Follows are public and commonplace, trust attestations so far are not.
Would you be comfortable publicly sharing who you trust (for something in particular, or in general)?
#asknostr
Discussion
I trust nostr:npub15879mltlln6k8jy32k6xvagmtqx3zhsndchcey8gjyectwldk88sq5kv0n for gardening, preparedness and a levelheaded take on current events.
nostr:npub1u5njm6g5h5cpw4wy8xugu62e5s7f6fnysv0sj0z3a8rengt2zqhsxrldq3 have you encountered pushback regarding privacy?
It is def an issue that is worth considering and sometimes comes up - @mikedilger brought it up in a nostr thread with me a week or a few weeks ago, that he wouldn’t want all of his trust attestations out there for the world to see. I would envision trust attestations to be public in the early versions of the Grapevine, just like follows list; but in later iterations, you will be able to keep some trust attestations private if you wish, in which case your Grapevine can still use them to calculate Influence Scores, curate your content, etc.
One other thing about the Grapevine: I can give you a trust rating based on my personal observation, or I can convey an influence score based on what my Grapevine tells me, and the format of these two pieces of information is the same. Which means you can benefit from my first hand knowledge that I provide to you but at the same time I can have plausible deniability by making it ambiguous whether I’m giving you first hand info versus just telling you what my grapevine told me.
The plausible deniability is one of the things that I consider an essential feature of WoT before we see it really take off and fly; before we see it transition from something that enthusiasts use and get excited about to something that EVERYONE uses bc it works better than anything else.
Follows = Npubs you want to see more of = not spam
Profile lists = You categorizing Npubs in certain categories = filter per category
For what use case are these not enough? #WoT
So you are suggesting that the fact of adding an npub to a specific list is a way of signalling some trust than just a plain follow?
That's already how I use them.
I've got lists of farmers, musicians, devs, etc... and use these as filters depending on the use case.
No real point in creating a list if it's not to categorize Npubs under an umbrella that useful to you.
So if you have a list called "app developers" and you want to find more developers in your network you'd use a DVM/LLM to find for example my "mobile application devs" which are understood to be roughly the same thing?
I think you might already be able to do this with Unleashed (I'm gonna try):
Start with this list (event id) and find mobile apo developpers in the people they know
Not saying this is going to be as as super accurate, just more accurate than humans trying to stay up to date with everyone occupation and trust level.
How about a list of app developers that is curated by your WoT, so you don’t have to curate it yourself? Bc maybe there are some app devs you’ve never heard of.
Nobody
Hesitant...dont want a social graph built about me I like my privacy
Trust for what? There are diff kinds of trust and I trust some people for some things but not on other things.
These concepts are orthogonal. You trust people, and then you know what they're good at (or bad at). Adding up the two makes you trust someone for something.
Question was if you're comfortably sharing this kind of information
On nostr, I would share them.