Tagging those who contributed to the `Endorse` activity design.
-
@tchambers @benpate @scottjenson “vouch” or “vet” might work.
-
@scottjenson my question is "A vouches for what for B?" If it's just an endorsement in general, then it's equivalent to a like on a post. But a post is usually about something. And if an endorsement is for something specific, then who decides? LinkedIn has their version, which is for a list of terms. Derive common hashtags for that person & vouch for that?
@GavinChait @scottjenson @benpate @tchambers That’s what I’m trying to understand, too. In PGP, the concept of vetting often involves meeting and looking at IDs or equivalent to check identities, and you sign their key with yours and set a trust level.
These levels can mean different things to different people, and how you vet also differs, but ultimately, you’re trying to say, “I trust (to some low/med/hi degree) this is Alice.”
Is the goal with this proposal to establish a trust system?
-
@GavinChait @scottjenson @benpate @tchambers That’s what I’m trying to understand, too. In PGP, the concept of vetting often involves meeting and looking at IDs or equivalent to check identities, and you sign their key with yours and set a trust level.
These levels can mean different things to different people, and how you vet also differs, but ultimately, you’re trying to say, “I trust (to some low/med/hi degree) this is Alice.”
Is the goal with this proposal to establish a trust system?
@ramsey @GavinChait @benpate @tchambers
I agree with your concerns. This is what I meant by the complexity issue in a previous thread. It *is* YAF (yet another feature) and if we're not careful, people just a) won't get it or b) not be bothered.But need is clear. Follows and likes aren't enough. This is a public connection *between* two people. That is its difference. It's power comes from the "rel=me" aspect of both people agreeing. That appears powerful. It is a stronger signal to to build a web of trust, feels decentralized, durable, and seemingly unspoofable (I hope?).
But we really do have to keep it simple. Maybe we call it something else? But I'm hearing the concern that you feel it's not actually that valuable? Do I have that right?
-
@scottjenson @GavinChait @benpate @tchambers What happens to your endorsements or to those you endorsed when you move servers?
There’s enough issues here that Mastodon is starting to break down as a communication tool. We may need to move this over to code edge issues soon.
But, I’d expect a proper LOLA data migration would move endorsements as easily as any other records. Encryption keys may be a complicating factor, but that’s something to hash out on Codeberg.
-
-
And, you sold me on this, too.
My original idea was to define a protocol, then hand wave at the various uses.
The community interest has been awesome, and (rightfully) focused on the human-cale uses of this kind of thing.
Its most important for me that we lock down abuse vectors before they happen. But everything else really SHOULD be left up to implementors.
YOU should choose what you believe online — that shouldn’t be up to the protocol.
-
-
@scottjenson @GavinChait @benpate @tchambers What happens to your endorsements or to those you endorsed when you move servers?
@ramsey
Two separate issues:
1. moving servers (happy to discuss that in another thread)
2. What is an endorsement?
I'd like to keep to that topic for now. My understanding of Ben's proposal (please correct if I'm wrong:
* It's a TWO way bridge, e.g. I have to endorse and you have accept
* At a core level, that's it, just a series of two-way connections
* But the question is "what do we do with these connections?
* I'm suggesting that it's more helpful in aggregate (I think Ben agrees)
* So the real question is how do we rollup these various signals and present them to the user? When I see your avatar on a post or reply, what do I see that gives me confidence you are a trusted person? 3 people I know endorse you? etc... -
And, you sold me on this, too.
My original idea was to define a protocol, then hand wave at the various uses.
The community interest has been awesome, and (rightfully) focused on the human-cale uses of this kind of thing.
Its most important for me that we lock down abuse vectors before they happen. But everything else really SHOULD be left up to implementors.
YOU should choose what you believe online — that shouldn’t be up to the protocol.
Another example has come up that shows the overlap of protocol design and potential uses cases:
1. Someone offers me an endorsement (Ben likes tea)
2. I accept, because tea is dandy
3. They change the endorsement (Ben likes coffee)
4. Coffee is disgusting. I’m deeply embarrassed.The current protocol does not protect against this. I’d thought no cryptography would be needed, but now I’m convinced that endorsements MUST be signed in some way.
Object Identity Proofs, anyone?
-
@julian
This is where I'd (politely) disagree. "The UX" is often baked into the API, it's not a "simple dialog box you slap on top". I agree there are lots of different directions it can go but if we realize we need something ELSE in the API to make the "scoring" work, we don't want to find that out after it's too late.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login