I am suggesting applying things like that globally, to all users, not just users who have done something to get noticed.
Does 4chan have reply delays?
By the way, I think I'd like to amend that "response delay" thing to be "after the responding user first sees the material", rather than "after the material goes up".
You raise good points. Society would benefit through the re-aligning of incentives
If this was done and it was done like with royalties, it represents a form of long-term income for people who create things of value and put them on the web and similarly discourages people from creating "the next clickbait hot take" that will typically have no lasting value and has no net benefit to society. The pro-social incentives are better aligned there.
Think of it like music (pre-Napster). Musicians either (1) wanted to make pop music that will get played to a large audience so they collect larger royalties or (2) if they can't go for mainstream pop they try to find or create a niche audience and dominate there.
I'm not sure if you're an old like me. But it makes me think of this KMFDM track, Fairy, on their album Xtort. In 1997 playing that in one of your friends car discmans was this crazy experience of "Oh my god I can't believe they put that on an album!" But by comparison to most of the web now, it's so tame that it's boring.
When incentives are aligned you're more likely to get more people trying to make an album like Abby Road, and a few people following the strategy to make albums like Xtort. The artists like KMFDM will be around but, will be in the counter-culture margins where they're still both cool and profitable. There is no mechanism to incubate a real counter-culture anymore--anything that's cool that gets created gets discovered and becomes part of the mush that is the completely permeable borderless Internet. It's like when someone has a broken jaw an has to eat through a straw, so they just blend what could be a four course meal in to a shake.
When incentives are misaligned like they are now, art and creativity are mistaken for or replaced by vice and base pleasures. I'm not a prude, vice and base pleasures have their place, but there's good reasons why you shouldn't have chocolate cake and cocaine for breakfast.
I would charge a small, hormetic, amount of money for each post and a smaller amount of each action taken on that post. I believe people originally proposed this for email, but decided against it, if I understand it correctly in part because the implementation options were difficult at the time.
Micropayments have been difficult in the past, but there’s some cryptos that can do them now with very small transaction fees (e.g. $HBAR).
The some of the money could go to the poster so people could make income from social media, some to the platform so they would rely less on advertising.
This would also create small amount of friction for posting content and make users stop and think for a second as to whether it’s worth it.
1jbash
Well, yes, basically. Here are some sugestions for exploration. I am not saying all of these are good ideas, and some of them conflict, but they're things you could look at.
* Don't allow responses, by which I mean replying, retweeting, liking, forwarding, or whatever, until the base material has been up for something like a couple of hours. That includes responses to responses.
* Adjust that delay so that a response that will be seen by few users can go through faster than a response that can be seen by many users... but there should always be at least a few minutes of delay for any response that is public, goes to a very large audience, or could be in any way be forwarded to become public or go to a very large audience.
* Limit the number of responses a user can post per hour. Put heavier limits on responders who don't generate a lot of original posts. Put still heavier limits on people with large followings.
* Combine the above so that the delay or audience limits applied to you depend partly on how many posts or responses you generate in general.
* Downrank prolific posters.
* Downrank clusters of posters who frequently amplify one another, especially if nobody outside the clique seems to amplify them to the same degree.
* Aggregate reposts of the same link or substantially the same text, and treat them as a single object that is show to each user at most once.
* When you're ranking material to display to a user, uprank material from accounts that user follows that have fewer other followers (like family and friends) over material from accounts that have more other followers (like politicians and media). On edit: heavily uprank posts from people who reciprocally follow the reader.
* Provide downvotes, and have them actually sink material rather than upranking it as "controversial".
* Uprank long posts and maybe posts with multiple links... especially links to sources that do not usually appear together in other posts on the platform.
* Upra
The order does not matter, you can see that by focusing on θ=12 which is always equal to 1N2, you can also see it from the conjugation rule where you end with Beta(3,2) no matter the order.
If you wanted the order to matter you could down weight earlier shots or widen the uncertainty between the updates, so previous posterior becomes a slightly wider prior to capture the extra uncertainty from the passage of time.
Definitely I'm confused - I don't see how the die roll helps, over just deciding to do or not do the thing. I think you're describing a decision about whether to commit to something, prior to the actual behavior of doing it (which is a decision as well, though I'm not sure whether you agree on that point). Your description is of a decision to assign an external probability source to the commitment portion of the sequence. I don't understand why you wouldn't prefer to just decide.
I think remain most confused by
I don't understand why it's OK to commit to a small chance of doing something I don't want to, but why it's not OK to just not do it (colloquial 0%. Bayesian arbitrary small chance, as circumstances can change).
I think an existence proof would help - what decisions or actions has this worked for for you? How did you pick the odds to use? I can't think of any decisions where I expect it to help me in any way (except certain adversarial games where mixed strategies are optimal, but those are incredibly rare in the real world).
The best way to determine whether a detail should be included is to extrapolate from your experience teaching people in real life. I have literally, in my entire life, never observed a person ruining chocolate chip cookies by using too high or too low a cocoa content. I don't even think about cocoa content when making chocolate chip cookies. From this experience I conclude it is not necessary to specify cocoa content. If you think cocoa content is something a reader is likely to get wrong in an important way then you should specify cocoa content.
You should always include all the details necessary for the reader who knows x to perform y competently. What I mean by "[y]ou are not allowed to overgeneralize" is that you should never say anything technically incorrect. Never communicate information that will have to be corrected later.
People who have trouble getting to the point often benefit from a wordcount limit. If you are a rambler then you should enforce a wordcount limit on yourself.
I looked up lots of details when writing my Vim guide. I don't think requiring details to be remembered off the top of your head without googling is a good rule when writing a guide. On the other hand you should not use quotes unless you can recall the gist of them from memory. (But you should google them anyway to get the words exactly right.)
"No numbers" is a bad rule when writing a guide. Precise language is good. Numbers are the most precise language. Numbers are good. Err on the side of being too specific when writing a guide.
Why I think what is? That this intervention doesn't help? Because if I don't want to do something, and I think I can get away with not doing it, I think that will STILL BE THE CASE after I roll a die. For me, at least (I acknowledge that it may work for others, which is great), I care far less about a statement of intent to obey a random event than I care about the actual behavior. Adding the die roll does not add any information or decision weight.
If I had that much willpower, I'd just do (or not do, if that's my true net preference) the thing.
There are no such situations I can think of where an explicit outside randomness helps me. The classic uses of a mixed strategy (where the adversary is strategically optimizing against your intent) don't apply here.
Well, "0" is not a probability, but aside from that, this is far too general. There are certainly things you should set an expectation of arbitrarily low probability. 1/36 is way too high for some things that I don't want/intend to do, and way too low for some things that I kind of want to do, but am conflicted in ways that I can't just commit. And for many many things I don't even intend to expend the effort of rolling dice or otherwise externally making a decision.
Also, for things that part of me wants but I am so averse to that I'll only agree to a 1/36 chance I'll have to do it, I'm likely to cheat anyway, so I should just pre-commit to "no" and not have to worry about it. I kind of suck that way.
[ edit: I don't mean to talk anyone out of trying this - if it works for you, that's awesome! ]
1Robbo
Interesting - what sort of thing do you use this for? what sort of thing have you done after rolling a 2?
I imagine it must be things that are in some sense 'optional' since (quite literally) odds are you will not end up doing it.
I know it's not perfect, but "achieve human potential" sounds like a reasonable moral axiom to start with. A big "no thank you" to the wireheading for me.
Removed.