all 19 comments

[–]d3rr 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

This user tagging stuff sounds pretty close to what RES can do: https://old.reddit.com/r/Enhancement/wiki/index/users/user_tagger

[–]AmericanMuskrat 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

I wish for my category to be royalty so all the peasant swine class may not bother me.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

I hereby dub thee, American Princess Muskrat, now and forever, liberated from bother, and pig pens.

Now all you have to do is create your own decentralized instance to make it all come true.

[–]AmericanMuskrat 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

[–]socks 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Wow - well-written. Perhaps initially, subs could opt in or out of this filtering method.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Though I don't know who might want that, it's certainly a good additional custom preference/feature, if it were possible either in SaidIt/Lemmy code, or simply via keywords easily found in the sidebox and respected by ethical mirrors. In websites a decade or more ago we used have similar things to keep web-spiders from crawling over parts of your site, assuming they respected that.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (11 children)

Factions. The weight of a vote should depend on the faction of the voter.

Votes from an enemy faction should mean nothing. Votes from friendly or neutral factions could be worth less than the ones from one's own faction. A faction should be allowed to decide how much it values votes from every other faction.

Different factions may have different entry requirement, participation rules and rituals. All newbies should be placed in the newbie faction. A faction is necessary for voting. For personalization, people should be allowed to give any faction a value that differs from their own faction's settings.

For further personalization, for people marked as friends and enemies, the value of their votes should be counted as if they were members of these groups instead of their real faction. For even more personalization, provide users an ability to create more custom groups. Let them subscribe to custom groups created by other users. Let them assign mods for their groups.

Faction would reveal how users see themselves. Groups would show how users see other users. I'm not suggesting for this to be implemented on Saidit. Just a random idea.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (10 children)

Interesting "random idea".

I believe the data generated from my MetaVote™ concept could automatically ultimately determine factions and circles of common interests and such. The technocracy currently has all our data - meanwhile all we've got is 2 votes, some topical subs, and no metatags. This morning I finally explained the basics of MetaVote™ to /u/d3rr who can tell you honestly if he thinks MetaVote™ is a good idea or not. I guarantee it's a monster-load of work to develop and bring to the masses - but it's for a qualitative info-revolution for the people, assuming it were to catch on and/or not be suppressed to keep us stupid.

But that's a long way off - if it even goes public and/or gets off the ground.

I'm not a fan of tribalism nor division, despite the reality they exist. M7 has stated he'd like to start several other sites, for better or worse (without fair, open, and accountable social management systems). I've pointed out above that anyone can start their own mirror/fork. If anything, these new sites should be the factions that would fork off SaidIt (I like saying "fork off"). Unless you're referring to making a new tiered filter system.

I can't even get people to answer a survey or to join me in a weekly protest meme, so I don't expect you'll have much luck forming factions via participation. Most SaidIt folks want to be informed, not involved. IMO automatically generated tiers/factions seem best. Also, SaidIt generally aims to be non-partisan despite obvious allegiances of many and IMO that's one of the best features - so it would be a shame to spoil that.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

so I don't expect you'll have much luck forming factions via participation

Lemmy is for leftists.

Creating good open forums is dangerous. I won't make one unless I'm forced to.

No one likes tribalism, but it is too easy to introduce. If you don't shape the way, someone else will.

My factions would allow people to have completely different experience on one same site. They could even use different front pages with different addresses. Several sites united in one.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

Lemmy is software for anyone, not just Leftists - unless you know something I don't.

IIRC /u/d3rr said there were now Alt-Right instances of Lemmy.

Most importantly SaidIt needs to evolve to survive the future.

Lemmy is well supported, but few support old-Reddit code. I don't know what the stats are.

Lemmy is decentralized. We could all co-host our own community - and ban STABs secretly like M7, or openly, or however you want on your own instance. Not all of our instances need to be open. Some "factions" could have dedicated filtration instances as "dangerous" proving grounds before being invited to the next level as outlined in this post.

No one likes tribalism, but it is too easy to introduce. If you don't shape the way, someone else will.

I agree. The worst will shape the way if they can - the corporatocracy.

I'm all ears for alternatives and solutions. Feel free to improve my ideas. That's why I'm putting them out there.

This is a discussion forum. IMO we should also be discussing our future instead of depending on and waiting for M7. M7 and D3 have brought us much thus far. We need to help them now too, IMO.

My factions would allow people to have completely different experience on one same site. They could even use different front pages with different addresses.

