing a bad branch for both).

Yes, this would promote echo-chambers if people were censored based on this, and you trusted occupy democrat users only, but if you trusted people based on your interactions with them being productive, then you wouldn't be in an echo chamber; it would be completely up to each user.

What currently happens is that (again, poal isn't large enough) people get censored by shitheads and there is nothing the users can do about it. Or think about wikipedia, if you want the version that hasn't been (((curated))) then you would just not trust those telaviv users.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

It wouldn't be groups at all, it would be that people would be established as being good actors or not.

Is there not already such things here?

Think of reddit, do you trust powermods? no, but those are the people with the largest following (maybe).

Mods here moderate subs they create.

So you don't trust them, but do you trust go1dfish? yes, and he trusts people as well.

Well, I have no idea who that is and I really don't care either, this is not Reddit.

when a branch gets cancerous you can remove it. Again, this is only for you, no one else (unless they rely on you for a branch, and then you are removing a bad branch for both).

There are plenty of tools here already to do that sort of thing. You can block users or subs and simply ignore either like an adult.

Yes, this would promote echo-chambers if people were censored based on this, and you trusted occupy democrat users only, but if you trusted people based on your interactions with them being productive, then you wouldn't be in an echo chamber; it would be completely up to each user.

So you want a solution to something that is not a problem here and already has things in place to do what you want?

What currently happens is that (again, poal isn't large enough) people get censored by shitheads and there is nothing the users can do about it.Or think about wikipedia, if you want the version that hasn't been (((curated))) then you would just not trust those telaviv users.

What are you talking about? Who is "censored" on Poal? This is not wikipedia either.

[–] • 0 pt

it is okay if i didn't articulate it in the correct way. we are not talking about the same thing at all and so i guess i just need to drop it.

go1dfish was the developer who (a very long time ago) wrote "reddit is fun", he then made a decentralized site like poal that was based on proof of work (cpu) with an instance at notabug.io (looks to be down at the moment). He was a very active user on voat for a long time, and more like an aaron swartz belief structure. He also was on the team for the crypto decred. great user, and a lot of fun to talk to.

[–] • 2 pts

Croud-sourcing your trust is the most braindead thing I have heard in a while.

[–] • 0 pt

it isn't crowd sourcing anything, you are trusting people who you trust (which you do anyway).

I trust you, you trust vincent james and devon stack, when i run into content posted by them i know that you said they are alright, and you haven't led me wrong yet. if you said that you trusted the young turks, then i would say "i know that they are bad actors, and so i can not trust you".

This doesn't censor anyone, and only affect my account.

[–] • 0 pt

I trust you, you trust vincent james and devon stack, when i run into content posted by them i know that you said they are alright, and you haven't led me wrong yet. if you said that you trusted the young turks, then i would say "i know that they are bad actors, and so i can not trust you".

So "I trust you and so by extension I trust people you say to trust until you say something I disagree with and then I will not trust you" ... Did I get that right? You can't value my opinion on who to trust and then immediately say as "as long as you say to trust the people I already trust"

There is a bunch of circular logic and confirmation bias going on here.

[–] • 0 pt

Here, i'll do it using internet personalities. we have warwick, james, stack, and vousch. i don't know if i should trust them, but they seem okay, so i trust them. they in turn have people they trust. one day i notice that some really stupid BS is being marked trusted, i look at why, it says vousch (i have no idea how to spell his name) vetted him, so I decide that i can't trust him anymore. Warwick might say some stupid shit and it might push me to the edge of not trusting him, but his rationality is pretty high, and i don't think that he is a bad actor, just sometimes wrong.

Right now we actually have this on poal, but only one person marks people (aou). If my proposal was implemented the current poal is no different than me trusting aou and him marking crying npcs as what they are, except there would just be the binary trusted/not trusted in this simple implementation.

[–] • 1 pt

Because it quickly turns in to a web of slime.

[–] • 1 pt

We already have this. You have to do the work though. By being a regular participant in discussions and reading threads you will develop your own list of accounts you have grown to trust. You must do this for yourself and not simply rely on others giving their trust ratings. Over my years of participating in boards like Poal, I have determined that there are accounts that many other users trust and respect but I just can't bring myself to share in that trust and respect because they don't harmonize with my own ways. Trust ratings are distorted by clique/echo chamber in-group biases so why would you want to trust someone based on their cronies' opinions? Your trust should be based on your interactions with them and not some recommendation from their allies.

