all comments

[]go2dfish1 points(+9 | -1) points  

Even if you do setup bots you are forced to focus/limit what they vote up to maximize your effectiveness.

Working out a fair voting structure hasn’t been a focus of mine yet, proof of work is a decent enough approach for now while we build out the rest and come up with better solutions.

If nothing else, you can run a centralized vote authority on top of the existing data.

[]0 points(+3 | -0) points  

Even if you do setup bots you are forced to focus/limit what they vote up to maximize your effectiveness.

I can vote on as many items I please, can I not? Also limiting votes per user isn't a solution either since you can generate as many public keys as one wants.

you can run a centralized vote authority

Something to weigh votes?

[]go2dfish0 points(+6 | -0) points  

You are limited by cpu power, this is more apparent on a peer setup with higher vote difficulty like https://dontsuemebro.com but the same principle applies here.

[]0 points(+4 | -0) points  

I know. But when this platform, or other platforms like this one become popular I guess you would see a rise in "voting farms" or people running optimized scripts.

[]go2dfish0 points(+7 | -0) points  

And those farms will compete with each other and a wider audience of interested humans.

But you raise a totally valid concern, voting in an anonymous environment is difficult and there is really no way to achieve one person one vote without a strong central authority at the present time.

Best we can do is a democracy based on some limited resource like cpu power, or possibly a cryptocurrency as in the case of decred and other proof of stake coins.

[]0 points(+4 | -0) points  

And those farms will compete with each other and a wider audience of interested humans.

Big companies will always win at this

[]0 points(+2 | -0) points  

Which one will you signup to the mining pool for?

[]0 points(+0 | -0) points  

Is this a cryptocurrencies reference? There actually was a big scandal when people realized that bitcoin was being controlled by a few miners. It's different anyway, you can't fork votes and you don't even know who is voting.

[]0 points(+2 | -0) points  

I'll ponder over it myself. Had some ideas in the past on a platform similar to this one, so...

[]0 points(+1 | -0) points  

I guess you would see a rise in "voting farms" or people running optimized scripts.

Yes. Is this a problem?

[]go2dfish0 points(+3 | -0) points  

And by centralized vote authority I mean something that could take many forms.

You could imagine an organization mapping public keys to phone numbers and only allowing identified votes from those users. The key takeaway though is that tallying votes and sorting content is something individual peers and clients can do differently from each other.

[]0 points(+1 | -0) points  

So the solution to the problem of decentralized voting is centralization ;) ?

[]go2dfish0 points(+1 | -0) points  

It’s a potential solution.

The main way decentralization solves this problem IMO is by allowing for simultaneous differing approaches.

[]0 points(+1 | -0) points  

To a degree yes. Have you thought about increasing the CPU cost initially? Since you're right about when it gets more popular it is harder to up and down-vote everything.

[]0 points(+1 | -0) points  

Initially I had the difficulty set significantly higher (what it is in dontsuemebro) but I think overall the user experience is better with the cheaper votes right now and that it’s more likely to encourage more activity and contributions.

One issue with slower votes is communicating to users that the slowness is not a bug and why it has to be slow.

Longer term I think I want to have vote difficulty more easily configurable both for voting and tallying.

[]0 points(+1 | -0) points  

Longer term I think I want to have vote difficulty more easily configurable both for voting and tallying.

Configurable for what or whom? A lens?

[]go2dfish0 points(+1 | -0) points  

Not sure yet, could be done at the lens level but I was thinking more an individual global setting at least initially.

[]0 points(+3 | -0) points  

Not a crypto person.. but can you create currency that pairs to this, give everyone an account and wallet, and have voting cost the currency? That way there is a financial penalty for voting to much

[]0 points(+3 | -0) points  

what hashing algo does notabug use?

[]go2dfish0 points(+3 | -0) points  

[]0 points(+3 | -0) points  

wouldn't Argon2 be a better alternative considering it was made for asic resistance and is heavily optimised for Modern CPU's.

[]go2dfish0 points(+1 | -0) points  

Maybe, not familiar with it. Ideally we want something the browser can quickly check if we ever want more full p2p browser clients though.

I picked sha256 primarily because there was an existing js implementation that looked good.

[]0 points(+0 | -0) points  

[]0 points(+3 | -0) points  

Give me a "score hidden" option so I can view the site without knowing or caring what anyone else thinks.

