Nostr Web Client

Primarily implicit, but things like "I trust this person to curate this kind of content for me" could be useful to add additional weighting to WoT calculation. But it has to be something people will bother to maintain.

ManiMe 1y ago

Hodlbod, I recognize your concerns about maintaining “webs of trust”, and for most people this just “needs to work” without maintenance.

However, I don’t see a realistic (usable and trusted) WoT solution without an affordance for the end user to be the final arbiter in every instance of “is this a trusted follow”.

I imagine something like an “is_trusted” flag could be added to kind3 p tags… (after petname) AND that WoT lists COULD be determined algorithmically without this flag being set. Having the flag set “true” simply would override the WoT algo on a case by case… they could even feed back to the users own WoT algo as a “bump up” for a follow that “is_trusted” by one of the users “is_trusted” follows.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

hodlbod 1y ago

WoT is a heuristic, it doesn't need to be exhaustive. One way to state the goal is to remove 98% of what the user doesn't want to see, and produce recommendations that are more than 10% likely to be relevant. Implicit web of trust is enough for that. Explicit additions may be a useful addition, but probably won't ever result in more than a 1% improvement (still huge) over either metric above.

ManiMe 1y ago

Now that is nice! I’d love to see those numbers.

But there’s more to consider in a real world “trusted” WoT implementation (at scale, on a network whose new user retention will entirely depend on them being “included” at day one into a “trusted” network) than a quantified difference between algo derived WoT lists and “human in charge” WoT lists.

Because WoT will likely end up first in line during new user orientation, and talked about constantly (Custom content filters are already a claim to fame for bluesky, and Nostr’s will be even better.) the tools for implementing WoT will need to also be front and center. Easy to understand, discover, and use.

IMHO, giving people an “is trusted” checkbox for their follows, and saying “this controls your web of trust” will be the ideal on-ramp for getting them to the understand that (client configurable) content filters are ALSO working behind the scenes suggesting their “trustworthy” sources.

What I’m pointing out is a UX flow for getting people to make use of WoT, so that nostr can survive the long haul. This is the “other thing to consider”.

ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 1y ago

doesn't following someone automatically exclude them from being auto-muted by WoT?

ManiMe 1y ago

“Wouldn’t” is the term, cause fiatjaf is only proposing code… and I don’t know how he (or you) wd implement, without a NIP as guidance … AND relays and client should be free to implement “opt in” filters in all different ways.

However, the more important point to make is that algos will never replace human judgement. They may suggest, and even stand in when asked, but they will always fall short.

So, in the end, it doesn’t matter what the filter rule “should do”, because filters “should” be transparent for end users to choose and configure.

Pick a different one, or none at all, to feed the content you desire.

ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 1y ago

you have a very special way of saying absolutely nothing with a lot of words

ManiMe 1y ago

Sorry… god made me this way.

ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 1y ago

and you can just follow people and that adds them to the calculation and unmutes them