CypherGraph
User Graph Traversal
A Critique is a collection of labels plus text attached to something.
A user's graph will consist of:
- Things U commented on (including the comment).
- Post, Comment, and Reply critiques.
- Stuff in their User identity.
- People they follow? (I assume, not sure)
- People they've labeled, and the label used.
- Community critiques.
Reading all your friends graphs and integrating them into a feed is a good service to offer. See aggregator
Aggregators
An aggregator is a system that reads people's feeds, integrates them into an aggregate feed, and publishes that feed.
- This could be done as a centralized common service, like Reddit.
- It could be done as a centralized personalized service, like Google Search.
- It could be done as a decentralized personalized service, like... not sure an example exists yet.
The decentralized personalized aggregators seem most interesting to me, from an immunity primordial ooze standpoint.
The centralized personalized services might be the most interesting from a cashflow perspective.
My aggregator could have to pay various relays to read their feeds. Different feeds could have different prices. Higher popularity ones would appeal to more people. The upper bound on price would be a function of what the individual user is willing to pay. There would be things like Forrester that would cost enough to be prohibitive for garage startups, but most would be within reach.
Even so, lower price or free feeds, like your friends who are self-publishing their blogs and vlogs, would have very low overhead to incorporate - just CPU, network, memory, and storage.
The aggregator could inject paid placements. Should aggregators adopt an ad labeling policy?
Aggregators could charge for access.
Regular copyright on "particular collections of facts" would apply. Catching it might be difficult.
Discussion Graph Traversal
The primary mission for this project is to make it possible for people to share information science actions. To make it easy for them to publicly describe, demonstrate, and encode mechanisms for curating information to resist disinformation and toxic infectious memes.
Graph traversal becomes a super-important element in those mechanisms.
Consider a message m, which is a node in a discussion graph D. There are various cases where I would want to incorporate or avoid that message.
Incorporate
- Root Nodes m, a vector of all the nodes m that make up the first level of discussion. To be included they would need to satisfy an inclusion criteria.
- The node itself is desirable.
- A descendant node is sufficiently interesting that it merits inclusion of this node to anchor the branch.
- Child Nodes c, a collection of nodes that have a parent, but are not root nodes.
- Node Itself: The node itself is desirable.
- Descendant Node: A descendant node is sufficiently interesting that it merits inclusion of this node to anchor the branch.
- Ancestor Node: An ancestor node becomes worth of inclusion only with this added context.
Traversing:
If I start from a node m and want to decide whether to include its parent branch, under the "ancestor node" rule above, I might consider the following:
If node m is coded with the "supporting data" tag, and the parent node is mildly interesting but a citation is needed, m might justify inclusion of both nodes.
If node m is coded with the "counterpoint" tag, and the parent node is compelling but in need of challenge, m might justify the inclusion of both nodes (and perhaps suggests the inclusion of sibling and niece/nephew nodes).
Emojis
Taken from Unicode 15.1 Emojis. All Short Names are the official Unicode short name (eg: Slack is wrong about some of these).
- down/up: ⬇⬆
- 1437 U+2B06 ⬆ up arrow
- 1441 U+2B07 ⬇ down arrow
- 1300 U+1F5F3 🗳 ballot box with ballot
- 👍👎, 👍/👎, 👎/👍
- 196 U+1F44D 👍 thumbs up
- 197 U+1F44E 👎 thumbs down
Missing?
- Inflammatory Summary (could be covered by "Emotionally Charged")
- Clickbait / Inaccurate Summary (could be combined with "Emotionally Charged" for Inflammatory Summary)
- Rule Violation (details in "content" field)
Positive
| Meaning | Ordinal | Unicode | Emoji | Short Name | Detail | Why |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Insightful | 69 | U+1F92F | 🤯 | exploding head | For comments that offer a fresh perspective or deep insight. | Mind Blown |
| Cited Source | 962 | U+2693 | ⚓ | anchor | For comments that provide reputable sources to back their statements. | Anchored in Fact |
| Well-Structured | 173 | U+1F596 | 🖖 | vulcan salute | For arguments that are logically structured and easy to follow. | Vulcans are Logical |
| Open-Ended | 544 | U+1F5E3 | 🗣 | speaking head | For comments that invite further discussion or pose thought-provoking questions. | Opens Discussion |
| Empathetic | 547 | U+1FAC2 | 🫂 | people hugging | Recognizing comments that show a deep understanding or empathy towards another viewpoint, even if they don't agree. | Hugs are Empathetic |
| Balanced View | 1354 | U+2696 | ⚖ | balance scale | For comments that consider multiple perspectives before drawing a conclusion. | Scales are Balanced |
| Fact-Based | 339 | U+1F575 | 🕵 | detective | Comments that stick strictly to factual information. | Detectives Follow Facts |
| Constructive Feedback | 346 | U+1F477 | 👷 | construction worker | Positive suggestions or feedback on a particular idea or argument. | Constructive / Construction |
