Oddbean new post about login | logout It's not hard to only count likes/zaps/comments from users in a web of trust (ie only count likes within 2 degrees on my follows) Missing out on fire notes because we can only order by date is ngmi
I agree with you.
Right. It's not that all algorithms are bad. It's the lack of transparency and choice that's bad. We can solve this.
Yes. And. Followed != trusted. So WoT on Nostr will need better measure of “trust” to THEN provide the backbone for transparency and choice in the algos applied. Working on this also… for social onboarding. nostr:note1ta9gzmtewn7jnslhjd8ew9322qp3rnyc56e9a0rj9f0x2ftndxhqcy7dwt
In more-speech I differentiate between follow and trust. I trust my contacts. I follow people and threads by collecting the events in filtered tabs. From: manime<-mazin at 05/08 12:27 > Yes. And. Followed != trusted. > > So WoT on Nostr will need better measure of “trust” to THEN provide the backbone for transparency and choice in the algos applied. Working on this also… for social onboarding. > nostr:note1ta9gzmtewn7jnslhjd8ew9322qp3rnyc56e9a0rj9f0x2ftndxhqcy7dwt CC: fiatjaf CC: Thoreau CC: Derek Ross
What’s more-speech?
https://github.com/unclebob/more-speech From: manime<-mazin at 05/08 14:00 > What’s more-speech? CC: ManiMe CC: fiatjaf CC: Thoreau CC: Derek Ross CC: unclebobmartin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3gQ42aUhls&list=PLB2PP9uiaifzD0ULVx03AkFK8S-2P-q4y&index=2 From: manime<-mazin at 05/08 14:00 > What’s more-speech? CC: ManiMe CC: fiatjaf CC: Thoreau CC: Derek Ross CC: unclebobmartin
The theory of operation of more-speech is: 1. Relays are categorized as trust, web-of-trust, or all. * trust: Only events from those who are trusted (kind 3) are subscribed. * web-of-trust: Only events from those who are trusted, and those whom they trust are subscribed. * All: Every event is subscribed. Users make this choice based upon the volume of the relay. A very high volume relay will have to be constrained to just 'trust'. Moderate volume relays can be relaxed to 'web-of-trust'. Lower volume relays can be set to 'all'. 2. Every event is subject to a set of filters associated with tabs on the display. The filters within a tab can select or block based upon the ids of users, events, or the content of events. So, for example, I can set up a tab that will select for all events mentioning GAZA while also blocking certain nasty people based on their ids. I can also set up a tab that selects for any event sent as a reply to a particular event id -- thus capturing the thread of an event. From: manime<-mazin at 05/08 14:00 > What’s more-speech? CC: ManiMe CC: fiatjaf CC: Thoreau CC: Derek Ross CC: unclebobmartin
This is a very important point that probably has crossed your minds as well. If in a Web of Trust nostr, follow ==trust, I would need to unfollow about 90% of you. nostr:nevent1qqsqqpj47gvgpn4lhvktfjtucnp0z365rzvx29azvt847qr49rwe04cpgdmhxw309ahx7um5wfkxzmnyxfnkgaehvuehjdehvd6xvar0wemxjmphxem8zatfwpuk6mehw3ekxarv0pcxjamtdejhv7nxd9jzummwd9hkuq3q9mun7qwdyjf7qs3456u8kyxncjn5u2n7klpu4utgy68k4aenzj6sxpqqqqqqzp357gm
i also don’t trust anyone to make mute report/mute decisions on my behalf. I would maybe delegate that to one or two other crazy trusted person, but even then.
IMO there should only be explicit mutes + WoT. Mutelists are pure cancer, web2 tech
calling nostr kind 3 follow list a Web of Trust is a misnomer since we don't "trust" them in the traditional sense. Its more like we "trust" them to not post spam, or we trust them to post things we could be interested in IMO it would be better to call kind:3 follow lists a Web of not Spam. but that doesn't sound as catchy
It seems clear we need some sort of alternative "trusted contact list" NIP. This would also be useful for stuff like app binary distribution if we replace pgp verification.
