Peeple sites 'disappear' from web after backlash over app • Hacker News Board

Re: Peeple sites 'disappear' from web after backlash over app

#41

Post by hasenj » Mon, Oct 05, 2015, 7:31 PM UTC

hasenj wrote: post #23

hardwaresofton wrote: post #20

Why do people seem to overwhelmingly consider this such a bad/despicable idea? Doesn't it seem like it would prevent some motivation for people not to be assholes? Are people worried about inevitable misuse (bullying?)? We all do this rating in real life. Sometimes people talk about their ratings of other people with each other ("yeah, I know john, he's really annoying"). You know which of your friends are good and w…

People are more likely to be assholes behind the veil of anonymity.

My bad, I thought the service allowed anonymous reviews!

Re: Peeple sites 'disappear' from web after backlash over app

#42

Post by 1ris » Mon, Oct 05, 2015, 8:23 PM UTC

hardwaresofton wrote: post #20

Why do people seem to overwhelmingly consider this such a bad/despicable idea? Doesn't it seem like it would prevent some motivation for people not to be assholes? Are people worried about inevitable misuse (bullying?)? We all do this rating in real life. Sometimes people talk about their ratings of other people with each other ("yeah, I know john, he's really annoying"). You know which of your friends are good and w…

>Why not make this open knowledge?

To quote John Oliver: "Have you ever been on the Internet?" Because people are vile and and love whitchhuts. They love destroing social reputation and status, witch is you litteraly need to survive.

Re: Peeple sites 'disappear' from web after backlash over app

#43

Post by talles » Mon, Oct 05, 2015, 9:38 PM UTC

On LinkedIn[1]: "Peeple is a POSITIVE ONLY APP. We want to bring positivity and kindness to the world."

On video[2]: "I wouldn't want this app to just be positive (...) we don't live in a fairtale land (...) it would be pointless if it was all positive."

[1]: https://linkedin.com/pulse/julia-cordray-ceo-peeple-creating...

[2]: https://vid.me/ukIW

Re: Peeple sites 'disappear' from web after backlash over app

#44

Post by mdpopescu » Tue, Oct 06, 2015, 9:20 AM UTC

saint_fiasco wrote: post #37

klodolph wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why not make this open knowledge? Suppose Alice tells me that Bob is flaky and can't be relied on. I need a lot of information in order to be able to evaluate that claim. * Maybe Alice and Bob were in a relationship a few months ago, and there was a bad breakup. Alice's experience of Bob would probably be different from my experience of Bob. * Maybe Alice also told me bad things about Carol and Dan, so I think that…

Suppose the app was smart enough to do some clever analysis. For example, if all the people who leave bad reviews of Bob are all friends with each other, it should count as a single bad review (so as to not double-count the evidence), and if Alice left bad reviews of several of your friends, it should know that you will probably find Alice untrustworthy, because she dislikes the people you like. Not that we can trust…

This is something I was thinking about as a solution for traffic violations: have drivers rate each other; increase the "trustworthiness factor" of anyone who thumbs down few people and those people are also negatively rated by others and/or have accidents; decrease the multiplier for those who just negatively rate everybody and so on.

Unfortunately, I think you can hit some mines related to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theore... but who knows? Maybe it won't happen given that you don't want a transitive relation, you want a numeric score for each driver. (Such a score could be used to influence insurance premiums; as an anarchist, I'm generally thinking about solutions for problems like "suppose we don't have patrol cops".)

Re: Peeple sites 'disappear' from web after backlash over app

#45

Post by mdpopescu » Tue, Oct 06, 2015, 9:24 AM UTC

verisimilidude wrote: post #40

hardwaresofton wrote: post #20

Why do people seem to overwhelmingly consider this such a bad/despicable idea? Doesn't it seem like it would prevent some motivation for people not to be assholes? Are people worried about inevitable misuse (bullying?)? We all do this rating in real life. Sometimes people talk about their ratings of other people with each other ("yeah, I know john, he's really annoying"). You know which of your friends are good and w…

Because: (1) People ratings are far too subjective to be considered "knowledge". We have none of the context needed to evaluate the validity of these ratings—the kind of thing you can suss out when gossiping in person. (2) People can and do change, but these ratings would persist. It makes fresh starts and self-improvement that much more difficult. (3) People can and do forgive, but these ratings would serve as perma…

Criminal records have (almost) the same problems; what makes them superior?

Incidentally, you could solve (2) by "dimming" the relevance of a review as time goes on, eventually clearing it altogether. You could also have a "faster dimming speed" for younger people than for older ones, on the grounds that the young are stupid and the old are probably harder to change.

Re: Peeple sites 'disappear' from web after backlash over app

#46

Post by verisimilidude » Tue, Oct 06, 2015, 2:28 PM UTC

mdpopescu wrote: post #45

verisimilidude wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because: (1) People ratings are far too subjective to be considered "knowledge". We have none of the context needed to evaluate the validity of these ratings—the kind of thing you can suss out when gossiping in person. (2) People can and do change, but these ratings would persist. It makes fresh starts and self-improvement that much more difficult. (3) People can and do forgive, but these ratings would serve as perma…

Criminal records have (almost) the same problems; what makes them superior? Incidentally, you could solve (2) by "dimming" the relevance of a review as time goes on, eventually clearing it altogether. You could also have a "faster dimming speed" for younger people than for older ones, on the grounds that the young are stupid and the old are probably harder to change.

Criminal records are presumably based upon written laws, public evaluation of collected evidence, trial, and conviction. That process doesn't always arrive at the right outcome, but at least it strives to be correct. And later, you can find those records and make up your own mind about the person with the rap sheet, if needed.

That can't be the case with personal ratings, because there's no public evaluation or context or validation of each rating.

You talk about "dimming" as if it solves a problem, but what overall problem do personal ratings solve, really? "Dimming" is a solution patched on top of a non-problem. I don't get it.