101–110 of 757 posts
I'd argue that a cross-internet reputation service would fix this problem. 1. The reputation system is affected by voting on all sites in which you participate. 2. The history of your participation across sites is viewable in your history (ala reddit, HN) 3. Your reputation is displayed with you participation wherever you participate. Sites could then put reputation limits only allowing users above a certain reputati…
So there’s really no way to solve this. There is a way to contain it somewhat: create homogeneous bubbles. Which is what we’ve been observing over the past few years.
It's worth noting that instead of community management, Reddit has been soft-pivoting to become a new Facebook with features like group chat, new profile designs, and a News Feed-esque view on the official mobile apps. Incidentally, Facebook itself hasn't solved the problem of its community/fake news, hence the recent algorithmic changes to the News Feed to surface more content from friends, and a public push toward…
So we've tried: - Real identities (Facebook comments) - Voting and self moderation (Reddit, HN, etc.) - Strong moderation (Reddit, HN) They all result in toxic comments, trolling, an echo chamber,or worse, a complete lack of participation. There's no real solution to this problem. However, if you create consequences or a cost to commenting you'd eliminate toxic comments and trolling at the cost of less participation…
I'd argue that a cross-internet reputation service would fix this problem. 1. The reputation system is affected by voting on all sites in which you participate. 2. The history of your participation across sites is viewable in your history (ala reddit, HN) 3. Your reputation is displayed with you participation wherever you participate. Sites could then put reputation limits only allowing users above a certain reputati…
I'd argue that a cross-internet reputation service would fix this problem. 1. The reputation system is affected by voting on all sites in which you participate. 2. The history of your participation across sites is viewable in your history (ala reddit, HN) 3. Your reputation is displayed with you participation wherever you participate. Sites could then put reputation limits only allowing users above a certain reputati…
So you're suggesting the Black Mirror Nose dive approach?
I'd argue that a cross-internet reputation service would fix this problem. 1. The reputation system is affected by voting on all sites in which you participate. 2. The history of your participation across sites is viewable in your history (ala reddit, HN) 3. Your reputation is displayed with you participation wherever you participate. Sites could then put reputation limits only allowing users above a certain reputati…
So we've tried: - Real identities (Facebook comments) - Voting and self moderation (Reddit, HN, etc.) - Strong moderation (Reddit, HN) They all result in toxic comments, trolling, an echo chamber,or worse, a complete lack of participation. There's no real solution to this problem. However, if you create consequences or a cost to commenting you'd eliminate toxic comments and trolling at the cost of less participation…
Relate 'karma' to the ability to post at all? More karma, more posting; less karma, less posting. Everyone starts every month/week/day with only so much, no roll-over per timeframe. Modify it so that 'popular' threads cost more to post in. You can give karma to others too via the upvote and take it away with a downvote, but still no roll-over. Troll/shill accounts would still get upped around en masse , but less so a…
I'd argue that a cross-internet reputation service would fix this problem. 1. The reputation system is affected by voting on all sites in which you participate. 2. The history of your participation across sites is viewable in your history (ala reddit, HN) 3. Your reputation is displayed with you participation wherever you participate. Sites could then put reputation limits only allowing users above a certain reputati…
And how will you solve brigading? All it takes is two large groups disagreeing on something, and your reputation goes down the drain if you're in the slightly smaller group.
I'd argue that a cross-internet reputation service would fix this problem. 1. The reputation system is affected by voting on all sites in which you participate. 2. The history of your participation across sites is viewable in your history (ala reddit, HN) 3. Your reputation is displayed with you participation wherever you participate. Sites could then put reputation limits only allowing users above a certain reputati…
- You've just created opportunities for sites who don't participate to attract customers. "No reputation requirements, we don't judge you". Great for curated niches, bad for mass market.
- People with diverging but still main stream political views getting their reputation docked by those in the other camp who control the site. It can flow both ways. Reputation starts to get linked to the echo chamber, in that those who don't echo the same get docked.
- Someone hacks you and starts messing up your rep across multiple sites.