-
17 votes
-
Tildes exclusive: the Ethoscore Project
Hi Tilderiños, This post is long enough for a TLDR: I made this thing, it's a platform for conscious consumerism. I'm launching the beta on Tildes. It's far from complete, expect imperfect scores...
Hi Tilderiños,
This post is long enough for a TLDR: I made this thing, it's a platform for conscious consumerism. I'm launching the beta on Tildes. It's far from complete, expect imperfect scores in many cases. Scoring is a work in progress that's part of the platform but not the sole focus. It's invite only, and on Tildes only, see my top level reply below or DM me for an invite.
To start, I'm a long time member who posts enough that at least some of you would recognize my username. I made a new account for this project because I don't want to think about being a representative on my main account.
Early on during development I decided Tildes would be the perfect place to launch a private beta because Tildoes are some of the best people on the internet in my experience. And also fairly diverse by internet standards. Aside from a handful of friends and family you'll be the first to see it.
I should give you a little backstory. A couple of years ago I lost my income. Fortunately we were in a place where we could mostly afford to live without it for a while, so I had some time to figure out what I wanted to do next. For context I have over 30 years of experience in software development. Similar for marketing, brand strategy, business development, mostly but not exclusively in the context of the internet. I'm not quite as old as that sounds, I was still a minor when I starting building things on the internet, back when almost no one really knew what the internet was or what to do with it. In short, I'm comfortably fluent in all the languages of the internet.
I've built all sorts of different types of applications and businesses, mostly commercial. This time I wanted to build something that would have a positive impact and I wanted that to be the point, rather than a side effect. I spent most of a year researching the feasibility of a number of ideas before I landed on this one.
I've been on the internet long enough to see a lot of well meaning ideas fall flat. At this point I have no idea if this is another one of those. I know the concept is solid, but that doesn't mean it will inspire people. Or more specifically in this case, be a platform people can use to inspire each other. This is complicated by my intention to be as uncynical as possible about the project. I know all sorts of tricks for capturing attention and creating hype, I know how to monetize an app and sell products. But all of that feels out of place to me if the goal in uncynical. No doubt Tilders could have a long conversation here about the balance between good intentions and practical reality. I'd have lot to contribute.
The Ethoscore Project is an attempt to make the entirely unsexy concept of conscious consumerism easy and accessible. I genuinely believe it's a viable way to make the world a little better. It includes things like company scores and community lists (including boycott lists) and accepts community contributions and corrections for every company data point including scoring. I won't make a wall of text about all the functionality and features here, you can find out more on the site.
The project is currently self funded, which will hopefully be able to last long enough to see if the idea has potential. For now, funding is a problem for later.
The roadmap is long and wide. There are so many things I want to add, at least some of which aren't terrible ideas, but at this point development has been going on for over a year and I think it's time to see what strangers think. The project's 50k lines of code took time but the larger part of development has been company research, there are currently over 15,000 brands and companies covered, which is really just a start.
You might imagine that researching the international conglomerates that own most of the brands we see would be depressing in a capitalist dystopia sort of way and you wouldn't be wrong. But there's also more good news that I expected. There are big, successful companies doing the right thing when they don't have to. More than you'd expect. And there's evidence that their practices are inspiring other companies to do the same. I don't know if it's outpacing the general capitalist race to the bottom but it's not nothing! I see reasons for optimism.
I'm hoping some of you will be kind enough to take a look. I welcome all questions, contributions and feedback. The company database and scoring are far from complete, my goal for the beta was to have enough coverage that scanning products at a big box grocery store would result in more hits than misses. I think scoring is necessary but, to me, community lists are more interesting and have more potential to be useful. At this point there are going to be a lot of bugs, imperfections and companies with scores that seem off. I want to hear about all the issues you encounter. I'm more excited about your impressions and ideas though. How does it feel to use it? Does it make sense? Is it low friction? As a user is there something important missing that you'd expect to be there? What works well? Would you do anything differently?
There aren't smartphone apps yet, I want the codebase closer to complete before I start on the joys of maintaining two more codebases and dealing with the app stores. You can install it as a PWA (web app) on your phone if you like, which mostly just makes it quicker to access. I definitely recommend using your phone if you want to play with the barcode scanner.
