←back to thread

131 points timshell | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.208s | source
Show context
lugu ◴[] No.44381949[source]
It is late and I am thinking out load. How about a reputation system where users bring proof that other websites haven't found them abusive.

Visit a website that require identification. Generate a random unique identifier in your user agent. Live your life on that site. Download from that site a certificate that prove that your didn't abuse their site. Repeat that a few times.

Visit the site that wants to know if you are an abusive user. Share your certificates. They get to choose if they accept you.

If you abuse that site, it reports the abuse to the other sites that delivered you a certificate. Those sites gets to decide if they revoke their certificate or not.

It is a self policying system that require some level of cooperation. Users make themselves vulnerable to the risk of having sites they like loose trust in them.

replies(6): >>44382023 #>>44382106 #>>44382403 #>>44382406 #>>44383816 #>>44387374 #
spondylosaurus ◴[] No.44382106[source]
Some stuff would definitely either slip through the cracks OR tarnish the reputation of legitimate users. What happens when someone's device gets compromised by a botnet that silently clicks ads in the background or turns that device into part of a DDoS army?
replies(1): >>44382221 #
1. MichaelZuo ◴[] No.44382221[source]
Why would anyone even expect a perfectly zero false-positive and false-negative rate in the first place?