KMac🍌 ⏩ ツ
@kmacb.eth
spam acording to an opaque algo
2 replies
1 recast
5 reactions
artlu 🎩
@artlu
OK oldhead, why do we accept it when Gmail does it, but seem to get our panties in a bunch when one of us (crypto people) does it? is this the classic stated vs revealed preferences, and the Henry Ford quip that you can't listen to your customers (I'm misquoting on purpose, but it was something along those lines)
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
KMac🍌 ⏩ ツ
@kmacb.eth
This isn't progress – it's a step backward toward censorship & potential collusion. There's no consensus or dispute process for the FID list, making false positives costly to DAU. Imagine a world where you can't get an uncollateralized load because V said so. Rather we shift to self-labeling & a web of trust more like Openrank, focusing on FC-user control, not WC-centric opaque models. Who gets to call out spam? We should decide through independently verifiable onHub/chain actions.
2 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
artlu 🎩
@artlu
1. why in your opinion has web-of-trust not been tried on FC? or am I misunderstanding, PageRank is not in the WoT family, right? 2. but my original question was along the lines of, we're not here to make progress along a singular dimension (decentralization), we're here to build a crypto product that is easy enough for normies to become crypto people and use our other crypto products yadda yadda. So, if it's good enough for Gmail, and there's no real complaints about email censorship, only academic complaints about collusion, and no real-world consequence vis-a-vis loan eligibility wrt email ... why care about a spam labeller when it comes to nerds sending tweets?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
KMac🍌 ⏩ ツ
@kmacb.eth
1. WoT hasn’t been fully explored on FC likely because it’s a shift from PageRank like centralized opaque controlled models and that requires community engagement and participation. I don't doubt the intent is pointing in a well intended direction. Once again we are reminded that we live in a merklem centric world. A perspective change is needed --the equivalent of a Copernican revolution putting each user in the 'middle' of their own experience. (3.ish) IIRC the goog only publicly shares aggregated USER labeled spam not the results from their algos & filtering. Could be wrong but if merklem shared user-tagged spam that is independently verifiable onHub/chain, I'd be applauding them. 2. I understand the focus on ease for normies, but I'm not here solely to see normies to move tokens around via rent seeking intermediaries & hope they graduate to decentralized alternatives. Let's give them something new and compelling that only via using cryptographic techniques is enabled.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
artlu 🎩
@artlu
on #2 I am happy to explore and discover the limits of these "new and compelling" ideas. Example 1: the invite tree doesn't scale. Nobody can pre-screen their internet acquaintances for community values, and if a high-value member invites a toxic member, there's no good balance of the punishment. Example 2: NFT ownership is not enough for proof-of-work, proof-of-being-in-the-scene ,or even proof-of-commitment a la Purple. It doesn't help that much in spam fighting, as basically you need to grow via people who are less willing to pay to participate, than what spammers are willing to pay to purchase a "fast pass"
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
KMac🍌 ⏩ ツ
@kmacb.eth
Art are you heading to ETH Denver? Let's share a meal there if so. My interests these days, beyond footy, are primarily in a few buckets: capital formation ( jb & /revnet ), 'fair' capital allocations (revnet & defifa games), & some other stuff that we touched on when we spoke last
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction