• Lvxferre@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    By “up the chain”, you mean the nodes that I represented near the bottom, right?

    Theoretically they could, by revoking their guarantee. But then the guarantee could simply ask someone else to be their guarantor, and the chain is redone.

    For example, check the infographic #2. Let’s say that, instead of botting, Charlie used her chain to bully Hector.

    • Charlie: “Hector likes ponies! What a shitty person! Gerald, I demand you to revoke their guarantee!”
    • Gerald: “sod off you muppet”
    • Charlie: “Waaah Gerald is a pony lover lover! Fran, revoke their access! Otherwise I revoke yours!”
    • Fran: “Nope.”
    • [Charlie revokes Fran’s guarantee]
    • Fran: “Hey Alice! Could you guarantee me?”
    • Alice: “eh, sure. Also, Charlie, you’re abusive.”
    • [Alice guarantees Fran]
    • [Alice revokes Charlie’s access.]

    Now the only one out is Charlie. Because the one abusing power also loses intrinsic trust (as @skaffi@infosec.pub correctly highlighted, there’s another chain of trust going on, an intrinsic one).

    • ArmokGoB@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      When I say “up the chain,” I mean towards the admins. A platform isn’t gonna let just anyone start a chain, because any random loser could just be the start of an access chain for a bunch of bots, with no oversight. So I conclude that the chain would necessarily start with the website admins.

      My experience online is that the upper levels of moderation/administration feel beholden to no one once they get enough users. It’s been shown time and time again that you can act like a dictator if you have enough people under you to make some of them expendable. It might not be a problem on, say, db0. However, I’ve seen Discord servers that are big enough to have this problem. I could definitely see companies abusing this to minimize risk.

      So, for example, pretend Reddit had this system during the API nonsense:

      • You’re a nobody who is complaining about it.
      • Spez sees you are dissenting and follows your chain.
      • Turns out you’re probably gonna ask for a guarantee from people you share some sort of relationship/community with, even if it’s cursory.
      • Spez suspends everyone up the chain for 14 days until he reaches someone “important” like a mod.
      • Everyone points fingers at you for daring to say something that could get them in trouble, and you suffer social consequences, subreddit bans, etc.
      • Spez keeps doing this, but randomly suspends mods up the chain that aren’t explicitly loyal to Reddit (the company).
      • People start threatening to revoke access from others if they say things that break Reddit ToS or piss off the admins.
      • Dystopia complete

      Maybe I’m still misunderstanding how this system works, but it seems like it would start to run into problems as a website got more users and as people became reliant on it for their social life (like I am with Discord and some of my friends/family are with Facebook).