[–] • 0 pt

You must do this for yourself and not simply rely on others giving their trust ratings.

That is fine for 20 users, but, for example, i don't recognize your name even though you are level 34. I am guessing that you do interact with users, and probably users that i do recognize as being good contributors.

I think you are missing the point. This would create an echo chamber only if you chose to endorse people based on their opinions, not their contributions. If you chose that then it only affects you.

[–] • 0 pt (edited )

i don't recognize your name even though you are level 34

I was also Morbo on Voat from just it changed from Whoaverse to Voat and I was very active there too. I don't recognize you either, but I can see from your Poal birthdate that you came from Voat on shutdown day.

I think you are missing the point. This would create an echo chamber only if you chose to endorse people based on their opinions, not their contributions.

Your logic would make engrish_is _hard one of the most trusted accounts on Poal. He contributes a lot of content and has a high (edit: missed adding 'high') post/comment upvote count. Is e_i_h someone you would trust given those contributions? You have to do the work yourself and keep notes if it's important to you to know who is trustworthy. You need to determine what criteria makes someone trustworthy and label them accordingly. We don't need a system that can be abused/gamed by bad actors.

I wrote my own code to apply badges and tags to the users I want to watch/follow, but that's not something everyone can do. I wanted that functionality since Voat had the AVE script/extension that could do that (and other enhancements). No such thing exists for Poal in a public sense so I made my own. Sorry, I'm not sharing it though because I don't want to bombarded with support/feature request messages all the time from other users. Been there, done that and it's not worth it for something "free". Anyway, work out your own methods and criteria and put in the effort. You can't rely on others to sort things out in a way that works for you.

[–] • 1 pt

What would a web of trust accomplish, as you see it? There are users here I tend to trust more than others. There are users here I block. None of that requires the consensus of the group at large.

[–] • 0 pt

it would basically vet all users in a way that each user wants. if people use feelings in discussions then, imho, they aren't contributing, and so i don't trust them, but someone who is a communist making valid points (is this a thing?) would still be trusted, as long as the users he brings with him aren't shit.

What i said here is just a binary yes/no, and it would only affect your account. it could be used to make echo chambers, but that is up to each user. for me it would be used to know to simply be careful of someone; an way to do what aou is doing with the nice icons people "earn".

[–] • 0 pt

I don't think you're going to get much traction with the idea here. I'd imagine that @AOU would agree. Leave 'trusting' others to the individual users themselves.

Hell, if you want to ask other users who they consider trustworthy, have at it. Use that info to guide your thinking.

[–] • 0 pt

the whole point is leaving the trust to individual users...

This would be like being able to ask all your buddies for every comment if they know this user who posted and them all replying to your inquiry.

[–] • 0 pt

Wow man, you've been eating at engrishishards restaurant to much. Cockgobbling in the dish pit might get you 5% discount, but it takes your soul.

[–] • 0 pt

I don't understand, i don't see bad language too much, and i don't talk about cock.

[–] • 0 pt

Well, you must be new if you don't know that restaurant. Find engrish_is_hard and ask him about it. He'll make you a mod too if you agree to the discount.

[–] • 0 pt

You can sybil attack that very easily. They'll create a "web" of fake users that trust each other, then extend the web to useful idiots who join their web. They'll say whatever they need to in order to fool people. This is why cryptocurrencies didn't exist before proof of stake or proof of work existed. "New" is about as sophisticated as you want to get. All systems can be gamed, and the people who want to corrupt communities know the game. They'll figure it out in about 20 seconds.

[–] • 0 pt

This isn't a "count" of how trusted someone is. If someone trusts someone bad (you see shit contributions that are trusted) then you don't trust them anymore. It is no different than mods, except that you get to pick who you trust.

[–] • 1 pt

Do you have code for this that I can see? The devil is in the details.

[–] • 0 pt

Sorry, i'm a little off today, so this could be wrong, but you get the idea. This would just be for the check, the actual code would have to return the paths that get to a positive result.

def is_trusted(username, trusted_list):
    for trusted in trusted_list:
        if username == trusted:
            return True
        if is_trusted(username, get_trusted_list(trusted)):
            return True
    return False
[–] • 0 pt

Sounds like some blue check jew shit.

[–] • 0 pt

Web of trust only exists when you can confirm trust. A web of trust is impossible here. There would only be cliques used to exclude others. We already have jew mods who do exactly that.

Want a clique, create a sub.