It would be trivially easy for them to poison this database.
> Rascals and scammers like these failed Kickstarter bros would be shut down after a single scam ... they would not be able to rent or scam another person after a single scam.
Well, you don't know they're a scammer until they've been to court and proved guilty or does no-one care about innocent until proven guilty anymore? And what's to stop them getting a new identity?
> Imagine the first time some innocent girl in high school is unjustly called a slut, and is defamed by her own school as part of some bullying clique.
That is a fucking awful example. You say "some innocent girl is unjustly called a slut" - this implies that if the girl was not innocent that it may be acceptable to call her a slut (as an insult). Then you say "[...] as part of some bullying clique" which implies that the problem is with the false accusation of sluttiness, and not with the fact that some bullying clique exists.
> I believe the network can ameliorate if not outright prevent such clique abuse by enabling users to rate reviewers based on the reviews they have given. If you abuse people with your reviews and ratings, it can damage your own ratings.
The clique just vote-rings and they cancel out bad votes. Or they buy votes off MTurk.
Bullying is always bad.
Hope I didn't piss you off too much. I just wrote that example quickly, without much thought.
There's no catch all, even a single, centralized system wouldn't be very successful at dealing with the outliers in human behavior on top of the questionable honesty of the people adding ratings to the system in the first place.
The only rating system I've seen that mostly works is Ebay. The only reason it works is because it rates clear-cut transactions that are limited in time and scope, and where both parties have something to loose. And even there you have problems, like its notorious bias against sellers.
Decentralized system would be even easier to game.
Count me out.
If it uses a mechanism like CardSpace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_CardSpace) had:
=> I own my own data (client-side encryption on my client)
=> I consent to others accessing my reputation. Note that access means others can see, not get a copy of, and not keep.
=> I can withhold my reputation completely, or delete it at will.
In such a world, as Airbnb for example, I might make it easier for someone willing to share their reputation to rent a room. A non-existing or withheld reputation might require other checks (like a credit check), or verifiable references, for instance.
If thought through this might have uses. Primarily I'd need to know that it abides by the 7 laws of identity (http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/2006.07.7laws.as...). A lot of this technology exists. CardSpace is one example of a client app (I wouldn't use a web app to manage my reputation, but would be ok to use a service to let others leave feedback about me). Attribute provisioning in identity federation is another, and could be used as a mechanism to check someone's reputation, or to give feedback.
This network would be public, and everyone would be able to see what the scum are up to.
I doubt that 20 % of Stasi informers were double agents, if you led the Stasi on there were consequences.
It's a bit like noting that 96% of Harvard applicants are rejected and concluding that "96% of Harvard students didn't deserve to get in," with the caveat that by "Harvard student" you mean "a student that applied to Harvard."
When you use the same name on all social media, have a domain with it, a blog on it, and openly invite people to google you if they feel like it ... and you aren't a complete arsehat, great things happen. Things like finding a place to live in SF become relatively easy, getting jobs/work becomes simpler, hell, even Tinder works better.
We already have the trust networks in place. Why are so few people using them is a better question.
the guys rans 2 scams on kickstarter. peer-to-peer trust rating networks wont help if a plateform does nothing to prevent scams at first place. that guys shouldnt have been allowed to run a second kickstarter even though he didnt deliver a product in the first one.
I feel it's more accurate to label these guys as talented people who don't know how to manage a project.
As for AirBnB, the label is accurate. They're probably mining bitcoins as well since the electricity bill is so high.
No doubt such a system would be a huge privacy problem for people as people would say that negative reviews reveal their private facts, or that those reviews are defamation.
However, if the network is decentralized, then it might be possible to keep it running even in the face of opposition from state actors.
If we have a peer-to-peer rating/reputation network in place, it would allow people to bypass the elitist inside networks (old boys clubs) to raise capital from investors based on mass positive reputation.
Rascals and scammers like these failed Kickstarter bros would be shut down after a single scam ... they would not be able to rent or scam another person after a single scam.
Implementing a centralized reputation system would be a good first step.
I understand why Yelp and other established companies don't want to be in this business. Its a liability/privacy nightmare.
Imagine the first time some innocent girl in high school is unjustly called a slut, and is defamed by her own school as part of some bullying clique.
I believe the network can ameliorate if not outright prevent such clique abuse by enabling users to rate reviewers based on the reviews they have given. If you abuse people with your reviews and ratings, it can damage your own ratings.