Negative
| Meaning | Ordinal | Unicode | Emoji | Short Name | Detail | Why |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fallacy Used | 162 | U+1F573 | 🕳 | hole | For comments that employ logical fallacies in their arguments. | Hole in Logic |
| Ad Hominem | 345 | U+1F977 | 🥷 | ninja | For comments that attack a person's character instead of their argument. | Character Assassin |
| Unsubstantiated Claim | 1123 | U+1F52E | 🔮 | crystal ball | Claims made without any credible source or evidence. | Seen in a Vision |
| Anecdotal Evidence | 704 | U+1F340 | 🍀 | four leaf clover | Relying heavily on personal experiences instead of broader evidence. | One Clover is Not Data |
| Emotionally Charged | 103 | U+1F621 | 😡 | enraged face | Comments that seem to be driven by or intended to provoke emotion. | Inciting Emotion |
| Off-Topic | 115 | U+1F47D | 👽 | alien | Drifting from the main topic of discussion. | Alien to the Topic |
| Oversimplification | 815 | U+1F36C | 🍬 | candy | Analysis or solution that ignores complexity of the situation. | Empty Calories |
| Shill | 72 | U+1F978 | 🥸 | disguised face | This poster appears to be someone who consistently pushes a narrative. | Lack of Authenticity |
Neutral
| Meaning | Ordinal | Unicode | Emoji | Short Name | Detail | Why |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Seeking Clarification | 1520 | U+2753 | ❓ | red question mark | When a user asks for more information or clarity on a point. | I Have Questions |
| Background Info | 1267 | U+1F4DA | 📚 | books | Providing context or background information relevant to the discussion. | Books Provide Info |
| Experience-Based | 255 | U+1F9D3 | 🧓 | older person | Provides substantial and relevant real-world evidence. | Older People are Experienced |
| Hypothesis | 35 | U+1F914 | 🤔 | thinking face | A theory or idea that hasn't been substantiated but adds to the discussion. | Pondering |
| Bot | 117 | U+1F916 | 🤖 | robot | This looks like a bot account / post. | Robots are Bots |
GPT Thoughts on Reactions
Positive Tags
- Insightful: For comments that offer a fresh perspective or deep insight.
- light bulb, 1257, U+1F4A1, 💡
- 69, U+1F92F, 🤯, exploding head
- Cited Source: For comments that provide reputable sources to back their statements.
- graduation cap, 1188, U+1F393, 🎓
- 962, U+2693, ⚓, anchor
- 1536, U+2714, ✔, check mark
- Well-Structured: For arguments that are logically structured and easy to follow.
- 865, U+1F9F1, 🧱, brick
- 864, U+1F3D7, 🏗, building construction
- 173 U+1F596 🖖 vulcan salute
- Open-Ended: For comments that invite further discussion or pose thought-provoking questions.
- 544, U+1F5E3, 🗣, speaking head
- Empathetic: Recognizing comments that show a deep understanding or empathy towards another viewpoint, even if they don't agree.
- 547, U+1FAC2, 🫂, people hugging
- Balanced View: For comments that consider multiple perspectives before drawing a conclusion.
- 1354, U+2696, ⚖, balance scale
- Fact-Based: Comments that stick strictly to factual information.
- 339, U+1F575, 🕵, detective
- 220, U+1F9E0, 🧠, brain
- Constructive Feedback: Positive suggestions or feedback on a particular idea or argument.
- 346, U+1F477, 👷, construction worker
- 961. U+1F6A7, 🚧, construction
Negative Tags
- Fallacy Used: For comments that employ logical fallacies in their arguments.
- 162, U+1F573, 🕳, hole
- Ad Hominem: For comments that attack a person's character instead of their argument.
- 345, U+1F977, 🥷, ninja
- Unsubstantiated Claim: Claims made without any credible source or evidence.
- 1123, U+1F52E, 🔮, crystal ball
- Over-Generalization: Making a broad statement without sufficient evidence.
- Anecdotal Evidence: Relying heavily on personal experiences instead of broader evidence.
- 581, U+1F984, 🦄, unicorn
- 635, U+1F9A2, 🦢, swan
- Emotionally Charged: Comments that seem to be driven more by emotion than reasoned analysis.
- 103, U+1F621, 😡, enraged face
- Off-Topic: Drifting from the main topic of discussion.
- 76, U+1F615, 😕, confused face
- 953, U+1F6E4, 🛤, railway track
- 115, U+1F47D, 👽, alien
- Oversimplification: Analysis or solution that ignores complexity of the situation.
- 815, U+1F36C, 🍬, candy
- Shill:
- 72, U+1F978, 🥸, disguised face
Neutral/Informative Tags
- Seeking Clarification: When a user asks for more information or clarity on a point.
- 1520, U+2753, ❓, red question mark
- Background Info: Providing context or background information relevant to the discussion.
- 1267, U+1F4DA, 📚, books
- Experience-Based: Provides substantial and relevant real-world evidence.
- 255, U+1F9D3, 🧓, older person
- 636, U+1F989, 🦉, owl
- Hypothesis: Proposing a theory or idea that hasn't been substantiated yet but adds to the discussion.
- thought balloon, 167, U+1F4AD, 💭
- 35, U+1F914, 🤔, thinking face
- Bot: This looks like a bot account / post.
- 117, U+1F916, 🤖, robot
Considerations
- Guidelines: Provide users with guidelines on how to use the tags appropriately. This can prevent misuse or over-tagging.
- Feedback Loop: Allow users to see how their comments are tagged by others. This can be a learning tool for them to understand how they can improve their contribution to the discussions.
- Avoid Gaming: Just like with upvotes/downvotes, there's a potential for users to "game" the system. Implementing a system where only a limited number of tags can be applied per user or per comment might help.