Comment on Could We Build a Decentralised Social Platform Rooted in Place?

DeVaolleysAdVocate@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

Lots of people with similar ideas so there is probably demand. When I was thinking of ways to bring people together I had considered a platform so to speak that lets you join different communities, and over time or once verified you gain voting weight. Like lemmy or other website have communities and you can join or watch without playing and they can hose meetups, except the system I had in mind doesn’t have the same style of ‘voting’ on things that sites your used to are. There are chains of trust to build voting weight or reputation.

I’ll post my rambling thoughts here:

The idea here is for a ‘consensus engine’ which results in many applications and a universal voting method. As the current repository of these posts is about to be deleted I am copying them here, separated by three dots such as … June 7th 2023 From small clubs to nations to solar systems, we can bring people together through similarities of feeling and thought. Share ideas and information how modern social media does, bounded by whatever group you chose, which can be rebuffed if needed. If you managed to read the sticky post on the universal voting system then it will help to see how this Consensus Engine can be used.

I think it could supplement a future social media if need be in the sense that you can connect with your friends, or anyone you know or don’t and place whoever in whatever groups you chose and then interact with just that group. From sharing 3D home videos to posts about their feelings it allows open communication. However the communication goes both ways. When anything is posted then every aspect of it can be judged by others. From how truthful it is, to how it stays on topic or does not, to how poetic it sounds, as well as how it might appear like a paid ad, and so on. Individual sections of posts can be judged separately.      

part of the goal of this is to use it for scientific research and to establish a chain of trust. This is done by having experiments that are reproducible and thus increasing the weight of that users locally, in the related groups to that subject, a weight that diminishes over time but can increase as reproductions and positive judgements on their works are had. The goal is to allow experiments to documents every step of the process and to do so openly so that humans as a whole can learn. Also to allow others to chime in and offer their ideas.      

The system could store parts of the comment or post, then the weights of those posts could be changed by others. When the OP goes offline their system saves a chunk of data regarding the last status of the thing, and when they come back they ask the network what that status was so the weight of their comment and themselves in that group can be updated. This is done by saving some data of other users when they save their own data, when they come back online they are now the network which can update the other data to the latest of their download. The bleeding edge of consensus will be fuzzy, but overtime it can emerge and even change when new data comes in.     It can allow for people to find things in common like ‘I’d like to have all my needs met,’ to ‘I don’t like it when people steal from me.’ and working up one common thing at a time we can find where some people are okay with pulling a gun on a 6 year old looking for a lost kitten and how some people can justify giving money to know grifters. We want to make the truth provable and connect it clearly to actions and ideas. If some people who are religious or very us right wing ‘wake up’ and see what they have done, maybe they can change and help everyone.

Another thing it can do it to lay out future plans and past history for tv show writers, town charters, and whole civilizations. People can decide they want to stop the growth of their city or increase housing density like normal voting, but they can plan for things father out like working together as one world to build colonies on Mars or something. They can do that by outlining all the steps needs to do something, each step broken down by other steps, and each step facing a many potential 0poor outcomes and the steps needed to provide against them.

Elections on things from single and specific issues to worldwide issues can be voted on by anyone, and those that have the most positive involvement based on what has consensus as fact have high weight to their own votes than others who, when asked questions about the subject they are voting on, disagree with the consensus.              

When a comment is made others can vote on it, to vote on something you must vote on a second thing as well. You have the option of going deeper than the question you are asked. Things like, do you agree with this, are these two things similar/the same. All sorts of classifying questions and web of relation questions are asked. when someone answers they are asked if they think their answer is similar to another one posted, they can also contribute more like why it is, what parts are different, or anything, and then others can vote of how they feel about these answers. People are asked questions both within their subjectgroup collection as well as outside and they can adjust how the ratio to an extent.

By using the CE anyone can contribute to any subject, little heard of ideas can gain traction from locally recognized experts and false hoods can be more readily proven false by those with the most recognized experience. Repeat allegations of the same falsehoods can easily be debunked. Definitions of semantics, words and phrases can be decided upon so no one can try to change what a word means partway into a discussion.

I don’t know how to create this, I do think this might help in moving to a post-scarcity world if we could find a way to implement it. … Oct 24, 2022 the Consensus Engine - a universal ‘voting’ mechanism that can be used by anyone for everything. A protocol meant to bond people together.

A way to do things including:      

        Through the system a user can rate things using a variety of ‘rating angles’ which are specific aspects. A user can judge a phrase as being things (or not being those things) such as:

*relevant to the discussion       *factually accurate       *interesting      

using the system in small settings at first would enable it to show that it works which can help in adoption.       This would also allow each user to become verified in person.

If the system could be used for actual voting the the registration could be made by sending a code to the users registered voting address.

        Users contribute their opinion or posts which can be judged by others.

Other users can judge: the entire comment, parts like specific phrases or sentences, even words or letters. By rating any comment or part of one with one or more of the multiple voting categories we can get an idea of why people like things.

As users use the system they are asked to vote on other people’s opinions and posts. Typically a person has to answer a consensus related question at least 1 out of 3 posts but they have the option to answer more questions.     They can get more in depth with specific topics but are every once in a while shown questions from outside their topic focus, in a sort of ‘more closely related- more often, less related topic - questions about these topic appear less often.’

As a user you can make posts or comment on topics. The users can determine the topic and subtopics if the post is open to all.

When you make a comment about a subject you are shown a similar comment, The system might say your post and the shown post are the same intent. You can dispute this and highlight why your post is different. As always, other people will see the two posts and asked to judge or explain the similarities or differences.       We want this to be a way to find intricate but existing differences as well as find the motivation for each decision to see how the same motivations end up differently in other circumstances.

We can’t put the small pieces at the end back together but we can discover through analysis what the commonalities are and find what the building blocks are before they crumble into actions.

Topics that are deemed more important by the group can carry more weight to be given more visibility.

Viewing random or less connected topics can help expand the sphere of knowledge for users. They have the chance learn more about a subject they find interested but have not encountered before. As a user is exposed to more about a subject and gives more input or opinions then they have more chances to gain weight to their opinions in that subject.

A topic is defined as different from another similar topic by the users so that the thresholds of things can be found and if there is a difference in threshold values from one grouping of people or another we can better understand it

The web of connections can be used to view common traits and similar interests. If users who consent decide to they can use the platform to find people who like similar things, like matching people who have similar taste in music or weird movies to be friends or whatever the people are looking for.       This can help create friendships and alleviate loneliness if users want to find other users with similar tastes.  

users can chose to give their info out or not, and by info I mean everything. Privacy should be paramount. Th

source
Sort:hotnewtop