If there were 21 people each zapping 1 sat, then it would be different. The more people liking mean the more people found this post a little bit helpful.
Discussion
This.
This makes sense. I was thinking something similar, that 21 like, is 21 people. 1 person zapping is only one person.
One other question.
Do you evaluate a like differently if:
* you can only like
* you can zap and like as well
I think if a zap seems automated, I donβt value it as much. I get some zaps that are like 5 sats every time and that seems to indicate that they are autozaps. My mind disregards them. Pretty much anything below 100 sats feels like spam even though it could be a person zapping 21 sats or 69 sats π
And auto likes? π
If they were occasional auto likes, I might not be able to tell and would treat them as legit likes.
But, if someone is liking all of my notes or even too many notes, Iβd probably ignore them. Itβs weird to like everything someone says. To me that just feels like spam or kissing ass.
I think the same.
So for me, like and zap are tools. They both can have different usecases.
Both can be overused.
At the end, the meaning is important.
Automatic stuff has less meaning.
If someone likes everything, it also has no meaning.
If you can like and zap, you can attach different meaning to them, compared to the "traditional" system.
Also the problem with likes is, its easy to "create" them. Maybe we shall add proof of work to likes to show that we mean that like by mining it. Would be an interesting concept. Still it would be "free" to give, because you only pay your electricity. You don't have to use additional money, but it would have kind of a proof in it.
I also use likes as acknowledgments. Liking a note can mean I read it and saw what you had to say. I may agree with it in full, partially or not at all. That person will never know which it is. But, that only applies if they reply to me.
If Iβm not the opposite party in a conversation then itβs most definitely an agreement about their statement - again partial or full.
