Selfhosted
A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.
Rules:
-
Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.
-
No spam posting.
-
Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.
-
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.
-
Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
-
No trolling.
Resources:
- selfh.st Newsletter and index of selfhosted software and apps
- awesome-selfhosted software
- awesome-sysadmin resources
- Self-Hosted Podcast from Jupiter Broadcasting
Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.
Questions? DM the mods!
view the rest of the comments
Sure, so bake in a set of default "mods" whose influence goes away as people interact with the moderator system. Start with a CSAM bot, for example (fairly common on Reddit, so there's plenty of prior art here), and allow users to manually opt-in to make those moderators permanent.
I don't think anyone wants a pure web of trust, since that relies on absolute trust of peers, and in a system like a message board, you won't have that trust.
Instead, build it with transitive trust, weighting peers based on how much you align with them, and trust those they trust as bit less, and so on.
Maybe? That really depends on how you design it. If you require a lot of samples before trusting someone (e.g. samples where you align on votes), the bots would need to be pretty long-lived to build clout. And at some point, someone is bound to notice bot-like behaviour and report it, which would impact how much it impacts visible content.
That can happen with any P2P system, yet it's not that common of a problebut
I don't see why it would. All you need is:
Reddit/lemmy has everything but a distinction between agree/disagree and relevant/irrelevant. People tend to use votes as agree/disagree regardless, so having a distinction could lead to better moderation.
You'd need to tweak the weights, but the core algorithm doesn't need to be super complex, just keep track of the N most aligned users and some number of "runners up" so you have a pool to swap the top group with when you start aligning more with someone else. Keep all of that local and drop posts/comments that don't meet some threshold.
It's way more complex than centralized moderation and will need lots of iteration to tune properly, but I think it can work reasonably well at scale since everything is local.