Throughout the beta the app will be invite only and available only to Tildes users and people I personally invite. See top level comment below for an invite.
38 votes -
4 × 6
21 votes -
What games have you been playing, and what's your opinion on them?
What have you been playing lately? Discussion about video games and board games are both welcome. Please don't just make a list of titles, give some thoughts about the game(s) as well.
7 votes -
Proposal: For sensitive topics, if a thread is intended for a particular demographic, there needs another thread open for everyone to discuss without having to join the targeted thread
Sorry everyone for yet another post about the ~life.women post but the second thread about that same topic in ~life.men made me realize we could have used two separate threads from the start....
Sorry everyone for yet another post about the ~life.women post but the second thread about that same topic in ~life.men made me realize we could have used two separate threads from the start.
Instead of hoping that all the men instinctively knew to stay quiet and be dissappointed when some inevitably failed to notice, there'd be less friction if the people had two separate discussion spaces, one meant for women as the current default expectation (and be in ~life.women), and another (either in ~life.men or ~life) to provide an outlet for those who have things to say but nevertheless feel uneasy doing so in the same space.
There need not be any compulsory gatekeeping. The conversations in the two above 2 threads have me believe that if the option was available, and people were made aware, most would be considerate enough to know where to go and respect boundary.
Women who don't want to having to bother wading through seas of men's opinions regardless of how well-intentioned, could now conveniently hit 'Ignore' on the alternative thread once and be done with it. Or if that thread was in ~life.men and they have already unsubscribed, nothing to be done and the experience would be seamless.
Some potential concerns:
There could still be troublemakers (in either threads) who has to be reported.
Between the two scenarios though, those same few would cause trouble regardless. However with this arrangement, they could not hide behind the plausible deniability of not knowing whether the thread they're in is meant for them.
For the majority, having an alternative avenue to speak is an easier pill to swallow than not being able to speak at all.
Especially when a topic involves two groups, it's natural that people from both groups would have opinions.
It's an unfortunate situation that men outnumbers women, so their comments unavoidably were more numerous and more likely to gather votes, giving the impression of dogpiling. The flip side then men necessarily needs to exercise greater restraint (or be more constricted) even to maintain equal representation, the more imbalance the more that restraint is required, which understandably wasn't sustainable and eventually somebody slipped.
People can often be oblivious, but most are not malicious. Being caught in the middle of heated arguments can often bring out the worst in us. I believe many who participated in that thread did not set out with the intent to invalidate the others' viewpoints, and most wouldn't mind putting their thoughts in a different thread if there was an option. Maybe allowing for some distance would have been enough to reduce friction.
Shouldn't people just learn to recognize when a topic is not for them?
In general I agree, I think exercising self restraint is needed when having to navigate between personal expression and social harmony.
However, with certain hot-button issues like this, where such appeal has repeatedly failed to stick, perhaps it's time to consider a new approach if we want to move beyond the status quo.
Is it redundant to have two threads for the same topic?
Naturally that would be the case. The Tildes community for the most part operate as if a single group.
If a post is meant for people in a group to see and discuss, then it feels redundant for there to be another post in the same group, since we assume most among the community have already seen the other post.
On the other hand, if there are two or more separate groups, then it's also natural that a topic posted to one group could also be repeatedly posted in another group. It's reasonable to assume people in the 2nd group aren't aware of the post in the 1st group. From their perspective the 2nd post would be the first time they see it, and the only chance they get to participate in the topic. So it's both expected and justified.
However, our situation here is a bit special. The post was anticipated to be seen by two groups, yet also expected to be participated only by one of them. This mismatch while not the cause, still exasperated the conflict by muddling disagreement about the topic with that of expected user behavior.
In abstract, this ambiguity can be resolved in two ways. Either leaning into the one-group status and accept that every threads should be open to everyone, or lean into the two-group status and accept that sometimes the same topic can be duplicatedly posted, since each post are targeted at a different audience.
Think of this like a non-interference policy between countries. If it's reasonable for a post to cater to a particular subsection within the community, then it should also be reasonable to expect that people from outside that subsection could discuss about the same topic among themselves instead. Because the alternative is to demand that the 'outsider' needs to stay vigilant of the activity of 'insider', and yet they could only be allowed to watch, like some sort of mandatory stalking policy which is a weird situation to be in.
