Piero Bosio Social Web Site Personale

@julian
This is where I'd (politely) disagree. "The UX" is often baked into the API, it's not a "simple dialog box you slap on top". I agree there are lots of different directions it can go but if we realize we need something ELSE in the API to make the "scoring" work, we don't want to find that out after it's too late.

@GavinChait @benpate @ramsey

@ramsey
Two separate issues:
1. moving servers (happy to discuss that in another thread)
2. What is an endorsement?
I'd like to keep to that topic for now. My understanding of Ben's proposal (please correct if I'm wrong:
* It's a TWO way bridge, e.g. I have to endorse and you have accept
* At a core level, that's it, just a series of two-way connections
* But the question is "what do we do with these connections?
* I'm suggesting that it's more helpful in aggregate (I think Ben agrees)
* So the real question is how do we rollup these various signals and present them to the user? When I see your avatar on a post or reply, what do I see that gives me confidence you are a trusted person? 3 people I know endorse you? etc...

@GavinChait @benpate @tchambers

@GavinChait
I started to sketch a couple of designs and quickly ran into some serious questions that might be helpful for us to discuss here. Let's start with a simple one. What do we show the user? Do we show them a number between zero and one?

There's a lot of magic here, and if we're not careful, we'll make it far too complex to the user. I'm leaning towards a simple three icon approach: low (some type of endorsement) medium (good endorsement) and high (exceptionally strong). There can also be NO icon at all.

I don't think someone cares if someone is 67% endorsed versus 78% endorsed.

I also think that endorsements are going to be somewhat rare (at least at first) so the chances of this icons showing up AT ALL is quite low. I'm playing with the idea that your followers endorsements act as a weak signal (low). This provides a 'gateway scoring' system that gets people exposed without initiallying having any endorsements of their own.

Thoughts?

@ramsey @benpate @tchambers

@ramsey @GavinChait @benpate @tchambers
I agree with your concerns. This is what I meant by the complexity issue in a previous thread. It *is* YAF (yet another feature) and if we're not careful, people just a) won't get it or b) not be bothered.

But need is clear. Follows and likes aren't enough. This is a public connection *between* two people. That is its difference. It's power comes from the "rel=me" aspect of both people agreeing. That appears powerful. It is a stronger signal to to build a web of trust, feels decentralized, durable, and seemingly unspoofable (I hope?).

But we really do have to keep it simple. Maybe we call it something else? But I'm hearing the concern that you feel it's not actually that valuable? Do I have that right?

@benpate @ramsey @tchambers We're a little stuck here because as we've discussed in a previous thread, follows is not a strong enough signal. We want something that is intentional, something like "A vouches for B." I"m not saying this is better then endorses, just that by the very nature of this stronger signal, it will *always* have value. I'm not sure we can get around that.

@GavinChait @benpate @osma As a UX designer, I'm a big believer in a tried and true process:
STep 1: Pretend it's magic. Assume have the perfect API (just for now)
Step 2: Design your UX that uses this API. What are the exact steps necessary for everyone to a) Do and b) understand what is happening?

The point being that even with a "perfect API" you can still have problems. I'm suggesting this as a supportive comment, I'd like to see you succeed here and figuring out how this presents itself to the user (even before you figure out the API) almost always returns deep insights.

@osma @benpate @GavinChait But there could be 10,000 self-referential links, but I think was Ben's original proposal, that the number is calculated uniquely for me, which is what is the count of your endorsement of people that I know. That number will be unique to every single person. So the 10K gamified account will be a zero to me

I think we're revisiting old ground here. I'm just want to make sure *I'm* not misuderstanding something here. Is it liberating to say "they can have all the self referencial endorsements they want, they will still score zero for me."

@benpate @GavinChait I think this is a lovely example for us to work through, but it does feel different than Ben's original point. The original point was, what can I know StrangerA? It was fairly lightweight. It was just like, oh, I know the three people that claim they know StrangerA. That is genuinely helpful.

However attestation feels like it's entering whole other domain. I'm not against it, but it feels like a V2 of the protocol. Does that make sense? I generally prefer walking before running...

