Difference between revisions of "Peer-to-Peer Accountability Enforcement"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(brigading) |
(deleted Periscope page -- content moved to Mechanisms) |
||
| (8 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | == | + | ==About== |
| + | [[Peer-to-Peer Accountability Enforcement]] is a methodology for sharply reducing the problem of posting content in bad faith (including both outright verbal abuse as well as abuses that are harder to spot, such as {{l/ip|sea-lioning}}) by allowing users to collectively delegate other trusted users to rate comments and commenters as to their credibility and appropriateness. It generally increases per-user accountability for abuse, but with the source of that accountability being other users rather than a central authority (with all the bottlenecking and [[power-concentration]] that implies). | ||
| + | |||
| + | Pages: | ||
* [[/purpose]] - this needs to be a bit more general | * [[/purpose]] - this needs to be a bit more general | ||
* [[/mechanism]] - the quasi-technical details | * [[/mechanism]] - the quasi-technical details | ||
==Notes== | ==Notes== | ||
Things that credibility management ''should'' be able to defeat or at least control: | Things that credibility management ''should'' be able to defeat or at least control: | ||
| + | * [[sea-lioning]] (see {{issuepedia|sea-lioning}}): appears civil and polite on the surface, so may be difficult to judge without understanding the full context | ||
* [[brigading]] -- though it may take a combination of credibility management and [[debate mapping]]: | * [[brigading]] -- though it may take a combination of credibility management and [[debate mapping]]: | ||
** '''2015-07-17''' [http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/07/17/there-are-good-reasons-ive-never-been-a-fan-of-reddit/ There are good reasons I’ve never been a fan of Reddit] | ** '''2015-07-17''' [http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/07/17/there-are-good-reasons-ive-never-been-a-fan-of-reddit/ There are good reasons I’ve never been a fan of Reddit] | ||
| Line 11: | Line 15: | ||
** '''2015-04-20''' [http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121551/bot-bubble-click-farms-have-inflated-social-media-currency How Click Farms Have Inflated Social Media Currency] | ** '''2015-04-20''' [http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121551/bot-bubble-click-farms-have-inflated-social-media-currency How Click Farms Have Inflated Social Media Currency] | ||
*** private discussion [https://plus.google.com/u/0/104092656004159577193/posts/MGmWGw3vUBx here] | *** private discussion [https://plus.google.com/u/0/104092656004159577193/posts/MGmWGw3vUBx here] | ||
| + | * [[online harassment]] | ||
| + | ** '''2014-10-09''' [http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/10/the-unsafety-net-how-social-media-turned-against-women/381261/ The Unsafety Net: How Social Media Turned Against Women] ([https://plus.google.com/u/0/+CindyBrown/posts/8Ahnx7mVciy via]) | ||
Credibility management is beginning to look potentially useful for rating subjective quality of aesthetic works. Some discussion of that application is here: | Credibility management is beginning to look potentially useful for rating subjective quality of aesthetic works. Some discussion of that application is here: | ||
Revision as of 13:13, 24 October 2017
About
Peer-to-Peer Accountability Enforcement is a methodology for sharply reducing the problem of posting content in bad faith (including both outright verbal abuse as well as abuses that are harder to spot, such as sea-lioning) by allowing users to collectively delegate other trusted users to rate comments and commenters as to their credibility and appropriateness. It generally increases per-user accountability for abuse, but with the source of that accountability being other users rather than a central authority (with all the bottlenecking and power-concentration that implies).
Pages:
- /purpose - this needs to be a bit more general
- /mechanism - the quasi-technical details
Notes
Things that credibility management should be able to defeat or at least control:
- sea-lioning (see Issuepedia): appears civil and polite on the surface, so may be difficult to judge without understanding the full context
- brigading -- though it may take a combination of credibility management and debate mapping:
- evaporative cooling:
- click-farming ...except I'm not understanding the value of having fake followers:
- 2015-04-20 How Click Farms Have Inflated Social Media Currency
- private discussion here
- 2015-04-20 How Click Farms Have Inflated Social Media Currency
- online harassment
Credibility management is beginning to look potentially useful for rating subjective quality of aesthetic works. Some discussion of that application is here:
- 2014-06-20 Content rating, moderation, and ranking systems: some non-brief thoughts (Edward Morbius).
- Related: 2014-09-21 Specifying a Universal Online Media Payment Syndication System
- which was a sequel to: 2014-01-08 A Modest Proposal: Universal Online Media Payment Syndication
- Related: 2014-09-21 Specifying a Universal Online Media Payment Syndication System
- 2012-02-08 Tribler Makes BitTorrent Impossible to Shut Down (via) "Where most torrent sites have a team of moderators to delete viruses, malware and fake files, Tribler uses crowd-sourcing to keep the network clean. Content is verified by user generated “channels”, which can be “liked” by others. When more people like a channel, the associated torrents get a boost in the search results."
- 2011-02-05 What is Quora's algorithm/formula for determining the ordering/ranking of answers on a question?: this is a similar concept on the surface, but lacks some important elements:
- no proxying/layering -- all ratings are direct
- no personalized credibility ratings (PCRs)
- minimal granularity, i.e. only two possible values (-1/+1) for each ranking