Replying to protocolSociety

Great feedback and I like the idea of tactile scoring (drag finger).

I agree that we cant expect a user to score all content the user come across. Id argue that this is a feature and not a bug. If the user don’t score some content but score other content, then the scored content is automatically more worthy of attention. One could think of the score not of as a bad/good but as a low/high attention value. SPAM would simply get zero score, because it doesn’t even have negative value… it’s just some sort of nothing-noise.
Avatar
Greg 1y ago 💬 1

This would definitely work, but I think this would ultimately build the type of media we currently have. Posts that garner the most attention (clickbait, ragebait) would be curated to the top of the list, instead of posts the user finds value in/enjoys.

It’s hard to make such a system. If we were to use this attention-based feed, maybe we need “someone” who knows us. They know we’re republican, yet we spent 30 minutes reading and replying to a democratic blog post. Our comments were angry and without consideration.

If there were an AI model capable of capturing these details, then maybe it would show us a bit less of the content that makes us angry.

Though, this would lead to a very narrow perspective of the world as we’d only see republican content in this case. Really hard to solve this lol.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

f5
protocolSociety 1y ago

Hm… why do you believe that posts that user finds value in, would get lower attention compared to posts (clickbait, etc) that user finds less value in?

Me personally I would neither like, nor zap and probably click delete on clickbait-shit-posts… and my peers wouldnt get that spam from me.

Users/peers sending me that type of spam I would block or at least downgrade.

If I find users that behave the same, and we help curate the content, why would we get more clickbate/spam?