[]0 points(+2 | -0) points  

I swear this type of thing should be solved with userscripts. We should develop a culture of userscripting on this site and keeping a cataloge of them for people who don't know how to code them.

The backend should be barebones simple and the front end should be any experience that a frontend can leverage out of the backend.

[]0 points(+2 | -0) points  

let's throw user friendliness out the window

Yep that worked for voat.

[]0 points(+1 | -0) points  

If we make them easy to find and have the regular site be a sane default I don't see the problem.

[]0 points(+2 | -0) points  

[]0 points(+2 | -0) points  

cont. the only issue i have right now is how much censoring power voting has on top of being redundant

[]0 points(+2 | -0) points  

So only sorted by date, amount of responses, etc. Could be a good solution.

[]0 points(+1 | -0) points  

There's /comments and /new for those, they only need options to sort only the past day, week, month etc.

[]0 points(+0 | -0) points  

I think he just wants to not see the score.

[]25 points(+41 | -25) points  

Says it's broken. Provides no evidence of it being broken on a system that already has decentralized voting.

What's wrong with the content here? If you really want to say something can't you?

Provide evidence in the wild that it doesn't work.

[]0 points(+2 | -0) points  

Have you looked at any of the comments debating removing the downvoting aspect instead of the entire thing?

[]0 points(+1 | -0) points  

How is that broken. Maybe people just like content or opinions that you don't agree with. I personall think we should keep downvotes. Maybe make them take 1.5 the work. You can always post again. You can always attach equal power to what you want to say.

If you honestly think anyone can silence you when you don't want to be silenced on this site that's inaccurate. Just try to say something that will be silenced and put in even the most modest effort to not be and I promise you people will see it.

[]0 points(+1 | -0) points  

Yes, because burning your cpu up for an hour or more until the opposite side decides to give up is something that is efficient and pleasant.

The elegant solution is to allow lenses to do the job of the downvotes. They don't burn up anyone's cpu and do not force themselves onto anyone.

[]5 points(+10 | -5) points  

Personally I don't like having downvotes at all, one single downvote counts as an upvote for everything else, essentially using what's possibly lower quality content to cover up popular but controversial content without even having to submit anything yourself.

Brigading would still be an issue, but they'd have to submit content themselves which can be easily curated as opposed to having to care for every single post/comment your community has by engaging in matches of voting tug of war.

[]0 points(+8 | -0) points  

With downvotes you don't need mods

[]0 points(+2 | -0) points  

Well, with down-votes you can bury a single whole post or comment (and its thread) quite easily.

That is not the case with up-votes. Then again, having down-votes as a signal remains useful for people. So that you can still let people know that you dislike a certain thread or post.

[]0 points(+2 | -0) points  

Yes, but you're stuck with randoms censoring your posts which is even worse than with nab's future curation system where you'll have complete control over who gets to curate your view.

[]0 points(+6 | -0) points  

Down-voting in particular is troublesome in a decentralized setting, since you can easily hide posts/ threads. Then again you can bury posts with up-votes as well ... but its harder to do.

Maybe disable voting for whole threads, and weigh the thread by other measures, like comment count, and comment quality... or something. I'm not sure.

[]0 points(+1 | -0) points  

Maybe disable voting for whole threads, [...] Scratch that. Down-voting is the main problem.

[]0 points(+4 | -0) points  

Yeah, I was about to say: why have different scales for the two?

As for difference in power need: if there was a 20% difference in between the best post on the front page and the worst one, you'd only need that 20% to bring it down. Without downvoting you'd need over what you're trying to censor multiplied by how many posts below it there are.

[]0 points(+1 | -0) points  

cont. This is without even taking curation into account, which should be able to spot forced content.

[]0 points(+1 | -0) points  

Without downvoting you'd need over what you're trying to censor multiplied by how many posts below it there are.

Yep, exactly! Hope that go2dfish takes this into consideration, otherwise we'll have to fork it ;) haha

[]go2dfish0 points(+2 | -0) points  

I’m reading all these and keeping them in mind, still focused on lenses and spaces though. Voting is a pretty well separated concern from everything else by design.

[]0 points(+1 | -0) points  

Yeah, my idea only works after lenses and spaces are implemented, going full uncensored is a bad idea. Even 8chan has its mods.

