Update: I nowadays think that voting down is useful, but only for protection against spam and intentional disruption of communication. Essentially a distributed function to report spam.
I don’t see a reason for negative reputation schemes — voting down is in my view a flawed concept.
The rest of this article is written for freetalk inside freenet, and also posted there with my nonanonymous ID.
That just allows for community censorship, which I see as incompatible with the goals of freenet.
Would it be possible to change that to use only positive votes and a threshhold?
In the current scheme (as I understand it), zwister wouldn’t see posts from Lilith.
In a pure positive scheme, zwister would see the posts. If zwister wants to avoid seeing the posts from Lilith, he has to untrust Alice or ask Alice to untrust Lilith. Add to that a personal (and not propagating) blocking option which allows me to “never see anything from Lilith again”.
Bob should not be able to interfere with me seeing the messages from Lilith, when Alice trusts Lilith.
If zwisters trust for Alice (0..1) multiplied with Alices trust for Lilith (0..1) is lower than zwisters threshhold, zwister doesn’t see the messages.
PS: somehow adapted from Credence, which would have brought community spam control to Gnutella, if Limewire had adopted it.
PPS: And adaption for news voting: You give positive votes on news which show up. Negative votes assign a private threshhold to the author of the news, so you then only see news from that author which enough people vote for.
⚙ Babcom is trying to load the comments ⚙
This textbox will disappear when the comments have been loaded.
Note: To make a comment which isn’t a reply visible to others here, include a link to this site somewhere in the text of your comment. It will then show up here. To ensure that I get notified of your comment, also include my Sone-ID.
Link to this site and my Sone ID:
This spam-resistant comment-field is made with babcom.
The European Copyright directive threatens online communication in Europe.
But thanks to massive shared action earlier this year, the European parliament can still prevent the problems. For each of the articles there are proposals which fix them. The parliamentarians (MEPs) just have to vote for them. And since they are under massive pressure from large media companies, that went as far as defaming those who took action as fake people, the MEPs need to hear your voice to know that your are real.
If you care about the future of the Internet in the EU, please Call your MEPs.