12 ms·

Social Trust Score

4 points by bruhmanfiflo 2y ago

So I have this idea for what's called a Social Trust score. The idea is that it's a system built around identity verification ("Is this person who they say they are?")and trustworthiness ("Can I trust this person?")using real interactions and connections. A few examples of use cases for this system are: Dating, a user can verify their date and know that they are meeting a fairly trustworthy person based on a combination score of personal connections + social connections + professional connections + some type of time factor. Goods exchange(online or in person), this person scams vs this person is extremely trustworthy. Roommates, while in NY, I was paired with 3 roommates I'd never met before and placed on one lease. It would have been nice to be able to know if "This person is an exceptional roommate vs this person seemed nice at first but then recked my life, my credit, then my dog." the list can go on. I can already hear the "ewwwww" in the room, but here's how the system could be great. -The system is built on the basis of fostering good behavior. Not just, "you did something bad" but, "you did something wrong, here's how you can fix it", basically providing actionable ways to improve ones behavior and self. -Every trust score is tied to verified meetings or transactions that requires both parties to confirm the interaction happened. -The system will have built in "gaming" safeguards. Users can't use the system to harm another user's Trust score, businesses can't harm users vice versa and etc. -Network based connections categorized and weighted by context(family, personal, social, professional[+time factor]) based on actual connections and meetings. No I just met this person but they can vouch for me. Yes, they're a classmate, I don't know them but have seen how they interact with others. These are some of my thoughts just trying to hear others thoughts on the subject and the ideas.

