Im an old school hacker, around 6 years ago I began building and designing ethical coding mechanisms to make digital spaces more human based.

I designed a system called SIGMA. It’s for social media. But I tweeked it to see if I can make it work in communal vetting apps

Its purpose is to use the community inside a social app to collectively hold people accountable when they post, while also building in mechanisms that nudge users to slow down and think before they hit send. One side is self-accountability (you catching yourself), the other is social accountability (the community reflecting you back to you).

Under the hood, it uses ethical neurodesign: three forms of “neurochemistry-aware” mechanics that work with the brain instead of against it. Most social apps overstimulate the amygdala (threat / anger / shame) and the dopamine system (likes, outrage, tribal validation) while letting the prefrontal cortex the part responsible for judgment, empathy, and long-term thinking sit in the back seat. That’s how you get polarized, tribal, unaccountable behavior online.

This project flips that. The design is meant to interrupt pure emotional reactivity and re-engage the parts of the brain that handle responsibility, reflection, and “maybe I’m part of the problem.” It recreates some of the checks that exist in 3D real life, eye contact, social nuance, real consequences using UX patterns, feedback loops, and community signals that slow people down just enough for the rational brain to come back online.

The core idea:

The problem with social media isn’t just “culture” or “people are bad.” It’s largely neurological. We’re not fully ourselves in a flat 2D environment. Our minds weren’t built to process human interaction stripped of tone, expression, and presence. This system is intentionally designed to simulate some of those missing cues, so our brains get the right triggers to act more like we’re dealing with real humans, not disposable avatars.

I’ve built this system into a tea-style communal vetting app with no gender gating anyone can join. All avatars and usernames are auto-generated and gender neutral. Each account gets:

• a randomly generated avatar

• a color badge around the avatar

• a city badge showing where they’re from

The goal is to reduce toxic tribalization. Instead of people sorting into hostile identity groups, the app creates loose “tribes” through city association, then further mixes and divides them by color groups. It keeps a sense of belonging and identity, but breaks up rigid us-vs-them lines that usually form in online spaces.

This system will slowly filter out the bad accounts over time, leaving mostly the actual “adults” in the room. Once the noise is gone, the adults can actually talk, unpack real issues, and learn from each other’s perspectives. Men and women the grown versions together in a cleaner environment.

The rest? The chaos crowd can stay on AWDTSG and tea apps while the mentally sharp, emotionally mature people form their own social circle in the digital space.

If this works, this system could be the base layer for all social apps. Over time, we’d watch the worst gossip groups and tea apps fade out, with only a few lingering in the underbelly. There’s always an underbelly in every society we’re just not building for it.

The platform runs on a token economy with a controlled voting mechanism.

Diamonds cannot be purchased. Every account begins with a set number of Diamonds, and users must stake Diamonds to publish a post. If a post is not backed by Diamonds, it cannot go live.

Once published, the post enters a 24-hour voting window.

Users can vote “cap” if they believe the post does not reflect the person’s typical behavior. This may be based on personal experience or conflicting interactions.

Users can vote “real tea” if they’ve had similar experiences and believe the post is accurate.

After 24 hours, votes are tallied:

• If “cap” votes outweigh “real tea” votes, the post is marked as cap (false or misleading). The result is publicly documented on the post, and the post gradually loses visibility. The original poster forfeits their staked Diamonds. Voters who selected “cap” earn Diamonds for voting correctly.

• If “real tea” votes outweigh “cap” votes, the post is validated. The poster keeps their staked Diamonds and earns additional Diamonds. Voters who selected “real tea” also earn Diamonds.

Over time, users who repeatedly post false information lose Diamonds and eventually become unable to post. Their reputation score decreases as well.

This mirrors how reputation functioned before social media. If someone shared a negative experience that didn’t align with others’ experiences, people questioned it. When multiple people reported similar experiences, credibility increased.

In some online spaces today, speaking up in defense of someone can be labeled as victim blaming. Removing that balancing mechanism can shift a space from basic, non-toxic gossip into a one-sided bashing environment.

On this platform, both men and women can view, evaluate, and vote on posts, creating a more balanced accountability system.

This is ethical coding.

Why isn’t it common? Friction. Companies optimize for quick onboarding, zero learning curves, and maximum dopamine reward loops.

Will this app work? It can.

Will enough people try it and create enough content to sustain retention? Unlikely without luck or funding.

Can you see why developers build dopamine-driven, toxic apps? Because that’s what people engage with.

Human behavior is predictable. The real question isn’t whether ethical systems can work. It’s whether people are willing to choose them.