zlacker

>>chwtut+(OP)
IMO: trust-based systems only work if they carry risk. Your own score should be linked to the people you "vouch for" or "denounce".

This is similar to real life: if you vouch for someone (in business for example), and they scam them, your own reputation suffers. So vouching carries risk. Similarly, if you going around someone is unreliable, but people find out they actually aren't, your reputation also suffers. If vouching or denouncing become free, it will become too easy to weaponize.

Then again, if this is the case, why would you risk your own reputation to vouch for anyone anyway.

>>stepha+5b
Think Epstein but in code. Everyone would vouch for him as he’s hyper connected. So he’d get a free pass all the way. Until all blows in our faces and all that vouched for him now gets flagged. The main issue is that can take 10-20 years for it to blow up.

Then you have introverts that can be good but have no connections and won’t be able to get in.

So you’re kind of selecting for connected and good people.

>>skepti+Rr
Excellent point. Currently HN accounts get much higher scores if they contribute content, than if they make valuable comments. Those should be two separate scores. Instead, accounts with really good advice have lower scores than accounts that have just automated re-posting of content from elsewhere to HN.