Social Trust - Thoughts with AT Proto
History - PsyOps / IOs
Social influence tactics date back centuries, but modern psychological operations (PsyOps) took shape during World War II and the Cold War. Governments employed propaganda leaflets, radio broadcasts and covert media campaigns to shape enemy morale and public opinion. By the 2000s, state actors and private firms alike shifted to digital channels, using targeted ads, fake personas and algorithmic amplification to sway elections and consumer behavior.
Talking points:
History - PsyOps / IOs
Social influence tactics date back centuries, but modern psychological operations (PsyOps) took shape during World War II and the Cold War. Governments employed propaganda leaflets, radio broadcasts and covert media campaigns to shape enemy morale and public opinion. By the 2000s, state actors and private firms alike shifted to digital channels, using targeted ads, fake personas and algorithmic amplification to sway elections and consumer behavior.
Talking points:
Definition of PsyOps: combining psychology and operations to influence perceptions
Key examples: Operation Mockingbird (1950s), Voice of America, Cold War leaflets
Transition to digital: automated bots, microtargeting and data mining
Corporate and domestic misuse: Cambridge Analytica, political ad networks
Vibes
The first couple of levels for developing social trust are around some platform native things :
Positive : Follows, User Lists, Likes
Vibes
The first couple of levels for developing social trust are around some platform native things :
Positive : Follows, User Lists, Likes
Negative : Label, Moderaton List, Unfollow, Block
Most social media users lack training in influence tactics, so they rely on everyday cues—likes, follower counts, badges and platform recommendations—to judge trustworthiness. These native tools serve as proxies for authority and popularity but also introduce biases. Users fall prey to echo chambers, hype cycles and viral misinformation when they don’t see the hidden hand of coordinated influence operations.
Talking points:
Heuristics of trust: social proof, authority bias, bandwagon effect
Platform signals: verification badges, trending tags, “Top Fan” icons
Algorithmic filters: curated feeds, “recommended for you” lists
Consequences: filter bubbles, viral hoaxes, distrust in institutions
Comments and Thoughts please
The Idea : Social Trust Lexicon
Imagine each AT Protocol account maintaining a dynamic trust score for every other account it encounters. Starting at zero, interactions and third-party endorsements gradually increase that score toward 1.0, while unfollows instantly halve it and blocks reset it to zero. This decentralized trust ledger—stored in each user’s DID record—powers more nuanced content ranking, spam filtration and community governance.
Talking points:
The Idea : Social Trust Lexicon
Imagine each AT Protocol account maintaining a dynamic trust score for every other account it encounters. Starting at zero, interactions and third-party endorsements gradually increase that score toward 1.0, while unfollows instantly halve it and blocks reset it to zero. This decentralized trust ledger—stored in each user’s DID record—powers more nuanced content ranking, spam filtration and community governance.
Talking points:
Trust score lifecycle: initiation at 0, incremental rises, fast penalties
Interaction weights: recency, mutual follows, labeler endorsements
Unfollow penalty: score ÷ 2; block penalty: score → 0
User-controlled thresholds for content filtering and discovery
Potential for cross-instance trust aggregation and portable reputations
Solutions?
Tool that runs against your PDS and establishes Trust Score for All the Accounts you follow (like a Skircle)
Shows you results before you commit to PDS
Flags a follow up in 3 months to confirm rating is same or revaluate who you follow
All accounts you stopped following in last 3 months pops up proposes cutting score in half and sets a 3 month window to reset to 0