This is true, also should be noted that the transparency provided by the censors/curators system is totally on the honor system. You have to trust the indexer, and the model for mitigating this is anyone can run an indexer, and you can cryptographically verify that data comes from your trusted indexer even if you receive it via an untrusted peer.
Yeah, a different approach to moderation and curation without unilateral deletion.
This is one good thing about the current approach, if anyone gets malicious it's pretty easy to spot and can be rectified. Hard to go back and fix censorship, easy to retroactively remove someone who engages in denial of service spam.
A few hours ago BitChute received a notice that our PayPal account has been permanently limited, with immediate effect, and that we will no longer be able to accept or send payments. (bitchute.info)
+6 -0 submitted 2 hours ago by
Maybe, but there is effectively only one indexer right now so seems a bit redundant.
^ this in general time is not particularly trustworthy in a decentralized network. Blockchain networks can achieve this but only at a very low granularity (block height)
Yeah really this is just a way to implement a proof of work requirement for reaching a listing to serve as a rate limit on getting content into that listing unilaterally without imposing a more general rate limit on contributions.
This is the plan for comment commands, won't be totally hidden; but collapsed by default at least.
downvotes would be ignored for this threshold
downvotes would be ignored for this threshold
It would only care that something received X upvotes even if it got thousands of downvotes.
Yeah I do think I want to return to t/front being restricted to a broad set of general topics that cover effectively everything for the breathing space.
Ideally I want to ditch the whitelist model for t/front as well (But keep it as a way to curate listings for spaces)
I'll need to do a deeper dive on this later, maybe make a post about it. But this is definitely the way to think about this sort of thing IMO, as an adversarial game.
I've felt this vibe as well but partially because I am perceived to be an ambassador of the community. I don't have any alts myself but you should feel free to make as many as you need to feel comfortable.
Thanks for posting.
Tim Berners-Lee: redecentralizing the webby
d.tube embeds seem broken but I'm pretty sure it's not my fault.
https://emb.d.tube/#!/nigelmarkdias/siuf5m1z should work but doesn't even when viewed directly.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://emb.d.tube/#!/nigelmarkdias/siuf5m1z" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Tim Berners-Lee: redecentralizing the web (d.tube)
+1 -0 submitted 14 hours ago by
Yeah I try to do similarly as well.
https://d.tube is interesting as well and should be supported by expandos here but I never see any interesting content there.
So one general approach I’ve been considering that may be viable for t/front or even comment listings is an upvote threshold (possibility only applying after some time window, downvotes would be ignored for this threshold).
The new PoW model makes this viable IMO. This effectively serves as a rate limit and could work to reduce (but not eliminate) spam.
You could combine this with the censors system to remove malicious posts and make the costs/benefit analysis for an attacker even weaker.
Yeah been thinking about this a lot, it may seem like nab has been stagnant code-wise but I actually rewrote the UI stack over the weekend (and replaced the PoW system last weekend) in preparation for trying out some new approaches.
With the new PoW system it might be viable to try a return to the previous frontpage approach. But I still am hesitant to have t/all be the frontpage.
I want t/all to be everything but I also want people to have the option to avoid the frontpage. This means t/all can't be the frontpage.
People widely misunderstood the purpose of the default topics approach to the front-page and the new whitelist page probably confuses the issue more since it is intended to stop what many people mistakenly believed the first approach was for.
The first approach at the front page was to give people a way to choose to avoid the front page and really that's it; this is lost with the new approach.
The new approach to t/front (aside from being a testbed for approaches to space moderation and custom listings) is purely a response to denial of service spam.
Thanks for the feedback another user has some good feedback here recently you might be interested in: https://notabug.io/t/whatever/comments/3b1067e146abc033ffd357f34b1b67582689ba77/given-the-choice-to-do-something-annoying-or-let-someone-else-do-it-for-you-most-would-just-choose-to-let-someone-else-do-it-go1dfish-while-designing-the-user-experience-for-nab-you-have-to-ask-yourself-several-things
I've actually made that exact same typo before, it's an iPad thing.
Reddit has some similar behavior as well. At certain negative karma thresholds per subreddit you hit a 10 minute rate limit. But it is true mods can bypass this by adding approved submitters.
Yeah I think the rate limiting/scribe requirements are the most so,I’d criticism of Voat as a platform. But on the other hand without some system like that you end up with spam so bad it can effectively deny the use of the platform for others.
I think the best approach is to allow a nearly unrestricted flood of content and provide curated listings that highlight content from that flood.
open-source code | notabug 0.20.9 | known peers
By using this peer, you agree to its