Mute sounds random IMO, how will the platform be able to handle a massive fake account creation attack?
Auto censorship is really bad and works not good.
Ask community is not efficient.
Downvotes are unsexy, but they work.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Using mutes to handle a massive fake account creation attack would not be much different than using DVs to handle a similar attack, but using mutes would actually be slightly better, imo.
With DVs, there must be a method in place to alert large stakeholders that a given post needs DVs.
With mutes, there must be a method in place to alert those with mute authority that a given account needs to be muted.
With the DV approach, that procedure must be repeated for every post from every fake account. This means if a given fake account publishes 10 spam posts, then 10 sets of DVs must be rallied and applied.
With the mute approach, once a given fake account is muted, it remains muted and thus requires no further action. This means if a given fake account publishes 10 spam posts, only 1 mute must be applied -- one and done.
I see 2 problems with it.
The first mute is an absolute decision. There will be Collateral damage ( remember flag wars).
On a larger scale, it will be automated ( like the blacklists that are already here).
Is IMO an WEB2 Solution.
Second if mute should be in community hand in some way, I see the large potential of abuse there. That would be opinion flagging 2.0. Also what if a big stakeholder gets muted? Is this not what on proof of brain happens and everyone got crazy because of that?
A software or game is only that good as much damage can be done with abuse it.
But it can be also turn out that it works really well. There is not only 1 way. Overall all I'm a big fan of the idea of community reputation and skin in the game.
It is good to try new things out, see what happens and learn about it.
Actually, no. Mutes can be removed at any time. For example, if an author gets muted, no further upvotes can be cast for any of their posts while the mute is active, but if the mute is removed before the payout time period is reached, then the payout will proceed.
There will be an explanation given every time a mute is either threatened or enacted. There will be an appeal process as well.
I'm not sure what you mean here. Downvotes create lots of collateral damage. Using mutes rather than DVs should result in less, not more, collateral damage.
Mute actions will be handled by a team, justification and explanation will always be required, they are appealable and reversible. Anyone who tries to abuse the use of the mute function will be removed from having that authority or capability.
It can work out well but is a pretty centralized point of power.