johnneville 2y ago
there was a startup called People in 2015 which wanted to do this but people reacted quite negatively and they shut it down. there's certainly already siloed versions of this such as your banking credit score, or your uber user rating, or your hackernews "karma" etc. and i think people react more positively to these sorts of ratings compared with an overall rating that applies to all aspects of your behavior context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peeple_(app) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peeple_(app) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit_System
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- bruhmanfiflo 2y ago
  I've noticed this. People tend to be fine with and even invite these scoring systems in isolation but as a whole people cringe. If it's good to know if an uber driver or door dasher is good at their job, why is it bad to know if someone is a good/bad actor in other parts of their lives?
  - johnneville 2y ago
    it might be cultural but i think a big factor of the reaction to these in the US is the ability to start over or get a second chance. i can always make a new yelp account. if i get a bad score on uber eats, i usually have an alternative option like door dash if i can't make a second account on the initial platform.
    - bruhmanfiflo 2y ago
      hmm, that's a good point. I've seen doordashers using a girlfriends/boyfriends account and I always think to myself, "they must have gotten THEIR account banned"
Terr_ 2y ago
It's not much of an exaggeration to say that humans have been working on making (and breaking) "trust score" systems for thousands of years already, along with a complex web of different kinds of trust. So while I agree it's an important problem, I am skeptical of any solution which does not refer-to or recognize all the prior art. :p
- bruhmanfiflo 2y ago
  Makes since why you would be, especially when looking at "prior art" you can see where the focus was. Basic rating, in order for something like this to work i needs to be fairly robust and thought through. Especially considering that we know how big business tends to grab hold of things like this for gainful usage
verdverm 2y ago
> The system will have built in "gaming" safeguards. Users can't use the system to harm another user's Trust score, businesses can't harm users vice versa and etc. You say this as if it is possible, yet I am unaware of any solution to the problem. This is core to your proposal, can you enlighten us on your vision for this piece?
- bruhmanfiflo 2y ago
  a few idea's for safeguards are first tying someone's account to their actual identity meaning one account per person. This could prevent anonymous ratings, harassment, and swarming behavior Tying ratings to actual meetings or verified transactions preventing leaving multiple reviews from one verified account. negative feedback can't be hidden or deleted, only improved in future transactions unless deemed harmful by moderators or community. Anti swarming, "hey friends leave a bad review for this business I hate" wouldn't work as they would need a validated transaction, but this could also have an additional layer of " these socially, professionally, etc connected accounts have all rated this business badly in (some amount of timing factor) this might need to be flagged. Context protocol. If someone has only ever left negative reviews their "credibility score" becomes lower which in turn lowers their trust score. Business suddenly gets a flood of positive reviews, this could be flagged as bad behavior by the system for review. Think less "Yelp-style drive-by ratings" and more "I trust/distrust this business/person and here's why"
  - verdverm 2y ago
    Are you familiar with "brushing"? https://www.newsweek.com/seeds-mystery-packages-mail-china-brushing-scam-1522999 https://www.newsweek.com/seeds-mystery-packages-mail-china-b... point is, these problems already exist and have lots of people working on them, yet they persist as problems. Many of the things you suggest are already part of this cat-n-mouse game > negative feedback can't be hidden or deleted ... unless deemed harmful by moderators or community So in fact anything can be modified in the end if the powers that be decide so? --- edit: I should add a suggestion... I'm interested in how we might build a more transparent review system on ATProto, where we can all have access to the raw review data, and we can leverage the plug-n-play algos, stacked moderation, and other features of the network. We could create our own lexicons for reviews and make them generic enough to apply to all other lexicon and records in the system. We could end up with a two level system (1) the review records themselves (2) the labellers and algos that build on, annotate, or attest to them. A discussion for an "attestation" lexicon has already been started: https://github.com/orgs/lexicon-community/discussions/8 https://github.com/orgs/lexicon-community/discussions/8 What this offers is a system where there is not a privileged group or a single community moderating, but rather an ecosystem where these entities compete and users can choose which one(s) they subscribe to (or trust).
codingdave 2y ago
I'm assuming you've seen that episode of Black Mirror? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nosedive_(Black_Mirror) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nosedive_(Black_Mirror) Because while it is fiction, it also seems really accurate to how such a system would end up going.
- bruhmanfiflo 2y ago
  This seems to be most peoples take on it, not to mention China actually did the thing and made the episode real life. le sigh
- fiftyacorn 2y ago
  Its similar to the Orville episode "Majority Rule"
bruhmanfiflo 2y ago
I found this video interview of the founder of the Peeple app. What stands out is how badly she wants it to be a "positive" app, pretty much hiding and doing away with any type of negative ratings or negativity. But if everybody is so great then what's even the point? How do you point to someone's bad behavior to help them improve it? It might be possible that the person might not even know they're doing anything wrong in the first place. Others might be too scared to say something or just don't want to in person. There's also the issue of safety, I tell someone they've wronged me, they feel wronged for me telling them and now my face is punched....tangent video below https://youtu.be/03DJkpzP-7Y?si=BYMtINM9VN1BXY7f https://youtu.be/03DJkpzP-7Y?si=BYMtINM9VN1BXY7f
RiverCrochet 2y ago
Voluntary identity verification and reputation systems work well for things like Uber or Airbnb because users want to buy and sell services, so there's a straightforward economic justification for the trust. How do you get people to use it for things that aren't (supposed to be) straightforward economic activity like dates, without being accused of facilitating prostitution? I know Uber or Airbnb can be misused, but you need at least a car or room to participate on those platforms.
- scarface_74 2y ago
  Have you read the various AirBnb related subreddits?
- bruhmanfiflo 2y ago
  This system wouldn't enable tinder or cuddle style interactions only a ratings system. I guess it could be possible that people start using it for prostis and start using coded language to rate those types of interactions, something to consider. I wasn't even aware people used airbnb for things like that, uber sure. Edge cases are definitely worth considering
rvrs 2y ago
I believe people (who are not deemed guilty of murder or something and imprisoned for life) have the right to start over, and so people have the right to lie. Having a lifelong number assigned to you is evil. This isn't solving any problems. I'm sorry you had bad roommates, but stop.
- bruhmanfiflo 2y ago
  The second chance here is the ability to gain feedback on a bad action and improve it. There is always room for and chances to improve ones self. I would never create a system that placed a negative on someone's entire life. And even those deemed guilty or imprisoned should have a strike at second chances.
  - rvrs 2y ago
    >I would never create a system that placed a negative on someone's entire life. >There is always room for and chances to improve ones self. Great, then here's an opportunity for you to improve: I need you to understand that any social system designed by humans will be flawed and miss a bunch of edge cases. Your intentions do not matter. Doing this will fuck up somebody's life.
    - bruhmanfiflo 2y ago
      I hear your concerns and absolutely understand them, however I think you're missing the point that this isn't about surveillance or control - it's helping people make more informed choices about who they interact with, while giving everyone clear ways to demonstrate their trustworthiness. Of course there will be edge cases the same way there are edge cases with a hammer. Being community driven means its up to the community as a whole to keep the system legit, improve the community, and improve the system(and it's edge cases) as a whole
jethronethro 2y ago
How is this materially different from the Social Credit System implemented by the Chinese government?
- bruhmanfiflo 2y ago
  foundationally it's similar, where it differs is the SCS is government controlled and focuses on surveillance and control through denying access to travel, jobs, and services, a Trust Score system would be a public self governing system and is simply a tool people can choose to use to make more informed decisions about who they interact with, based purely on real past interactions
hindsightbias 2y ago
I would find this useful as long as there is a way to filter out all 5 stars.
JojoFatsani 2y ago
They have this in the PRC already
- nejsjsjsbsb 2y ago
  But this will democratize it!
nejsjsjsbsb 2y ago
If you do well then Meta buys you and sells my data.
- bruhmanfiflo 2y ago
  If I do well no one buys me
  - nejsjsjsbsb 2y ago
    Yeah but as a user I have no control over that :).
    - bruhmanfiflo 2y ago
      ...but what if you did? man wouldn't that be something??!!
gadders 2y ago
Kind of ironic that you are pitching this with an ID you created 16 hours ago. Clearly there are some interactions you don't want tied back to your real life identity.
- bruhmanfiflo 2y ago
  "tied back to your real life identity" my name and google work together my friend...

