> "We shall never have a good tagging system until it is removed from the central indexers via some sly, roundabout way"
In my view, any attempt at semantic tagging must be built on top of a subjective trust/assertion layer, as in straycat (npub1u5n…ldq3) 's project.
A tag is essentially an assertion that "this Thing is X":
1. I might agree with Bob's assertion that Thing 1 is X, while I disagree with Alice's assertion that Thing 2 is X.
2. I might agree with Bob's assertion that Thing 1 is X, while I disagree with Bob's assertion that Thing 2 is X.
3. ...additional permutations abound...
All of effects that fall out of the above system are totally tangential to and in conflict with any "global" indexer (especially one that is tightly coupled to a particular client application) that attempts to make the same assertions for everyone.
Each node in the graph should have a very different complex of agreements/disagreements (and weightings for the same) on all tags and all other nodes' opinions of those tags.
The key is **disagreement** and not only allowing for it but more or less requiring it at the lowest levels of the protocol. "Global state" (in this context, a central indexer + client app) is absurd on its face when you have the prior that disagreement is a fundamental particle.
Even if the central indexer allowed for infinite arbitrary assertions on a given Thing, it becomes totally unwieldy and useless if it is collecting every node's disparate opinion.
The natural place for the divergent assertions to live is _at the edges_ - with the node making the assertion.
- You start to build up your worldview by weighting strongly on YOUR OWN assertions...
- Then looking out through your neighbors, taking into account the weight you give to each on THIS topic...
- Then looking at _their_ neighbors and taking into account _their_ weight they give to _their_ neighbors on THIS topic...
That gives you your own subjective view of the graph with trust/credence flowing from you and your own authority out to wherever you say it should go, given your preferences.
I am something of a jihadist on this topic. I'm happy to have friendly arguments about it, but my bar for bending on it is set extremely high after a decade++ of watching it fail to be addressed properly: with Megacorp "social media" handling it worst, and many decentralized social networks getting closer but still failing to cross the final crucial Rubicon.
----
PS: Any individual can _act_, fleetingly, as a "global" indexer if a large number of people happen to trust that individual as a supreme authority on a given topic. But crucially - and this is where the (central indexer + app) model fails - they might be an authority only on this ONE TOPIC.
It is highly unlikely that the node I trust ultimately for "pizza reviews" is the exact same node I trust ultimately for "code reviews".
vinney / vinney...axkl
npub19m…8axkl
2025-06-23 14:34:57 GMT
in reply to nevent1q…da9e
Author Public Key
npub19ma2w9dmk3kat0nt0k5dwuqzvmg3va9ezwup0zkakhpwv0vcwvcsg8axklPublished at
2025-06-23 14:34:57 GMTEvent JSON
{
"id": "ed301f56f1fe3cb916f572602d5a0a4aa06539ab35772f8020d64f64e004e67b",
"pubkey": "2efaa715bbb46dd5be6b7da8d7700266d11674b913b8178addb5c2e63d987331",
"created_at": 1750689297,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"6e319b891f8bb2314507a8e84a188ec40607288c661f92d64b91cea457597b2d",
"",
"root",
"3bf0c63fcb93463407af97a5e5ee64fa883d107ef9e558472c4eb9aaaefa459d"
],
[
"e",
"39eb51557068bf9688a3abd55d1cda6ee4465f146e96238c0602150c800e3fe4",
"wss://relay.damus.io/",
"reply",
"3bf0c63fcb93463407af97a5e5ee64fa883d107ef9e558472c4eb9aaaefa459d"
],
[
"p",
"e5272de914bd301755c439b88e6959a43c9d2664831f093c51e9c799a16a102f"
],
[
"p",
"c230edd34ca5c8318bf4592ac056cde37519d395c0904c37ea1c650b8ad4a712"
],
[
"p",
"3bf0c63fcb93463407af97a5e5ee64fa883d107ef9e558472c4eb9aaaefa459d"
]
],
"content": "\u003e \"We shall never have a good tagging system until it is removed from the central indexers via some sly, roundabout way\"\n\nIn my view, any attempt at semantic tagging must be built on top of a subjective trust/assertion layer, as in nostr:npub1u5njm6g5h5cpw4wy8xugu62e5s7f6fnysv0sj0z3a8rengt2zqhsxrldq3 's project.\n\nA tag is essentially an assertion that \"this Thing is X\":\n\n1. I might agree with Bob's assertion that Thing 1 is X, while I disagree with Alice's assertion that Thing 2 is X. \n2. I might agree with Bob's assertion that Thing 1 is X, while I disagree with Bob's assertion that Thing 2 is X.\n3. ...additional permutations abound...\n\nAll of effects that fall out of the above system are totally tangential to and in conflict with any \"global\" indexer (especially one that is tightly coupled to a particular client application) that attempts to make the same assertions for everyone. \nEach node in the graph should have a very different complex of agreements/disagreements (and weightings for the same) on all tags and all other nodes' opinions of those tags.\n\nThe key is **disagreement** and not only allowing for it but more or less requiring it at the lowest levels of the protocol. \"Global state\" (in this context, a central indexer + client app) is absurd on its face when you have the prior that disagreement is a fundamental particle. \nEven if the central indexer allowed for infinite arbitrary assertions on a given Thing, it becomes totally unwieldy and useless if it is collecting every node's disparate opinion. \n\nThe natural place for the divergent assertions to live is _at the edges_ - with the node making the assertion.\n- You start to build up your worldview by weighting strongly on YOUR OWN assertions...\n- Then looking out through your neighbors, taking into account the weight you give to each on THIS topic...\n- Then looking at _their_ neighbors and taking into account _their_ weight they give to _their_ neighbors on THIS topic...\n\nThat gives you your own subjective view of the graph with trust/credence flowing from you and your own authority out to wherever you say it should go, given your preferences.\n\nI am something of a jihadist on this topic. I'm happy to have friendly arguments about it, but my bar for bending on it is set extremely high after a decade++ of watching it fail to be addressed properly: with Megacorp \"social media\" handling it worst, and many decentralized social networks getting closer but still failing to cross the final crucial Rubicon.\n\n----\n\nPS: Any individual can _act_, fleetingly, as a \"global\" indexer if a large number of people happen to trust that individual as a supreme authority on a given topic. But crucially - and this is where the (central indexer + app) model fails - they might be an authority only on this ONE TOPIC. \nIt is highly unlikely that the node I trust ultimately for \"pizza reviews\" is the exact same node I trust ultimately for \"code reviews\".",
"sig": "645dbfb487a6dfa283c573f035e05997dd2372e58f1f0b4a36c2aa53a9a4297b71a746da5cfd6fddf68fd02c95c158729998c06cf08f356c0545bd90ea4e8078"
}