Disagreement is what my web of distrust concept is meant to bring into light. If you disagree with my web of distrust concept, then I challenge you to present a better one.
I am not interested in a construct that is driven by engagement, whether that be likes or reposts. A follow is a clear signal that can be easily withdrawn if trust is broken. Same with the mute. Reports cannot be retracted, so they are a permanent form of dis-engagement.
I agree with the mute and ban, so I agree with the web of distrust. It’s the trust I don’t trust.
Presenting a solid model for aggregated trustworthiness would be more interesting. But only engagement can give you that.
Then it's back to algorithms, which I don't trust. There are no algorithms in my web of distrust.
I am more interested in trust than distrust. Excluding is nice, awarding “value” is better. When looking at aggregated trustworthiness I find that rewarding good behavior has higher value than penalizing bad behavior. Both have value.
I want algos… algos I can build myself from building blocks and make them work for ME, not the advertisers.
The web of distrust would work really well for people seeking to build themselves a safe space, they could decide to trust other people’s distrust and inherit it. #decentnostr
Can you give an example of where you believe an algorithm would be better at curating your feed than a person?
I think it’s important to think feedS. I can interact with Nostr differently depending on what I am trying to achieve.
I want to engage and chit chat… live feed, follows and mutes
I want to catch up on content I might have missed… algos looking at my follows based on parameters set by the user.
I want to discover… algos looking at my network or tribe or global, or something else yet to be thought of… , again entirely configurable by the user.
Right, but in this schema distrust and trust are imbalanced.
You have revocable and irrevocable distrust actions.
Why not also revocable and irrevocable trust actions?
Follow is revocable; repost is irrevocable (though admittedly not a singular act, so can be down-weighted).
