bootstrap

Sure, so bake in a set of default “mods” whose influence goes away as people interact with the moderator system. Start with a CSAM bot, for example (fairly common on Reddit, so there’s plenty of prior art here), and allow users to manually opt-in to make those moderators permanent.

pure web of trust

I don’t think anyone wants a pure web of trust, since that relies on absolute trust of peers, and in a system like a message board, you won’t have that trust.

Instead, build it with transitive trust, weighting peers based on how much you align with them, and trust those they trust as bit less, and so on.

easily gameable

Maybe? That really depends on how you design it. If you require a lot of samples before trusting someone (e.g. samples where you align on votes), the bots would need to be pretty long-lived to build clout. And at some point, someone is bound to notice bot-like behaviour and report it, which would impact how much it impacts visible content.

DDOS

That can happen with any P2P system, yet it’s not that common of a problebut

it probably would have a UX that’s very different from reddit

I don’t see why it would. All you need is:

• agree/disagree - by default, would have little impact on moderation
• relevance up/down (this is your agree/disagree metric)
• report for rules violation (users could tune how much they care about different report categories)
• star/favorite - dramatically increases your trust of that user

Reddit/lemmy has everything but a distinction between agree/disagree and relevant/irrelevant. People tend to use votes as agree/disagree regardless, so having a distinction could lead to better moderation.

You’d need to tweak the weights, but the core algorithm doesn’t need to be super complex, just keep track of the N most aligned users and some number of “runners up” so you have a pool to swap the top group with when you start aligning more with someone else. Keep all of that local and drop posts/comments that don’t meet some threshold.

It’s way more complex than centralized moderation and will need lots of iteration to tune properly, but I think it can work reasonably well at scale since everything is local.

People have the capacity to track genres and whatnot, what’s so different about this?

I think people could understand if explained probably, but unfortunately journalists rarely dive deeply enough to do that. It really doesn’t need to get too involved:

• machine learning - tell an algorithm what it’s allowed to change and what a “good” output is and it’ll handle the rest to find the best solution
• Bayesian networks - probability of an event given a previous event; this is the underpinnings of LLMs
• LLM - similar to Bayesian networks, but with a lot more data

And so on. If people can associate a technology with common applications, it’ll work a lot more like genres and people will start to intuit limitations of various technologies.

I’ve thought about this idea for my own project, and my best solution is to have a network of trust where people rely on curation from their peers and thus only see the content their peers have approved.

The main benefit is also the main downside: content you disagree with is still there, you just don’t see it. That means there could absolutely be pockets of CSAM and other content on the network, but your average user wouldn’t have that on their system since they only store curated content.

I’m not sure how I feel about that, but I think it’s the best you can do without centralized moderation.

Sure, I’m just not sure if it’s more or less often than when it’s equivalent. It’s frequent enough that you should be careful if quality is what you’re after.

No, mostly because I don’t like MP games. Interacting with randoms just isn’t my idea of a good time.

However, I like the idea.

In the US, Turo is basically that.

But sometimes the nicer packaged product is better, it depends on the product.

Sometimes it’s made with lower quality ingredients at the same factory, sometimes it’s equivalent.

I imagine Turo is now very similar to AirBnB in most areas, as in these are dedicated rentals, just owned by individuals instead of chains.

And all those uses are correct, because AI is a broad field. We should just use the more specific terms these days though: machine learning, LLM, Bayesian networks, etc.

Ideally, upvotes are for content that adds to the discussion, not for things you agree with. Nobody actually uses it that way, but I think that’s the most useful way for them to be used, outside of specific poll posts.

deported to an El Salvador slave camp.

That’s the absolutely horrendous part, and you should be criticizing those camps. This detention center isn’t that.

Deporting people en masse is genocide.

That’s not true. This is what genocide means:

genocide: The systematic and widespread extermination or attempted extermination of a national, racial, religious, or ethnic group.

Deportation is the national version of trespassing someone from a property. It’s not murder.

The conservative justices are loyal to the Republican party.

They’re really not. Their interests do often align, but that’s not because they’re taking orders from the GOP. If the GOP was actually able to tell them what to do, they’d side w/ Trump way more often.

they voted to kill

That’s not what they did.

They largely voted for protectionism (save our jobs/businesses/etc), and now they’re feeling the results of that.

Only a small subset of Republicans are actually racist. I’m sure the same is true among Democrats as well.

Absolutely beside myself at your cavalier attitude

Why? Because I refuse to jump on the Republican hate bandwagon? I’m not going to stoop to dangerous rhetoric to try to scare/shame people to my viewpoint.

I strongly disagree with Republicans on policy, but more importantly I see the two party system as the real problem here. Shilling one side over another just perpetuates that system and merely swings the pendulum the other way.

So no, I’m not going to buy into that nonsense. And my state is doing quite well, despite the best efforts of our legislature.

That’s fair, I didn’t like the controls much either, but I got used to it after a while.

