nostr:npub1jlrs53pkdfjnts29kveljul2sm0actt6n8dxrrzqcersttvcuv3qdjynqn, with respect, “follows of follows” is only one algo. It’s a good base, but even this can be gamed.

Give it time… as networks expand … and bots become friends … because “follow” on social is NOT mark of trust but ONLY a mark of “interest” … FoF will be insufficient.

The problem to solve is NOT whether one algo or another is sufficient. The problem is black boxes and lack of choice.

WITHOUT CHOICE users are stuck with the “haphazard” content filters built into their chosen client.

WITH a WoT standardizing NIP, as I’ve described earlier, end users could CHOOSE and SHARE the filters that work for them.

Trusted friends and open markets are Nostr’s best bet for keeping bots and bad actors at bay.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

What nostr needs is not a WoT algo. An algorithm is an interpretation of data, so that responsibility belongs to clients. What nostr could maybe use is more data. What we currently have:

- Follows

- Lists

- Reports

- Reactions

- Labels

- Reviews

I wouldn't mind seeing new ways to specify explicit delegation of trust, particularly with reference to specific domains (fiction books vs health recommendations for instance). But specifying an algorithm would be centralizing, and is a bad idea.

1-10 how informed are you on this topic?

1-10 how much do you trust this person on this topic?

1-10 how certain are you of your conclusion on this topic, if any?

What is your conclusion on this topic? Enter here or choose from existing

Show me people who see themselves as very informed, are trusted by people I trust on this topic, and yet rate themselves having low certainty.

Central algo bad. Free market of algos = good. Because people are gomna make algos.

nostr:note1aej3d6n9twm7y8vgvq8dq5aahhy0wkc900xpdh8n8a7rsxm0msdspyrf85