> So it's distributed blue checkmark verification by the people for the people.
You could look at it that way.
> The way you say social forwards might work suggest your system would make it so what happened to Trump can't happen to anyone else, that he would "own" his followership, take it with him, so it can't be taken away.
Basically, yes.
> That's a nice idea but that would require the social network to allow (or not disallow) this open distributed checkmark system in some form, wouldn't it?
The idea is that this is a useful system for other distributed/decentralized systems, not so much for Twitter/FB. Sure, centralized systems could use it if it got critical mass, but yes in general it requires integration.
The goal is really to build a system that abstracts away the need to build an identity system in other systems.
So this was built with things like Mastodon in mind: right now, if I move servers, I leave my network behind. There's no real mechanism for moving my network with me, and many other distributed/decentralized networks suffer from the same issue.
> If allowed, this would only encourage the exiled party to create a new account 1:1 on their system, effectively hindering their own moderation efforts.
More like, they can spin up a new account on another instance that will have them.
But also, if I am sick of seeing messages from Trump, I can simply block Trump's Stamp identity and then I wouldn't see his messages no matter where he is. I tend to favor more p2p approaches where possible, meaning the idea of banning someone is not really a thing, and rather individuals are free to (dis)associate with each other as they see fit.
> Then imagine how hard it is to appeal a distributed blacklist.
It's as easy as appealing to one participant in the network given that they would all have to agree on the blacklist. This is in contrast to centralized systems where once you're banned, you're gone forever.
> Unless I am misunderstanding, using stamp means I would lose power across the board on pseudo-anonymous social network providers by revealing who I am even once.
On centralized systems, yes. But they likely wouldn't care about Stamp anyway. On decentralized systems, you lose nothing while gaining the ability to have your network follow you.
You could look at it that way.
> The way you say social forwards might work suggest your system would make it so what happened to Trump can't happen to anyone else, that he would "own" his followership, take it with him, so it can't be taken away.
Basically, yes.
> That's a nice idea but that would require the social network to allow (or not disallow) this open distributed checkmark system in some form, wouldn't it?
The idea is that this is a useful system for other distributed/decentralized systems, not so much for Twitter/FB. Sure, centralized systems could use it if it got critical mass, but yes in general it requires integration.
The goal is really to build a system that abstracts away the need to build an identity system in other systems.
So this was built with things like Mastodon in mind: right now, if I move servers, I leave my network behind. There's no real mechanism for moving my network with me, and many other distributed/decentralized networks suffer from the same issue.
> If allowed, this would only encourage the exiled party to create a new account 1:1 on their system, effectively hindering their own moderation efforts.
More like, they can spin up a new account on another instance that will have them.
But also, if I am sick of seeing messages from Trump, I can simply block Trump's Stamp identity and then I wouldn't see his messages no matter where he is. I tend to favor more p2p approaches where possible, meaning the idea of banning someone is not really a thing, and rather individuals are free to (dis)associate with each other as they see fit.
> Then imagine how hard it is to appeal a distributed blacklist.
It's as easy as appealing to one participant in the network given that they would all have to agree on the blacklist. This is in contrast to centralized systems where once you're banned, you're gone forever.
> Unless I am misunderstanding, using stamp means I would lose power across the board on pseudo-anonymous social network providers by revealing who I am even once.
On centralized systems, yes. But they likely wouldn't care about Stamp anyway. On decentralized systems, you lose nothing while gaining the ability to have your network follow you.