Truth. we are mostly shady af money transmitter types
I'm late to reply here but kind3 of a trusted npub is good enough to assume that an npub isn't a spammer which is all I care about at the relay level. Sort of a bare minimum trust implemention that can easily be improved but already does a lot for us when it comes to stopping spam
This is a hot topic. Every time I post about it people have interesting takes. You are not alone in thinking “follow is good enough”. And still others have much more elaborate ideas for measuring trust. I should host some more panel discussions …
Would have to see the details. What I meant was that centralized, static mutelists are cancer. Dynamically andalgorithmically deciding wether or not to mute sounds more like WoT-ish unless it takes other parameters into account.
either you embrace chaos or accept making joining the crowd impossible for anonymous people (like myself) you can't "trust" an anonymous user
Anon != untrusted. I practically only trust anons.
If you overcomplicate it at the protocol level, it will be a huge mess and no one will use it.
This is not true. We all use lots of things everyday that are complicated under the hood. Complicated at the protocol level != complicated for users.
Popular complicated protocols had corporate backing and no organic adoption. Nostr does not have that luxury.
Bitcoin is complicated at the protocol level, from the perspective of the vast majority of users. If Satoshi had pitched the idea over coffee in 2008, how many of us would have rejected it off the bat as something no one will ever use bc it’s “too complicated?” It is a mistake, one that is frequently made, to reject proposals out of hand bc they’re “too complicated” without considering what that means. Too complicated for users? Too complicated for developers?
From the perspective of users, everything is complicated. My point is that if it's complicated for devs as well, no devs will even work with it.
All attempts at getting WoT to work ever since PGP release in 1991 have been dismal failures. It’s like we’re trying to fly before the Wright brothers showed us how. Or calculate Mercury’s orbit before Einstein showed us how. Or get e-cash to work before Satoshi showed us how. Whatever we’re missing, we need to figure it out. And the right answer might very well appear too complicated at first glance.
This is true, and why I don't think we will ever have a true digital representation of "trust" The best we hope to build in highly specific contextual "trust" links For example. I trust this guy as a dev, or I trust this guy on X topic The issue is I don't think you can just build a generic "trust" rating app and call it a day. because the trust scores need to be updated periodically and you cant ask users to "review" their friends or trust scores. too much friction
If you let the perfect be the enemy of good, we'll never get anywhere. Approximated trust is better than the status quo IMO
its not a matter of making a good enough solution. its that if we are to find a good solution it has to be effortless for users to update their trust scores after the fact. even to the point where they don't even know they are doing it The best example would be un-following someone because they posted something you don't like and never want to see. thats a form of updating your trust score but without the user even thinking about it because it doesn't matter how fancy the UI in the app is. your never going to get a user to look at a list of users and remove the ones they don't trust anymore
If you let the perfect be the enemy of good, we'll never get anywhere. Approximated trust is better than the status quo IMO
its not a matter of making a good enough solution. its that if we are to find a good solution it has to be effortless for users to update their trust scores after the fact. even to the point where they don't even know they are doing it The best example would be un-following someone because they posted something you don't like and never want to see. thats a form of updating your trust score but without the user even thinking about it because it doesn't matter how fancy the UI in the app is. your never going to get a user to look at a list of users and remove the ones they don't trust anymore
Good that I'm not in charge 😉
It sucks if it's not interoperable, it's kind of antiethical
Bitcoin is complicated at the protocol level, from the perspective of the vast majority of users. If Satoshi had pitched the idea over coffee in 2008, how many of us would have rejected it off the bat as something no one will ever use bc it’s “too complicated?” It is a mistake, one that is frequently made, to reject proposals out of hand bc they’re “too complicated” without considering what that means. Too complicated for users? Too complicated for developers?
From the perspective of users, everything is complicated. My point is that if it's complicated for devs as well, no devs will even work with it.
All attempts at getting WoT to work ever since PGP release in 1991 have been dismal failures. It’s like we’re trying to fly before the Wright brothers showed us how. Or calculate Mercury’s orbit before Einstein showed us how. Or get e-cash to work before Satoshi showed us how. Whatever we’re missing, we need to figure it out. And the right answer might very well appear too complicated at first glance.
either you embrace chaos or accept making joining the crowd impossible for anonymous people (like myself) you can't "trust" an anonymous user
Anon != untrusted. I practically only trust anons.