Social Trust Score

4 points by bruhmanfiflo 2y ago

johnneville 2y ago

there was a startup called People in 2015 which wanted to do this but people reacted quite negatively and they shut it down. there's certainly already siloed versions of this such as your banking credit score, or your uber user rating, or your hackernews "karma" etc. and i think people react more positively to these sorts of ratings compared with an overall rating that applies to all aspects of your behavior context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peeple_(app) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peeple_(app) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit_System

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
bruhmanfiflo 2y ago
I've noticed this. People tend to be fine with and even invite these scoring systems in isolation but as a whole people cringe. If it's good to know if an uber driver or door dasher is good at their job, why is it bad to know if someone is a good/bad actor in other parts of their lives?
- johnneville 2y ago
  it might be cultural but i think a big factor of the reaction to these in the US is the ability to start over or get a second chance. i can always make a new yelp account. if i get a bad score on uber eats, i usually have an alternative option like door dash if i can't make a second account on the initial platform.
  - bruhmanfiflo 2y ago
    hmm, that's a good point. I've seen doordashers using a girlfriends/boyfriends account and I always think to myself, "they must have gotten THEIR account banned"

Terr_ 2y ago

It's not much of an exaggeration to say that humans have been working on making (and breaking) "trust score" systems for thousands of years already, along with a complex web of different kinds of trust. So while I agree it's an important problem, I am skeptical of any solution which does not refer-to or recognize all the prior art. :p

bruhmanfiflo 2y ago
Makes since why you would be, especially when looking at "prior art" you can see where the focus was. Basic rating, in order for something like this to work i needs to be fairly robust and thought through. Especially considering that we know how big business tends to grab hold of things like this for gainful usage

verdverm 2y ago

> The system will have built in "gaming" safeguards. Users can't use the system to harm another user's Trust score, businesses can't harm users vice versa and etc. You say this as if it is possible, yet I am unaware of any solution to the problem. This is core to your proposal, can you enlighten us on your vision for this piece?

bruhmanfiflo 2y ago
a few idea's for safeguards are first tying someone's account to their actual identity meaning one account per person. This could prevent anonymous ratings, harassment, and swarming behavior Tying ratings to actual meetings or verified transactions preventing leaving multiple reviews from one verified account. negative feedback can't be hidden or deleted, only improved in future transactions unless deemed harmful by moderators or community. Anti swarming, "hey friends leave a bad review for this business I hate" wouldn't work as they would need a validated transaction, but this could also have an additional layer of " these socially, professionally, etc connected accounts have all rated this business badly in (some amount of timing factor) this might need to be flagged. Context protocol. If someone has only ever left negative reviews their "credibility score" becomes lower which in turn lowers their trust score. Business suddenly gets a flood of positive reviews, this could be flagged as bad behavior by the system for review. Think less "Yelp-style drive-by ratings" and more "I trust/distrust this business/person and here's why"
- verdverm 2y ago
  Are you familiar with "brushing"? https://www.newsweek.com/seeds-mystery-packages-mail-china-brushing-scam-1522999 https://www.newsweek.com/seeds-mystery-packages-mail-china-b... point is, these problems already exist and have lots of people working on them, yet they persist as problems. Many of the things you suggest are already part of this cat-n-mouse game > negative feedback can't be hidden or deleted ... unless deemed harmful by moderators or community So in fact anything can be modified in the end if the powers that be decide so? --- edit: I should add a suggestion... I'm interested in how we might build a more transparent review system on ATProto, where we can all have access to the raw review data, and we can leverage the plug-n-play algos, stacked moderation, and other features of the network. We could create our own lexicons for reviews and make them generic enough to apply to all other lexicon and records in the system. We could end up with a two level system (1) the review records themselves (2) the labellers and algos that build on, annotate, or attest to them. A discussion for an "attestation" lexicon has already been started: https://github.com/orgs/lexicon-community/discussions/8 https://github.com/orgs/lexicon-community/discussions/8 What this offers is a system where there is not a privileged group or a single community moderating, but rather an ecosystem where these entities compete and users can choose which one(s) they subscribe to (or trust).

