I have put some thought into the privacy aspect, and there are ways to make it non-trivial or even fairly difficult to extract someone’s trust graph, but nothing which actually hides it perfectly. That’s why the network would have to be opt-in, and likely would not cover negative votes.
I’d be interested to hear the unpacked version of your worries about “gatekeeping, groupthink and polarisation”.
I have put some thought into the privacy aspect, and there are ways to make it non-trivial or even fairly difficult to extract someone’s trust graph, but nothing which actually hides it perfectly. That’s why the network would have to be opt-in, and likely would not cover negative votes.
I’d be interested to hear the unpacked version of your worries about “gatekeeping, groupthink and polarisation”.
I don’t have time to write it in detail, but basically I’m referring to two ideas here regarding what a user sees:
If determined by the trust graph of forum moderators, it’d contribute to groupthink because dissenting voices will be silenced.
If decided by the user’s trust graph, you’ll get polarization because opposing groups won’t see each other’s content.
Both lead to gatekeeping because new users aren’t trusted by anyone so their content can’t get through.