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

©2024 Poal.co

1.4K

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).
[–] • 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.