In practical terms allowing both sides to have their own separate discussions makes it easier for both to ignore what's going on in the other sides, so less chance for conflicts.
But don't we already have different groups?
This touches on something @updawg pointed out in the meta thread. Currently, everyone are automatically subscribed to all groups. While people are free to unsubscribe from any groups they're uninterested in, it's well known that users often stick to the default. Knowing that means most people would expect most others are also in every group, even when they themselves have done the curation personally.
In effect, everyone in the community still interact with each other as if there's only a single shared discussion space, even if it could have been the case that after all this time most people might have already self selected into their own favourite subgroups already, just because of the perception that everyone hasn't.
Part of the work is to change that perception. So efforts to change our collective behavior needs to be more structural and explicit.
You may also be worried that this idea could backfire by breeding worse resentment.
Either by making each group feeling unfairly discriminated, or if both groups ended up spending more energy being passive-agressive agaisnt each other. I had that fear as well, and that remains a real possibility.
However, I have faith that it has a good chance not turning out that way. The thread in ~life.men showed that people largely remained well-behaved (thank you @winther for taking the leap with that post). In a sense, this same concern could have applied to the existence of both ~life.men and ~life.women as well. Nether group has imploded yet and this is a smaller version of that arrangement.
This may sounds counterintuitive, but I think keeping participation be voluntary would help to reduce this kind of resentment. As it shows the resulting behavior is what the participants themselves want and not due to being forced by moderators, thus actually reflect the preference of the community as a whole.
In a more aggresive community this idea may not work but I think people here are conscientious enough that it's worth a try at least once. If arguments still break out like our current single-thread arrangement, then the admin can always still step in. At least it should be no worse than the current dynamic.
Ideally this setup needs to be done as early as possible from the moment the sensitive post goes public.
Maybe the poster themselves could create the two threads from the start.
A mock example:
TITLE:
[Women-only thread] Men in tech # YesAllMenBODY:
Link to the video: https//....This is a sensitive topic about men and women.
To avoid breakout of arguments, this thread is dedicated to giving women their own discussion space without having worry about being overwhelmed by men's opinions on the matter.
If you're outside the targeted demographic and would like to share your thoughts on the topic please do so in the open thread instead.
TITLE:
[Open thread] Men in tech # YesAllMenBODY:
Link to the video: https//....This is the open thread for all to discuss about the linked video.
Since the topic is sensitive, another thread dedicated for the vulnerable group in this topic has been created. If you're a women and want to avoid reading about men's opinions, you can hit 'Ignore' on this thread and discuss in the dedicated thread instead.
If you're outside the targeted demographic, please share your thoughts here and refrain from commenting in the other thread.
Small thing to note that links can be posted in the body section instead of the dedicated link section to avoid the disclaimer from breaking off into it's own comment, which easily get burried.
However, I imagine in practice this would not be most common scenarios. The average users are not tuned in to all the potential sources of drama and just post whatever they find interesting first, only realsing when there's blowback after the fact. So the cases when this approach may be needed would also more likely be reactive. (Maybe with a pinned comment, a title change and a 2nd post. Since we cannot do pinned comment, probably have to rely on boost voting to keep it on top).
The people who are in position to make the judgement of when to create this setup are veteran and highly trusted member of the community. Someone who has been around enough to be able to quickly recognize the common painpoints for the community, able to remain impartial without getting dragged into the conflicts themseves, and know when such intervention is warranted. They're users who people can trust that if they do so, it's not an attempt to control the narrative.
Normally if I come up with any random ideas, I'd prefer to test it out myself and see the results directly. However, this is the kind that requires buy-in from the whole community, as well as the right people to take the helm. Hence this post. The ultimate aim is maintaining harmony among the community. If you think it's worth a try, you may also choose to nominate who you think is trustworthy enough for this responsibility. Those who may want to step in could benefit from the confidence boost that others trust them.
This post is motivated by the recent event with the ~life.women post but I hope it's clear the proposal is aimed at being a more general approach to future conflicts of similar nature.
12 votes