I met up with a normal person the other day and found myself talking about this project. It upset her so much that she said "I think your idea is stupid", and then stormed out of the cafe. She followed this up with a text message saying "Please don't ever contact me again. I refuse to associate with someone who believes that the victim should be punished."
My analysis of what was upsetting her is as follows:
The trust network system organically identifies faults/mistakes and fixes them one way or another. She was upset by the idea of the person who makes the mistake (declaring that a person not worthy of trust can be trusted) paying for it.
It was a good experience. I now understand why the system doesn't exist already. Average consciousness prefers authority based systems. Nobody wants to take responsibility for their own mistakes. I, and the others for whom this system is intended, would gladly pay for the privilege of discovering my/our mistake. Apparently I/we am/are a minority.
Saturday 8 May 2010
Tuesday 4 May 2010
A friend asked for me to give him a simple task so I said:
"The first task will be completed when I receive an honest email from someone, telling me that they:
(a) have read my blog (http://adamharper.blogspot.com/) and all the material it refers to and are interested in developing it; and
(b) have sufficient experience in python to carry out the coding side of the project unassisted."
in this context, I found myself writing the following, (which may not make sense without the preceeding material):
The first component to develop should probably be the information network. This helps people who don't know each other to find each other and communicate without spam.
A statement of trust for someone not to spam, does not imply that you trust them not to swindle and cheat in business. This way, if you read someone's blog and think they are cool and won't spam anyone, you can add them to your network even though you don't actually know them.
Spam disputes are resolved in a similar way, but with a few differences. You can't sue them. you can't ask them to pay for their infringement. So instead you just inform them publicly that you consider their material spam, and if they don't remove it, you will initiate disconnection protocol (the one where you start by complaining to your friend). The public statements (which, along with a copy of the objectionable item, stay as a permanent record on that person for anyone who views their content through a connection with you) are there so that if someone just removes one ad and then puts another one up, and just says "oh, sorry that was a mistake" each time, a future user can distinguish between a genuine and well meaning idiot, and a fraudulent liar.
a big feature of this information network, is the ability to associate urls with authors/users, independently of the web page itself. Meaning that you can verify that someone is the same person without being able to spam them. Everyone has software (perhaps a firefox addon?) which tells them whether and how they are connected to the owner of a particular url, and anounces the (non-spammable) address of the owner of any url that has been registered by someone you are connected to (directly or indirectly). Perhaps you don't think this is useful. I do. When you read an article by someone, how do you know that it isn't someone else impersonating them?
"The first task will be completed when I receive an honest email from someone, telling me that they:
(a) have read my blog (http://adamharper.blogspot.com/) and all the material it refers to and are interested in developing it; and
(b) have sufficient experience in python to carry out the coding side of the project unassisted."
in this context, I found myself writing the following, (which may not make sense without the preceeding material):
The first component to develop should probably be the information network. This helps people who don't know each other to find each other and communicate without spam.
A statement of trust for someone not to spam, does not imply that you trust them not to swindle and cheat in business. This way, if you read someone's blog and think they are cool and won't spam anyone, you can add them to your network even though you don't actually know them.
Spam disputes are resolved in a similar way, but with a few differences. You can't sue them. you can't ask them to pay for their infringement. So instead you just inform them publicly that you consider their material spam, and if they don't remove it, you will initiate disconnection protocol (the one where you start by complaining to your friend). The public statements (which, along with a copy of the objectionable item, stay as a permanent record on that person for anyone who views their content through a connection with you) are there so that if someone just removes one ad and then puts another one up, and just says "oh, sorry that was a mistake" each time, a future user can distinguish between a genuine and well meaning idiot, and a fraudulent liar.
a big feature of this information network, is the ability to associate urls with authors/users, independently of the web page itself. Meaning that you can verify that someone is the same person without being able to spam them. Everyone has software (perhaps a firefox addon?) which tells them whether and how they are connected to the owner of a particular url, and anounces the (non-spammable) address of the owner of any url that has been registered by someone you are connected to (directly or indirectly). Perhaps you don't think this is useful. I do. When you read an article by someone, how do you know that it isn't someone else impersonating them?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)