[]1 points(+1 | -1) points  

Or better yet. Allow people to down-vote but don't weigh it. So that you can still signal to other people your negative opinion about that post.

[]0 points(+2 | -0) points  

The troll in me says: "make it like youtube where all ratings help the poster, including the negative ones"

I guess it could work, it might help relieve the negativity as well since most would take the easy button press over trashing the poster.

Ideally you should ignore/filter what you don't like, but people like to rage and there's nothing you can do about that besides redirecting it a bit.

[]0 points(+0 | -0) points  

Maybe disable voting for whole threads, [...]

Scratch that. Down-voting is the main problem. need to get used to Markdown...

[]0 points(+2 | -0) points  

yeah, it's a pain for non-redditors, use this until you get used to it:

https://redditpreview.com/

[]0 points(+1 | -0) points  

thx

[]1 points(+1 | -1) points  

You can, uh, ignore downvotes.

[]0 points(+0 | -0) points  

Like a said, you can easily bury a thread / comment when you target a single thread / comment.

What I think the solution is that you'll still be able to down-vote, but it won't be weighed into scoring (or less so). So that people still can communicate their dislike about a thread / comment.

[]0 points(+0 | -0) points  

Like a said Like *I said

[]0 points(+1 | -0) points  

How about having a "Banned" section where heavily voted down posts and comments go. Just like the "Hot","New" etc. I think a lot of people would be interested in reading that. I certainly would. As I'm sure you know when something is marked "BANNED" everyone wants to see it. And of course those who are sensitive or whatever don't need to go there.

[]0 points(+1 | -0) points  

Controversial already pretty much works that way.

[]0 points(+0 | -0) points  

Pretty much but not quite. The fact that they're in a different place and easily findable would make a very big difference.

[]0 points(+0 | -0) points  

And of course if they got enough upvotes while in the banned section they'd be UN-BANNED

[]0 points(+1 | -0) points  

307 upvotes

lol.

[]0 points(+0 | -0) points  

I wrote a script to upvoted myself, haha.

[]6 points(+7 | -6) points  

it is way too easy to write a script that continuously down/up mods a submission.

Everyone can do it. People can even organise around it. Some may even buy/sell processing for it.

[]0 points(+4 | -0) points  

It's gonna be a mess then ... seriously. The main point problem is down-voting I think, since it's too easy to target a single thread / comment to be buried.

Simply removing or reducing the weight of down-votes I think solves the problem.

[]0 points(+4 | -0) points  

Free speech is going to be a mess no matter how you organize it. This is especially true if there are non-free speech sites out there leaving the free-speech sites to be distiled controversy.

If you try to organize a free speech site to not be a mess you will either, a) not have a free speech site, b) have a different kind of mess.

-Ghandi, become the change you want to see. If you want a site that is both free speech and not a mess put in the effort personally. It's really the only option.

[]0 points(+1 | -0) points  

Or you could let everyone choose how they organize themselves and not force anyone to obey the rules of somebody else.

[]0 points(+1 | -0) points  

point problem

*problem

Man. I need some sleep, or I'm just retarded.

[]0 points(+4 | -0) points  

We said this months ago about voting difficulty when it took over a minute per vote. The result was that we had to move the comment collapse threshold from 1 to 0 because nobody bothered voting themselves above the spam filter, and it still wasn't enough because only few posts actually had votes on them besides the poster's. It just was too much trouble for what it was worth.

Voting on mobile was even worse, it took over 5 minutes for each vote. That's when we started talking about possibly paying for services like you mentioned. In the end go1dfish made the call to reduce voting difficulty which turned out to be the right one as user activity rose immediately.

These vigilante groups would be unelected and would sling their power as they please across the entire site, which is not very different from the bad actors that they're supposed to protect us from.

The point of this story is that some things require too much of an investment from the average user. Removing downvoting should greatly alleviate the chilling effect it encourages, while also giving more clear targets for elected groups.

[]0 points(+4 | -0) points  

should greatly alleviate the chilling effect it encourages

Honestly downvoting is the only thing saving the frontpage from looking like a clone of voat.

[]0 points(+1 | -0) points  

Thanks for proving my point.

[]0 points(+2 | -0) points  

Exactly. Down-voting makes burying comments/threads too easy now.

[]0 points(+0 | -0) points  

What about unweighted downvotes?

A tally, without force.