The current follow problem that I have can be solved client-side; where one can see whether the follow is reciprocal (why doesent Amethyst have this?) and how long since that person has been "active." (e.g. likes, zaps, profile updates, posts, replies, etc.) Then it should be trivial to unfollow dead accounts and the follow-list is more meaningful. The public aspect of follows has a wot side-effect, which is also a primary feature. When I'm searching for a profile, I look to see if anyone I "trust" is also following that profile. When people demonstrate they are either worthless or spammy, they tend to get pruned from most lists. The WoT score based on follow, activity & reciprocity has more power than it regarded to. What a follow-based WoT means in the context of social media is whether the followed identity is likely to be authentic and of information-value, not necessarily whether you agree with that identity. (I follow @Robert Reich for god's sake) This stuff about "not needing to press follow a hundred times" and "updating their follow list on the relay every time the button is pressed) has no traction in my mind. One can modify a client to batch follows, like in @Gossip Client. What you are describing is personal feed curation, and many intend this to be public. Some people may want a public follow list, and several separate private follow lists (to avoid endorsement), but this is a power-user feature, and probably too complicated for the "average" person. To separate the WoT feature from the follow feature is an interesting idea, but also likely to never be useful due to lack of use. Normally people have no idea whether a person they are following is a real person, or even an honest person. In that regard, a "trust" button would never EVER be used. The purpose of a follow-backed WoT is not to endorse, it's so others can see what you want to see, regardless if you "endorse" them or not.

Replies (6)

> In that regard, a "trust" button would never EVER be used. Yes, I don't think there should be a "trust" button. "Trust" is too vague, too generic, not a good word. I would never click that one either. But perhaps you have a list of uber drivers you like, or a list of wiki authors you favor over others, a list of people with music tastes you endorse etc. I don't know.
> The public aspect of follows has a wot side-effect, which is also a primary feature. I agree, but it's also too limited. Other possibilities exist and they're not being explored. Mainly in my mind right now is the idea that by following some relays you're open to see posts from people you don't know, and that you trust that relay enough to accept their judgement about who is a person that is worth listening to, and they can have clearer criteria more uniformly enforced, like "whoever pays", "whoever gets manually approved by such and such", "whoever has produced these many hashes", "whoever has a PhD", I don't know (of course since follow lists can still exist this can also be based on the current WoT criteria).
Agreed. The ability to follow a curated relay output could be very powerful, but how is that different to the end-user than subscribing to a curated list published by individuals? One could pay to be on that list, in addition to being curated/endorsed, without needing the list owner to run a relay.
WoT is about endorsement. That's why it has "trust" in the name. Knowing who some npub follows doesn't necessarily tell me anything at all, about what they're actually looking at. I used to have over 1k follows, and I just looked at my relay feeds and some lists. You would need the relay traffic to know, and you can't necessarily monitor all of their relays. I was happy to follow everyone back because it didn't mean anything. > The current follow problem that I have can be solved client-side; where one can see whether the follow is reciprocal (why doesent Amethyst have this?) and how long since that person has been "active." (e.g. likes, zaps, profile updates, posts, replies, etc.) Then it should be trivial to unfollow dead accounts and the follow-list is more meaningful. We actually have mini-clients that do this. I've used them, repeatedly, but it quickly leads to a dull, low-signal feed because the people who are the most-interesting to read are also often the ones that post less-frequently or more often on private or protected/AUTH relays, and they are much much less-likely to "follow back". I'm well aware that my @Silberengel account has a rock-bottom WoT, because it has no follows, and my @Laeserin has a lowish one, as I don't follow that many npubs, but I leave it like that, on purpose. In protest. I think follows are commie, designed to reduce our freedom, create rampant shadow-banning, force us to make all of our contacts public and easily searchable, and steer us all to be drooling influencer groupies. Everything I've seen happen, on Nostr, since I got here, just solidifies that opinion for me. There has not been any counter-evidence. The whole situation has just steadily degraded. Most people disagree with me, and cannot imagine how Nostr could work well without Kind 03, but I am not Most People and never have been.
> I'm well aware that my @Silberengel account has a rock-bottom WoT, because it has no follows, and my @Laeserin has a lowish one, as I don't follow that many npubs, but I leave it like that, on purpose. Your sense of WoT is reverse to the way I understand it. If your @Silberengel account follows someone, that doesent increase your own WoT; rather it depends on who follows the @Silberengel account that increases the score. Yes, you don't follow anyone, but that only means you don't need reciprocity due to your own established credibility. The WoT idea is that "high trust" people (who has *your* "trust" which depends on your own follow list and the trust score of who they follow) are depended upon to only follow high-value identities. If your "friend" is following a bunch spam (evidenced by their reposting of crap accounts), you will hopefully unfollow them due to the low value of their posts. Its this score that gives credibility, but only in the sense that the accounts aren't spammers or imposters. The purpose of this WoT isn't necessarily to know who you *should* follow, but to filter out who you *shouldn't* follow and clutter up your feed.
> I think follows are commie, designed to reduce our freedom, create rampant shadow-banning, force us to make all of our contacts public and easily searchable, and steer us all to be drooling influencer groupies. > > Everything I've seen happen, on Nostr, since I got here, just solidifies that opinion for me. There has not been any counter-evidence. The whole situation has just steadily degraded. I'm not sure you understand the main value most people get out of social media. For most, the purpose *is* to be a "drooling influencer groupie". I would bet @jack and @rabble have made the same observation: Twitter probably started out slow, with a small contingent of tech-junkies who share a common ideology and high intelligence. Once it gained networks momentum it gained attention of more widely recognized names, who invested in the platform by sharing their high-signal opinion. Once their "groupies" learned they were on Twitter, they joined primarily to be able to participate in the conversation. This was the original intent, back in the early 90's, why USA Today put journalists' email addresses at the end of their articles; so their readers would be able to shout back, or boot-lick depending on the context. It was when Twitter became a scientific forum, and a political forum, and a journalist publishing medium, that it exploded with success. I wouldn't poo-poo the underlying nature of social media, or try to pin it on the common ability to publish who you want in your feed.