That may have been what M7 was thinking of. Sounds like decentralized instances sharing the same content, though I'd be surprised if some factions didn't filter out and cut off some of the content they don't like. Alternatively, ideally, if they all shared all the content then, if they must, they could create internal filters and generally keep the database complete and shared.

Several sites united in one.

IFTFY: Several separate sites united by one database sharing system - decentralized.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

I'd be surprised if some factions didn't filter out and cut off some of the content they don't like

Why stop at cutting some content, why no cut people? And those who associate with them. And those who support them. And those who don't condemn them. The ability to share content isn't enough.

One server. Several sites rely on it. They ban different people. Vote for different content. Yet everything they create, is shared and can be used by a neutral party.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

Cutting content includes cutting those who post and comment because of their content.

Just like on Mastodon and other decentralized platforms, echo chambers will form, as they're free to do so.

A central server is problematic as a target for perpetual attack. One shared federation is better, more flexible, and more resilient. Yes, some could vote democratically (with related problems), some could rule with an iron fist (with related problems), and some could have a trusted-team with fair, open, and accountable social management systems (with related problems).

I don't know of what neutral party you mean, but I like that it's all openly shared.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

An echo chamber where all removed content is available with a click, downvotes can't be abuse and moving to a slightly less radical faction unlocks more content with no downsides.

Decentralization is good. But all illegal content has to be removed. Or else. Even if all files have to be external, illegal content could be stored at obscure servers with no obvious owner. Can't sue them, will sue you.

An ability to download and clone all content could be useful though, for emergencies. I'm not advocating for literally one server, but the system needs to have the ability to remove illegal content without the ability to remove unwanted content.

Neutrals are those whom radicals want to recruit, not ban. They can interact with both poles, and subtly deradicalize them.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

where all removed content is available with a click, downvotes can't be abuse

I love this. I've been thinking about this too as it relates to my MetaVote idea. I was thinking that instead of hard echo chambers there might be a way to ratio their content to also include a small percentage of the best rated content from the other side for opening minds - thus hopefully bringing them together. I may share a text outline which would do it an disservice as it's a simple GUI interface too and also needs animation to really showcase how revolutionary it would be.

I do like the auto-archive all content idea. Decentralization and illegal content might be better managed if it were encrypted. All media would have to go through the forum that would unlock it, while being impossible for anyone to just look at the archives. Remove the key and it would then be locked away scrambled and anonymous forever, and maybe unlocked only to be scrubbed.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

include a small percentage of the best rated content from the other side for opening minds

Radicals won't accept this. They only listen to their slightly less radical compatriots.

I do like the auto-archive all content idea.

Auto-archive is a nice name. Hard to argue against.

illegal content might be better managed if it were encrypted

In theory yes. But in practice, which authority would tolerate the existence of a server, or a network, filled with encrypted illegal content?

and maybe unlocked only to be scrubbed

An interesting idea. If no community accepts the responsibility, just remove it. But what if some community is malicious? You could arrest its administration, but the content still exists. What now?

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

include a small percentage of the best rated content from the other side for opening minds

Radicals won't accept this. They only listen to their slightly less radical compatriots.

Radical factions are not entirely made up of radicals. Those who question can peak in secret. Besides, it wouldn't matter if it wasn't their site, and if it was they could tweak it as they see fit.

illegal content might be better managed if it were encrypted

In theory yes. But in practice, which authority would tolerate the existence of a server, or a network, filled with encrypted illegal content?

Who would know? Moreover, you wouldn't keep it long. People report it as illegal, it gets muted, admins verify and it gets scrubbed or restored because someone was wrong, intentionally or by accident.

and maybe unlocked only to be scrubbed

An interesting idea. If no community accepts the responsibility, just remove it. But what if some community is malicious? You could arrest its administration, but the content still exists. What now?

The encrypted media would need to come from the original source site who only holds the key, even if it has already been decentralized and shared. Anyone could report it to mute it, but only the source could unlock it or scrub it. After a time period (ie. a week) or a number of views (ie. a million) without being reported it would be pretty safe to say it's not illegal content and the key could be released. If one slips by somehow then there should of course be a way to scrub and report it to others sharing it.

If there are problematic trolls or communities, then report them to the authorities if you can trust them. Or if problems are common, make sure that the fray must earn their rights to post unfiltered as a civilian. If it's a community then filter them off your instance site.

It's not simple, but there's always a way.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

/u/magnora7,
This is the new idea that I was talking about last week, very different than the fair social management stuff.