We seem to be moving toward a society where grifters simply feast on the uneducated and un-discerning. The thing that makes it hard to police this is that the marks will themselves fight for the grifter, as we see with all the people fighting tooth and nail against their own access to health care or against treatments to stop them from getting horribly ill or dying in a pandemic.
I've been writing a Reddit clone that uses elected moderators, statistical sampling, and referendums to estimate the result of referendums. I'm curious what tools you think would work well.
https://efficientdemocracy.com
New name needed
Democracy only works when you have more energy available than people and that is about to not be the case after 200 years of extracting sunshine from the earths crust. The only thing we're efficient at is to waste energy!
Also "sign in with google"?
Your own http server/database!?! Do you mean you implemented them from scratch? I'm just using nginx/expressjs & postgres. Edit: rupy! interesting! Does ssl kill it's efficiency?
> Democracy only works ...
Energy limitations seem beyond my lifetime. I just want to see how to run a community based on the will of it's members. Efficiently using their time.
> sign in with google
It's not ideal. I originally implemented my own authentication, however implementing it "securely" is a huge task. My main problem is unknown unknowns. Even big companies have non-perfect authentication, like leaking emails during recovery/login. If the site gets any traction I'll expand the authorisation options.
What do you think I could do to improve the site?
I made my own secure user handling using this: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2289
But these don't actually need to exist. Decentralization doesn't have to mean a flat hierarchy, it could (against all trends) be a hierarchy with the user at the top, as social media once looked like. I could select the content I want to see by selecting the people that I trust and the content that they approve of, provisionally trusting the people that the people I trust also trust, and maybe extending that to an arbitrary number of hops. In that way I can choose my own mods.
This requires clients that work for the user rather than for the content creator, complete anathema to major browser vendors, who divide their time between anti-features to force their users to do things that they wouldn't want to do if given a choice, and candy for website owners/developers.
Labeling spam should punish the connections that caused it to be surfaced. That might damage serendipity slightly, but the modern web has run a bulldozer over serendipity with its engagement metrics algorithmically curating newsfeeds.
edit: one of the reasons I want (and probably many want) this kind of control is because I don't want spam, but I do want abuse. I don't want angry people filtered out as a rule, I want to be able to make the decision to blacklist specific angry people, or even people making stupid arguments in good faith. I want control over my own filter bubble. If that contracts my www to a gathering of friends and family, so be it.
If web 1.0 is simple content consumption, and web 2.0 is users providing content to each other filtered by powerful rent seekers, web 3.0 should be user governance. The "mod" system is an authoritarian lack of a governance process, and should be replaced with tools that aid collective decisionmaking.