codingdave 2y ago

I'm assuming you've seen that episode of Black Mirror? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nosedive_(Black_Mirror) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nosedive_(Black_Mirror) Because while it is fiction, it also seems really accurate to how such a system would end up going.

bruhmanfiflo 2y ago
This seems to be most peoples take on it, not to mention China actually did the thing and made the episode real life. le sigh
fiftyacorn 2y ago
Its similar to the Orville episode "Majority Rule"

bruhmanfiflo 2y ago

I found this video interview of the founder of the Peeple app. What stands out is how badly she wants it to be a "positive" app, pretty much hiding and doing away with any type of negative ratings or negativity. But if everybody is so great then what's even the point? How do you point to someone's bad behavior to help them improve it? It might be possible that the person might not even know they're doing anything wrong in the first place. Others might be too scared to say something or just don't want to in person. There's also the issue of safety, I tell someone they've wronged me, they feel wronged for me telling them and now my face is punched....tangent video below https://youtu.be/03DJkpzP-7Y?si=BYMtINM9VN1BXY7f https://youtu.be/03DJkpzP-7Y?si=BYMtINM9VN1BXY7f

RiverCrochet 2y ago

Voluntary identity verification and reputation systems work well for things like Uber or Airbnb because users want to buy and sell services, so there's a straightforward economic justification for the trust. How do you get people to use it for things that aren't (supposed to be) straightforward economic activity like dates, without being accused of facilitating prostitution? I know Uber or Airbnb can be misused, but you need at least a car or room to participate on those platforms.

scarface_74 2y ago
Have you read the various AirBnb related subreddits?
bruhmanfiflo 2y ago
This system wouldn't enable tinder or cuddle style interactions only a ratings system. I guess it could be possible that people start using it for prostis and start using coded language to rate those types of interactions, something to consider. I wasn't even aware people used airbnb for things like that, uber sure. Edge cases are definitely worth considering

rvrs 2y ago

I believe people (who are not deemed guilty of murder or something and imprisoned for life) have the right to start over, and so people have the right to lie. Having a lifelong number assigned to you is evil. This isn't solving any problems. I'm sorry you had bad roommates, but stop.

bruhmanfiflo 2y ago
The second chance here is the ability to gain feedback on a bad action and improve it. There is always room for and chances to improve ones self. I would never create a system that placed a negative on someone's entire life. And even those deemed guilty or imprisoned should have a strike at second chances.
- rvrs 2y ago
  >I would never create a system that placed a negative on someone's entire life. >There is always room for and chances to improve ones self. Great, then here's an opportunity for you to improve: I need you to understand that any social system designed by humans will be flawed and miss a bunch of edge cases. Your intentions do not matter. Doing this will fuck up somebody's life.
  - bruhmanfiflo 2y ago
    I hear your concerns and absolutely understand them, however I think you're missing the point that this isn't about surveillance or control - it's helping people make more informed choices about who they interact with, while giving everyone clear ways to demonstrate their trustworthiness. Of course there will be edge cases the same way there are edge cases with a hammer. Being community driven means its up to the community as a whole to keep the system legit, improve the community, and improve the system(and it's edge cases) as a whole

jethronethro 2y ago

How is this materially different from the Social Credit System implemented by the Chinese government?

bruhmanfiflo 2y ago
foundationally it's similar, where it differs is the SCS is government controlled and focuses on surveillance and control through denying access to travel, jobs, and services, a Trust Score system would be a public self governing system and is simply a tool people can choose to use to make more informed decisions about who they interact with, based purely on real past interactions

hindsightbias 2y ago

I would find this useful as long as there is a way to filter out all 5 stars.

JojoFatsani 2y ago

They have this in the PRC already

nejsjsjsbsb 2y ago
But this will democratize it!

nejsjsjsbsb 2y ago

If you do well then Meta buys you and sells my data.

bruhmanfiflo 2y ago
If I do well no one buys me
- nejsjsjsbsb 2y ago
  Yeah but as a user I have no control over that :).
  - bruhmanfiflo 2y ago
    ...but what if you did? man wouldn't that be something??!!

gadders 2y ago

Kind of ironic that you are pitching this with an ID you created 16 hours ago. Clearly there are some interactions you don't want tied back to your real life identity.

bruhmanfiflo 2y ago
"tied back to your real life identity" my name and google work together my friend...