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

©2024 Poal.co

247

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)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (35).
[–] • 0 pt

Right now we actually have this on poal, but only one person marks people (aou).

And there in is the problem. I myself bear a scarlet letter from AOU and all it signifies is that he lost an argument with me and got his feelings hurt and lashed out with an abuse of admin power... Does that mean you should ignore me? Trust is, by it's nature, a personal matter. There are no short cuts. If you rely on 'fact checkers' or 'group consensus' or a 'web of trust' then you are just opening yourself up to being deluded or deceived.

[–] • 0 pt

So under the current system you are marked. in my system you just wouldn't be trusted by aou, as long as someone else i trusted trusted you i would "trust" you through the tree, it doesn't matter if people don't trust you (the default value).

Another way to do this would be in the other direction, if the "block" lists were public then we could "subscribe" so a users block list so that we filter out the bad people (or mark them).

I actually don't block anyone, but wouldn't mind a way to write notes about people i have negative encounters with.

[–] • 0 pt

Any which way you slice it, you are talking about a process where you aggregate other people's opinions in order to form your own. These days we have so many bad actors, shills, plants, feds, trolls, etc. that I do not think this is wise.

Now, in times like these, it is even more important to not take short cuts with your trust. My opinion. Take it for as much as you trust it.

[–] • 0 pt

i would say that if it was "an amount of trust" you might have a point, but if it is just a "yes" or "no" then it isn't consensus building unless you are going out of your way to block dissenting opinions. Also, i would just like to mark them, not demote or block them; and to reiterate, this mark would be on a different set of users for each user.