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

©2024 Poal.co

471

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

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.

[–] • 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.