• 2 Posts
  • 22 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 26th, 2023

help-circle
  • We agree that the current situation won’t change itself, and change to this system from inside of it would likely be stifled and repressed.

    I agree that we need to keep trying to find a better way, because there are many people are will certainly keep trying to make things worse for us.

    The first step is a better way to communicate between ourselves about what we want, why we want it, and how to enact our intentions.

    With the advent and use of the internet we now have the possibility for a new way to organize our collective wants.

    This system, which I call a consensus engine, would let us as a species make long term goals and work towards their fruition. Without some way to communicate that is less sustainable to misinformation I don’t see any way we can get out of this into something better.













  • What’s happening is that when things act as an ad they fulfill the same marketing purpose as a paid advertisement. Just because it happened to you, doesn’t mean talking about it online is not marketing in its effect. But I see where you’re coming from.
    This idea is like thinking that people with shirt with huge brand names on them are helping to raise that brand’s awareness level with others. Things can be more than one thing at the same time.






  • We all agree with this premise and mostly that the FPTP system is a large contributing factor to the TPS saying how it has based on seeing how places that don’t have a TPS appear to do so because the have different voting systems like different iterations of ranked choice voting.

    What I am wondering is what ‘we’ think the best way to implement voting would be?



  • There is an idea that may help this, if it were built and then also used. it’s a form of group decision making based on fluid data that solidifies as more data comes in.

    One of the main aspects is that comments and things are compared to others to find how similar they are, something may present itself differently but be the same discussion. This method of identifying each ‘argument’ and ‘rebuttal’ goes hand in hand with declaring definitions so that conversations can’t be flipped around by a bad actor. There’s a big write up of the way it can be used to combat disinformation but as far as I know it’s just the outline of how such a system would work, no one has built the system.

    It’s kind of similar to voting sites like reddit but goes a lot farther in defining ways things work, and works so ostracize trolls and the like. but as it would require something no one online would ever go for, being in one way ‘tied’ to your offline person, that I don’t see it ever being a mainstream thing. Of course the accounts people would be using would be in no way identifiable unless selfdoxed they would still be like voter registration in that a real person had to be there once, and all things that person does online are here tied to them so that trolls and things show clearly over time. It’s really designed to be mostly a niche discussion platform engine for people in the same hobby or interest.