take note: one of our members has created a *very* interesting project - soon to be open-sourced - that requires our attention and your valuable feedback..

is incentivized to monetize content, and accuracy and truth are not central to that.

This solution crowdsources truthfinding in an innovative way, via a "New Internet Toolbar".

There are pitfalls and hurdles to avoid. This app can be federated too!

View the great demo:

· · Web · 3 · 5 · 8

This solution - when done well - has broad applicability. But especially in the world I see the most promising early adopter use cases. What do you think?

Interesting to brainstorm how this might look like as a federated app..

There would be no need for a browser plugin. From the app UI you 'browse' other pages, and the app provides the overlay with metrics and the various widgets.

You'd have different instances for communities interested in curating particular content. The social exchange, review comments, etc. are all facilitated by already.

Combination with provides personal data protection.

@humanetech this is both #fashionista and #encryptionist "and how this content is rated by others in a form of Blockchain" and 99.99% vaper wear. The is a signal to noise issue shareing projects like this, the are real world projects, lots of them, we need to focus.


Imho you are way to quick to dismiss things. Sure there are pitfalls, and that's why strong feedback is so important.

The monetization part is where I have doubts myself (I stay well away from blockchain myself, maybe Hyptis is an option).

Note that doing nothing is also no option. Society is being torn apart right in front of our eyes by disinformation, fake news and the traditional (evil) social media reinforcing all that.

Brainstorming ideas is almost never bad.

@humanetech we should have a chat some time.

This project is #fashionista crap, and we are composting it on this thried, which is a useful thing to do. There are meany seedling growing, meany seeds in the ground lets focus.

This is like the foundation idea, some pointers for this one - have you seen the mess at #FSF the Google control of Firefox agenders ect. we should maybe talk about these things?


What I don't understand is that, while you are a strong proponent for freedom of speech, at the same time you apply peer pressure not talk about subjects when they disturb "signal to noise" ratio.

I will talk about *anything* that carries my interest, and others are free jump in or just ignore it!

The fedi is full of topics that are not so interesting for me. That's great. The more the better. It also leads to unexpecteed insights, fascinating ideas, and broader perspectives.

@humanetech We are doing composting in this thried, its a good thing to do.

We are surrounded by piles of techshit, we need to shovel it into a heap and let nature turn it into good soil.

Then sprinkle this around the seedling of the #fedivers to grow a strong #openweb.

shit makes good compost, just don't eat it ;)


That's all fine and well, and you repeat it over and over, to the extent where it feels to me like overly dogmatic reaction. It's frankly a bit tiring. It is stopping power, not encouragement to build something together.

When we all continue to use and hone our critical-thinking skills, and keep an open mind for fresh and creative thinking, instead of outright rejection of something after a 5 second glance at a toot, I feel we may be more productive in creating furtile ground. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate...

Some issues:

"The liberal foundation model will be forced onto us if the Fediverse is taken up buy large Burocratic orgs like the #EU"

"This is like the foundation idea, some pointers for this one - have you seen the mess at #FSF the Google control of Firefox agenders ect. we should maybe talk about these things?"

I took the time to read it "and how this content is rated by others in a form of Blockchain"

We need to focus.


Hamish, i don't see this as an Ad Hominem, i see it as a genuine statement of concern for your own mental health.

You are very clear about what behaviours you are against, but you are less vocal about what projects you are for.

Granted that we are all in a fucked-up situation, but the constant repetition of the same hashtags without a clear constructive roadmap to buiulding alternatives, is not a good place for your head to be in.

Are you ok?


Maybe it's just because the only interaction that we have had recently is via the keyboards and screens.

Coffee and in-person gossip might help. :D

We all need other people around us to remind us that we are human. ;)

@BillySmith the is a boaters gathering/picknic opasite the hope and ancur pub in the afternoon 8th may come along for a coffy in a dirty mug ;)


The is all the information you need for what am for and doing here its all #4opens so I can just concentrate on reacting to what i see as problems.

The hashtags are a long term project - they all add up into a coherent story, going to write it at some point. Then by clicking/searching on the hashtags you can see the WHOLE history and development of the story.

interesting project.


Nice. :D

That makes more sense about the hashtags.

It's still a Work-In-Progress. :D

That's fair enough, but it isn't clear from looking at your posts that you are doing this.