@benpate @GavinChait It's always a "particle/wave" type of discussion where you discuss theory for a while (which has it's concerns) then implementation for awhile (very different concerns) and you ping pong back and forth, trying to not get burnt out in the process.

But I often find a very simple implementation detail can short circuit all sorts of theory based navel gazing. That is likely going to be the biggest hurdle, to ground the discussion so we don't wander off into "the land of the perfect design"

@benpate
Well, if we do limit them, we are in effect creating a currency. Although one that most likely has little value to most people. But if you are someone with a lot of followers, those 100 endorsements are worth a lot to some and could turn into a marketplace.

Although to be honest, there's probably going to be a marketplace, even without a limit, for very high-profile individuals no matter what we do?

It appears we're limiting them to prevent gaming the system, which just creates another system to be gamed? Maybe just throttle the rate so bad actors can't inflate their count quickly?

@GavinChait @ozoned

@benpate @ramsey @tchambers
<smacks forehead>
You're right, that's likely simpler. I'm just in the habit of looking for abuse everywhere...

@ramsey
In looking at harm, it's important to look at the simplest "spam" type of attacks e.g. where someone endorses you over and over, even after you say "no". It's pure harassment with no intention of you accepting. Assuming that first "no" shuts down any future requests (or at least mutes them), we should be good.

There are likely other edge cases like this to vet.

@benpate @tchambers

@benpate @GavinChait @ozoned
At the same time, we likely want to avoid the MySpace "Top 8" drama. But just like any currency, if there is some limit, it has value. It has an additional value of making it more difficult for bad actors. Of course, there is no thing stopping a bad server from compromising these rules but
a) They'd have to be very careful about timestamps which could be verified (not impossible but again, harder)
b) They would likely all be to people you don't know so have very little value.

The reason I like Ben's Endorsement proposal is that it's much like "rel=me" links. a simple bidirectional construct that is hard to spoof.

@jdp23 @thisismissem
I feel like I'm walking on egg shells. I'm just trying to make a simple point:
* People have left the fediverse because of over-zealous behavior
* I'd like there to be less of that so good people stick around.

That's it. Just to be clear: this does not mean I want to protect fascists. Those are not good people.

@jdp23 It's all just a matter of degree. I'm not against punching nazis. It's just that IMHO, FAR too many people are getting punched.

@jdp23 To say they are "the same" is a gross over simplification. But I have talked to a few black ex-fediverse users and they made it clear that the 'helpful feedback" crowd around CWs was instrumental in them leaving.

@thisismissem
Strongly agree.

@jdp23 @benpate @rakoo

As to the "message I'm trying to send" it has nothing to do with supporting fascists it's more:
* people are getting hurt
* it's helpful to talk about it
Do I expect I will change the culture? Of course not, but we can at least talk about it. We can even disagree. But can we at least *start* with the assumption that everyone here is trying to build a great fediverse? Assume that we're all acting in good faith? We can disagree but that doesn't make us evil.

@benpate
@jdp23 @rakoo

@benpate @jdp23 @rakoo I think this is getting at the heart of the issue. There are lots of what we'll call edge cases where someone mentions Cloudflare and honestly doesn't know their history. They then get clobbered by four or five reply guys calling them out on supporting fascists. It's overkill.

For my part, the number of times that people have massively misunderstood what I was saying and instead of asking a clarifying question, proceeded to completely overreact has happened quite often. It's exhausting.

This isn't about "allowing Nazis" it's about seeing them hiding behind dust bunnies everywhere.

@benpate @johannab
Second this request. I hear this "we just need better tools" request frequently actual solid suggestions are rare.

But it's possible! For example, the ability to withdraw from a quote post completely defangs the quoter. It's a clear tool to combat harassment and is powerful as it takes power away from the quoter.

But in the case of reply guys, I'm not sure there is much to do. Any "voting" type of solution can be gamed. Offering "no reply" posts is a powerful option (someday) but not for everyone. "Followers only" is also much safer but much less interaction.

It's like we want there to be widespread posting but only 'the good people' can reply. Tricky problem.