The story progresses pretty similarly to Ocarina of Time:

1. Tutorial island where you can explore and learn controls
2. Three worlds to explore
3. Big plot event after 2
4. Return to worlds from 2, but expanded
5. Final dungeon

I’m obviously skipping stuff and keeping things intentionally vague to avoid spoilers, my point is it felt like it followed a similar formula.

Then I guess I don’t understand your problem.

Payment processors like Visa and Mastercard control a huge chunk of the market, which gives them a lot of say in what transactions are allowed. Even if you avoid credit, most debit cards go through those two companies, so they can restrict what transactions you can make.

With cryptocurrencies, there’s no restriction at the point of sale. Your problem seems to be that converting crypto to fiat could be problematic, and they’d potentially be stuck with “useless” currency. My point is that’s a much easier problem to solve:

• if their exchange stops converting a given currency, they can convert to one they do accept
• if their exchange bans their account (e.g. due to the nature of their business), they can switch exchanges
• there are ATMs that dispense cash for crypto
• if no exchange will work with them, they can make direct exchanges with regular people (i.e. “launder” the money)
• they can also spend the currency directly

There are a ton of options to convert crypto to fiat, there are far fewer to select a different fiat payment processor.

Yeah, that’s just nuts.

I’m the same. I care about celebrities only to the extent of what they’re known for. Why bother going deeper than that? It’s not like his criminal record is very relevant to his basketball records.

How many brown people do you want to die

How many have or are likely to die due to this? That would obviously depend on the duration of detention, and I honestly don’t know much about that, but these people should have the right of due process since they’re on US soil (5th and 14th amendments). So they can’t just be incarcerated indefinitely (habeas corpus), they’d have to be tried or released in a timely fashion.

The Holocaust differs in so many ways:

• were largely labor camps, which later became extermination camps - as a detention facility, this means people are not convicted and therefore legally protected under the 13th amendment from forced labor; likewise, capital punishment only applies to those convicted
• people taken w/o violating any actual crimes - the detention facility is for those suspected of immigration crimes
• the intent was genocide - intent for detention facility is temporary holding until people can be tried or deported

It’s not remotely the same thing, and comparing them is ridiculous rhetoric. Comparing everything the right does to Nazism and the Holocaust is intellectually dishonest, meant to convince someone to your side through emotional language instead of facts.

If there are deaths, they’re going to be incidental to incarceration, as in people already in poor health dying due to added stress of incarceration or something, and not something directly done by the guards.

Rather, they are, legally, but they’re being prevented from doing so anyway.

And unfortunately, that’s something that’s going to have to be worked out in the courts. According to US law, they must be subject to audit to ensure Constitutional Law is being followed.

Democrats are weak

True, but I’m not sure what this has to do w/ anything.

The Big Beautiful Bill includes a provision that judicial funds cannot be used to pursue rulings. This passed, so, if it can’t be repealed, this means it is illegal to use funds intended to punish criminals to seek punishment for Republicans breaking the law. This kills the law.

If that’s accurate (I haven’t reviewed it), then that provision will likely be struck down by a court. You can’t just hamstring the branch of the government that decides whether law is constitutional and expect them to just roll over, even the conservative Supreme Court would very likely strike this down.

If the majority of Republicans are not evil, as you say, then they should have no problem dropping the line.

And they have been. Look at Trump’s approval rating. I live in a very red state, and he has a net negative approval rating here, which is absolutely bonkers. This will have an impact on the next couple elections, but it’s hard to tell what the actual results will be. But if Trump keeps pissing off his base, it could get very spicy indeed.

If its simple enough, I could probably abuse it to send binary data by encoding everything in base64 or something, and writing a simple translator for whatever my app is.

But what does the usable bandwidth look like, and what about latency? If I’m going just out of range from direct communication, I assume I’d be going through other peoples’ nodes, but is that intelligent enough to route messages through efficiently? Or could I see crazy latency spikes?

You keep making this mistake. I’m starting to think you’re doing it deliberately.

It’s not a mistake, I see that type of language a lot. If the language was specifically “Russia does X”, then it’s not a problem, because it’s referring to the government.

The idea that a people are the same as their country is nationalism. How are you battling nationalism by preventing people from saying a country’s name?

Nationalism sucks, and I’m trying to distinguish between the country doing a thing (i.e. its leadership) and the people doing a thing. The people in the US elected Trump, but the people in the US aren’t doing what Trump did, so it’s absolutely fallacious to say something like “Americans are deporting people,” when that’s being done by the administration, not everyday people.

That’s it.

would the racist not assume that the Isreali people elected him and thus agree with him anyway?

Sure, maybe. But a lot more people would get riled up if we said “Israelis did this,” and then associate that with random Jewish people (most of whom have probably never been to Israel). Netanyahu/Israel doing a thing is quite different from Israelis doing a thing, because the latter has a lot more risk of lumping in non-Israelis into that nonsense.

Racism is certainly deeper than a headline/misconception, my point is that it can be stoked by loose language. Its that loose language that I’d like people to be more careful about.

What’s wrong w/ collapsing the price of gold? Gold is super useful since it doesn’t oxidize, so it’s fantastic in electronics and space stuff. Making that cheaper would be awesome.