Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wait, WUT?

x.naveen.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 46 posts

Re: Wait, WUT?

#31

Post by stephengillie »

chippy wrote: post #22

What we need is a form of anonymous / pseudo-anonymous reputation brokerage. Tokens that identify not a person, but how trusted or how well liked that token has been used. You control your tokens, what networks, where they are used. An older token is worth more to you, and to others that see it. The values associated to a token varies depending on the tokens around it. Upvotes, downvotes, activities, flags from the v…

That token breaks the very anonymity in the first place. The very essence of anonymity is having no reputation, no information whatsoever.

Re: Wait, WUT?

#32

Post by frozen_tomato »

chippy wrote: post #22

What we need is a form of anonymous / pseudo-anonymous reputation brokerage. Tokens that identify not a person, but how trusted or how well liked that token has been used. You control your tokens, what networks, where they are used. An older token is worth more to you, and to others that see it. The values associated to a token varies depending on the tokens around it. Upvotes, downvotes, activities, flags from the v…

I wholeheartedly disagree with this, what you're essentially describing is just watered down identity. The whole point of the value of anonymity is that all posts are equal.

Re: Wait, WUT?

#33

Post by TeMPOraL »

kennywinker wrote: post #21
aniro wrote: post #18

I am not really sure what people mean when they say "anonymous" anymore. This app requires a Facebook account. Facebook is a service that all but defines itself on identity verification.

Anonymous to your friends, not anonymous to the service or law enforcement. There should be a word for this... maybe "pseudoanonymous"?

Because this is the default case, we need another word for the hypothetical "anonymous to all, including law enforcement and intelligence agencies". perfect anonymity?

Re: Wait, WUT?

#34

Post by TeMPOraL »

frozen_tomato wrote: post #32
chippy wrote: post #22

What we need is a form of anonymous / pseudo-anonymous reputation brokerage. Tokens that identify not a person, but how trusted or how well liked that token has been used. You control your tokens, what networks, where they are used. An older token is worth more to you, and to others that see it. The values associated to a token varies depending on the tokens around it. Upvotes, downvotes, activities, flags from the v…

I wholeheartedly disagree with this, what you're essentially describing is just watered down identity. The whole point of the value of anonymity is that all posts are equal.

This is unrealistic and won't work in practice. If all posts are equal then all posts are equally worthless. It's a sad but basic truth that we need identity and ability to accumulate reputation to be able to hold a meaningful, informative conversation. If everyone is fully anonymous (in a stateless sense), then everyone is basically a "random internet dude".

Re: Wait, WUT?

#35

Post by wtbob »

stephengillie wrote: post #31
chippy wrote: post #22

What we need is a form of anonymous / pseudo-anonymous reputation brokerage. Tokens that identify not a person, but how trusted or how well liked that token has been used. You control your tokens, what networks, where they are used. An older token is worth more to you, and to others that see it. The values associated to a token varies depending on the tokens around it. Upvotes, downvotes, activities, flags from the v…

That token breaks the very anonymity in the first place. The very essence of anonymity is having no reputation, no information whatsoever.

No, the very essence of anonymity is have no tie to one's physical identity.

No reputation or information is a recipe for meaninglessness; as a reader I have neither the time nor the tools to fully evaluate every statement ever made to me; I must use heuristics to aid my reading (e.g. I will almost certainly ignore anyone who claims the moon landings were hoaxes; it's not worth my time to investigate his claims).

I'm actually very excited by the idea of anonymous reputation, as it could enable all sorts of the things needed to have a well-run global network without enabling physical assaults on persons.

Re: Wait, WUT?

#36

Post by amirmc »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #34
frozen_tomato wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wholeheartedly disagree with this, what you're essentially describing is just watered down identity. The whole point of the value of anonymity is that all posts are equal.

This is unrealistic and won't work in practice. If all posts are equal then all posts are equally worthless. It's a sad but basic truth that we need identity and ability to accumulate reputation to be able to hold a meaningful, informative conversation. If everyone is fully anonymous (in a stateless sense), then everyone is basically a "random internet dude".

> "It's a sad but basic truth that we need identity and ability to accumulate reputation to be able to hold a meaningful, informative conversation."

Not true. We do not need to accumulate reputation to have a meaningful conversation. For example, I've seen informative conversations on Secret with the only identity mechanism being the icon they're assigned (presumably at random per thread).

Edit: I also don't recall usenet having a mechanism that 'kept score'. Slightly before my time so I may be wrong about this.

Re: Wait, WUT?

#37

Post by dobbsbob »

wtbob wrote: post #35
stephengillie wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That token breaks the very anonymity in the first place. The very essence of anonymity is having no reputation, no information whatsoever.

No, the very essence of anonymity is have no tie to one's physical identity. No reputation or information is a recipe for meaninglessness; as a reader I have neither the time nor the tools to fully evaluate every statement ever made to me; I must use heuristics to aid my reading (e.g. I will almost certainly ignore anyone who claims the moon landings were hoaxes; it's not worth my time to investigate his claims). I'm…

Many, many forums use a feeble ratings/trust indicator for pseudo-anon users but then you end up with a clique of highly rated posters and the circle jerk is complete. The whole point in anonymity is every post has it's merit in what it says not who wrote it. I can easily skim the various *chans, filtering out shitposting pretty quick.

For trading pseudo-anon there is already this reputation system which has worked well http://bitcoin-otc.com/trust.php

Re: Wait, WUT?

#38

Post by k__ »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #34
frozen_tomato wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wholeheartedly disagree with this, what you're essentially describing is just watered down identity. The whole point of the value of anonymity is that all posts are equal.

This is unrealistic and won't work in practice. If all posts are equal then all posts are equally worthless. It's a sad but basic truth that we need identity and ability to accumulate reputation to be able to hold a meaningful, informative conversation. If everyone is fully anonymous (in a stateless sense), then everyone is basically a "random internet dude".

The problem of pages like HN and SO is the artificial interaction, which the voting generates.

Yes, they probably can't find out that the 10k-karma-guy is Jack Miller, but all readers of his posts will be influenced by the 10k-karma.

HN hides the karma mostly. But SO shoves it right in your face, that some gold-20k-guy wrote an answer.

Also people will vote stuff up because they like it. This may be because it's high quality, but it doesn't have to.

Re: Wait, WUT?

#39

Post by [deleted] »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #34
frozen_tomato wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wholeheartedly disagree with this, what you're essentially describing is just watered down identity. The whole point of the value of anonymity is that all posts are equal.

This is unrealistic and won't work in practice. If all posts are equal then all posts are equally worthless. It's a sad but basic truth that we need identity and ability to accumulate reputation to be able to hold a meaningful, informative conversation. If everyone is fully anonymous (in a stateless sense), then everyone is basically a "random internet dude".

[deleted]
Post reply on HN