Peering 2.0
Hello, Habr!
Peering 2.0 is not a very expressive (no more suitable yet) name for a network of social interaction, which, as far as I know, does not exist in practice.
I'll start from afar, with a question. How often have you come across misunderstandings? I think that the vast majority do not lack such experience. Mutual understanding is much less common, and therefore we perceive close ideas, thoughts and actions most sharply, as they say, “close to the heart”.
All people are different, it is difficult to argue with this and yet knowing that a genuine, deep understanding is possible, there is a hope that people who share the same views can be combined. And this will be done not mechanically, but on a completely different basis, even if using simple, if not primitive technical means.
What is peering 2.0?
This is a way of bringing people into communities who share similar views on a wide range of issues and who, in the absence of disagreements, have the opportunity to concentrate on solving problems. Moreover, the similarity of views will allow in this case to save a lot of effort that can be directed to more important issues than trying to convince others in something. How can peering 2.0 be implemented? The things from the outside world that impressed us characterize a particle of ourselves: whether it is a movie that excited us or a book we liked. Speaking technically, a website with a database that includes movies, music, books (not entirely, but in the form of unique identifiers with descriptions), expressive quotes, and links to web pages, which users could evaluate is able to bring together (and unite in community-clusters) those who have similar ratings and thereby most likely share similar beliefs. The more ratings, the more accurate the similarity score. The elements of the database with the highest rating are offered for evaluation to those who have not yet rated them, thereby contributing to the dissemination of the most relevant data in each cluster. Ratings can be either positive or negative to cover the entire spectrum from approval to disapproval and indifference (corresponding to zero). thereby facilitating the dissemination of the most relevant data in each cluster. Ratings can be either positive or negative to cover the entire spectrum from approval to disapproval and indifference (corresponding to zero). thereby facilitating the dissemination of the most relevant data in each cluster. Ratings can be either positive or negative to cover the entire spectrum from approval to disapproval and indifference (corresponding to zero).
The next step is to add the category of the problem to the above list, that is, add the ability to describe the most important problems for the community and evaluate them according to the degree of relevance. In complete analogy, the ability to track the most relevant problems by an aggregate assessment of like-minded people is added. This ability to make informed choices can bring to the surface things that are truly important, as opposed to those that are imposed by society or contrived.
Next up are ideas and projects., that is, suggested solutions to problems. Discussions on issues can be self-moderating: troll comments (that is, ultimately people who behave improperly) can be marked accordingly and blocked if necessary. The best discussion threads eliminated by the results of voting can be saved for the future, including as another category of selection of like-minded people. The rest are discarded so as not to accumulate unnecessary information. Projects are also voted on and possibly crowdfunding is organized among those who liked the solution (as in Kickstarter).
And finally, another category - people. The category responsible for personal ratings is set in accordance with the estimated and invaluable contribution to the ideas and discussions within the framework of projects (it should be familiar from Habr’s karma). Each user may additionally have a cloud of rated rating tags that characterize him as a person, including, not least, from the moral side.
Addressing this post to Habr, I hope that in the end there will be people who are not indifferent to this idea, will be able to implement it correctly (and I think the right option is a decentralized distributed network) and unite, for example, those who value Fight club and the Grave of fireflies, Canon of Pachelbel and the Battle without honor and humanity of Tomoyasu Hotei, So said Zarathustra and Martin Eden, Slashdot and Habrahabr. If the implementation turns out to be successful, this will create the basis for further self-organization within like-minded communities, up to moving those who like it to live together on the same territory. But this is a completely different story.