From my perspective, some of the things that you are saying come across as sloganised rantiness, which is not a healthy place for your head to be.

I'll have a dig through the project you linked to.


More thoughts:

After looking at the article and the vid from the first post in this thread, i can see why you were complaining.

The idea is well-meant, but it would only really operate if it was used by idealised rational human beings, and there are very few of those on the internet. :D

If you had given specific objections talking about which parts didn't work, then it would sound like a reasoned and well-thought argument.

Without those, it reads as negative complaints.

@BillySmith if i turn it into a book it might be the largist crowed sourced book in history - with 20 years of linkbacks to look through.

The story is good to, the open/closed web and the people live in it.

@Hamishcampbell @humanetech I don't think the browser tool shown in the video would be useful. As someone with a math background, it's tempting to turn everything into numbers and then try to make the numbers go up. But over the last 15 years since the first news rating sites it's really clear that this sort of gamification for determining "credibility" of information doesn't work. The cream doesn't rise to the top when people rate things - at least not as far as articles on the internet goes - and that's because not everyone is a neutral observer dispassionately viewing objective facts without entanglement in a platonic realm, as idealized in scientific method.

@BillySmith @bob @Hamishcampbell @humanetech Yes exactly. If the credibility of information is determined by highlighting based on ratings then the ratings will be gamed, and users will be trained to immediately go to the highlighted sentences and skip all of the context. That can trivially be weaponized.

@bob @Hamishcampbell @humanetech

As soon as something is measurable, if it becomes used as a metric, then it WILL be gamed... :(

@BillySmith @bob @Hamishcampbell

Yes, this is exactly the feedback I gave when our member first posted the idea. The dev is a listener to feedback, which is good, has strong ideas on how to avoid this, and put in a year's worth of coding for PoC.

I now suggested algorithmic transparency + crowsourcing this too.

But besides that deeper human involvement would be good, and here fedi may help (the moderation model).

Also this may only apply to smaller, specialized communities, e.g. scientists.

@BillySmith @bob @Hamishcampbell

Wikipedia has a somewhat similar model to content creation and moderation. No credit score but it has power users that'll overrule your edits. It has a reputation system. Same kind of gaming incentives exist here, that wikipedia must deal with.

Note that a federated wikipedia is an interesting concept. Here's a project that brings Linked Data in the mix:

In a way the project might turn any page to a mixed manual + algoritmic wiki page.

@BillySmith @bob @Hamishcampbell

Now we've found a new concept to brainstorm:

Turn any arbitrary page into a 'wiki-like' construct using a overlay of information and metrics, either provided manually or with help of additional algorithms.

A smart balance is obviously needed.

And *maybe* (micropayment) monetization too, because of amount of manual labour. Though many crowdsourcing models work well without such incentives.

wow nice

problem analysis seems correct:
outage gets eyeballs
eyeballs == revenue

although less convinced that markets will save us- don't markets always generate concentration of wealth when left unmoderated (so resources go to moderate market instead of more direct aid: housing, health, education, ...)

maybe there is another means to organize our societies besides the exchange of currency

the master's tools will never dismantle the master's house

nonetheless, bonne chance

@js0000 firmly believe that. After all money is just a tool indeed, to ease transfer of things and deeds of value. The only thing that makes money valuable in this exchange is trust. But trust also exists without money. It is a human quality. Only problem is it doesn't scale, esp. in a society that breeds distrust.

Re:markets another interesting idea is OffferBots by another member.. very worthwhile reading the problem analysis of aggregators on their website.

@humanetech It is an important problem and I may get rich if this system works, but for now it is a really beautiful user interface and what matters is what is behind it.

I would expect that such a system is easy to game and there is no explanation on how to fight it. The people who spread misinformation put a lot of effort into that. How the money comes into play is not explained. Who pays it? It makes gaming even more attractive.

See also my comment below the video.

@VictorVenema super feedback on the video!

Personally I feel the monetization should be removed, maybe added later. Micropayments are an unsolved problem anywhere. It's unclear what their impact will be on the web.

I've become convinced that huge userbases is asking for trouble. That local contexts are needed. Both for payment schemes, probably here too.

It's why I discuss the "Community has no Boundary" paradigm, social fabric between groups. A universal IRL concept.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

Server run by the main developers of the project 🐘 It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!