> And rather than showing the messages that divided each of the four groups, Pol.is simply made them invisible.
This seems like a good way to find some initiatives through consensus. The main mechanism seems to be giving a "conversational veto" to everyone in the discussion. A "let's move on" button, basically.
I find that very interesting. It would certainly help with concerns that "my legislature does nothing". It might actually be an interesting mechanism for legislatures themselves to deploy internally to set agendas, though it would necessarily weaken the power of the factions that actually set legislative agendas (the majority party, the majority leader, etc.).
On the other hand, giving a strong and hidden minority veto also doesn't seem to help with the issues that actually divide citizens.
- Would not talking about Brexit anymore actually help the U.K.?
- Should the U.S. Congress not pass a budget anymore, to avoid balancing it?
- Maybe all legislatures agree to broadly humane treatment for refugees, but how would they agree on healthy levels and categories of immigration?
- The biggest divisive issue in the U.S might actually be abortion, which generally isn't debated so much as such. It's also clear that not addressing the issue isn't making the underlying problems go away.
- More broadly, would the U.S. have ever done anything significant about civil rights if consensus was required first?
EDIT: Maybe I'm a bit too pessimistic about civil rights... the constitutional amendment process does require two kinds of consensus for ratification. And many amendments did deal with civil rights.
Politics is complex and deadlock preserves the current situation which some group considers preferable to change.
Consider, (53+25) = 78% of the US population believes Abortion should be legal in some or all situations. That’s why a total ban is rarely debated it’s a campaign issue, but making it illegal would quickly cost elections.
Restrictions on the other hand also have popular support (53 + 21) = 74%. Thus rather than a ban one party pushing for more restrictions. This is not a failure to achieve a ban, but rather a middle ground with significant popular support.
I interpreted this differently. It’s not about ignoring the polarizing issues or tough topics. These issues would still be presented and discussed. It seemed to me it was all about finding the commonalities between groups then drafting statements that both could agree on.
It reminds me a bit of the old dinner party rules of not talking politics, sex or religion. You keep things harmonious but at the cost of more interesting conversation. And doesn't help when you're forced to tackle controversial issues
Which is why originally, we didn't have what we have today. We had a modified republic which allowed democratic elections of some officials, but not of others. Keep in mind that senators were elected by states for a long time, a good thing if you as me, as they were intended to serve as a sort of moderate gerusia and be less accountable to the whims of the public. Electors for the presidency weren't directly elected either, in many places. Again, I think this helped us see a president more as a leader and less like a head-man.
Indeed, too much democracy can lead to disaster. We're seeing already that we end up with mob politics, populism, and candidates competing as to who can spend more of the other side's money, pass more laws they hate, etc. I hate it, and this is why the federal government was supposed to be elected mostly indirectly and given a small role to play.
I found it quite interesting that they removed the reply button. Afaik HN also has a limited reply button - there is no notification attached to it. This discourages talk/debate like discussion (lack of personal reaction) and encourages more a discourse style interaction around the facts.
The opportunity to reply is only invoked after an increasing amount of time, which I think is dependent on the depth of the conversation. In other words, the further into a conversation you are, the more time you are forced to take to think on the other person's response.
I don't know if this particular design will work but I expect to see a lot more attempts now that the idea has entered the public consciousness.
Current social networks are gamified for virality which implicitly rewards the lack of nuance. So statements that are as short, simple, and wrong as possible will spread faster within the supporters while encouraging flaming from the opposition. This is such an inherent property of every social network in existence that I didn't even realize fixing it was an option.
I am very much convinced —have been for about a decade— that this is the general way to go. To fundamentally give democracy to people in a much more direct fashion, a peer-to-peer design true to what democracy actually is. Starting with the local / small issues (if resistance is met at the top, unlike the Taiwainese example it seems).
It's funny I just thought about this yesterday. "What if my smartphone loses network connectivity. How many apps on it will stop working? 95%? I miss the old days when storing and processing my personal data was done 100% on my own devices. Sharing that data with others wasn't really a problem and people had websites as always accessible billboards where they presented themselves as well." Sure the social media "network" aspect wasn't there, but it wouldn't be impossible to achieve that today while the bulk of the data resides on people's own devices.
Ever since the shift of storing the user's data not on their devices but in the cloud and ever since rendering ad blockers useless by tailoring not just the ads but the actual content towards the user's behavior and biases, the internet has gone down the drain. And more and more people are fed up with it.
Societies can be "hacked" via social media, that technology is out there and it is being used not only by superpowers like the US or Russia, but also by political actors in smaller countries like Myanmar or Ethiopia. People die. Mobs incited by fake news campaigns on Facebook kill people. Elections get hacked, not by manipulating voting machines but by manipulating people's minds using the same technology advertisers use. That's some scary stuff. Social Media manipulation is the nuclear bomb of the early 21st century, it's that hot new weapon every sleazy political actor wants to get their hands on. And so we are in a new Cold War, actually it's many cold wars. Unlike the one in the 50s-80s these new ones are invisible and don't feel as scary, which makes them... more scary?! Weapons of mass propaganda... we have to take action to render them useless by abonding social networks and cloud services as we know them today. But that can only happen with a better replacement that's harder to manipulate and that has a higher incentive to be used by the masses.
Without an internet connection your smartphones and even your PC becomes either almost completely or at least partially useless. That is not scary because we have to fear network issues or censorship but it's scary because it means so much of the information acquisitioning and processing is out of our control. Modern devices are perfectly capable of handling all the user's data and then some, they have the storage capacity and they have the processing power, the only reason the cloud still exists for end user's is because analyzing everyone's data makes them money.
And you can't even blame developers and companies jumping on this bandwaggon. Everyone else does it, the tools are out there, ready to be used, and that sweet ad money pays the bills or the investor's demand it because they think that sweet ad money will reimburse their investment.
But is it ethical? Hell no!
It seems like nobody is thinking about putting that processing power and that storage capacity that people own in their pockets to use. I welcome the initiatives that do exist, but I feel like that only something massive, something disruptive can change that.
humanrebar|6 years ago
This seems like a good way to find some initiatives through consensus. The main mechanism seems to be giving a "conversational veto" to everyone in the discussion. A "let's move on" button, basically.
I find that very interesting. It would certainly help with concerns that "my legislature does nothing". It might actually be an interesting mechanism for legislatures themselves to deploy internally to set agendas, though it would necessarily weaken the power of the factions that actually set legislative agendas (the majority party, the majority leader, etc.).
On the other hand, giving a strong and hidden minority veto also doesn't seem to help with the issues that actually divide citizens.
- Would not talking about Brexit anymore actually help the U.K.?
- Should the U.S. Congress not pass a budget anymore, to avoid balancing it?
- Maybe all legislatures agree to broadly humane treatment for refugees, but how would they agree on healthy levels and categories of immigration?
- The biggest divisive issue in the U.S might actually be abortion, which generally isn't debated so much as such. It's also clear that not addressing the issue isn't making the underlying problems go away.
- More broadly, would the U.S. have ever done anything significant about civil rights if consensus was required first?
EDIT: Maybe I'm a bit too pessimistic about civil rights... the constitutional amendment process does require two kinds of consensus for ratification. And many amendments did deal with civil rights.
Retric|6 years ago
Consider, (53+25) = 78% of the US population believes Abortion should be legal in some or all situations. That’s why a total ban is rarely debated it’s a campaign issue, but making it illegal would quickly cost elections.
Restrictions on the other hand also have popular support (53 + 21) = 74%. Thus rather than a ban one party pushing for more restrictions. This is not a failure to achieve a ban, but rather a middle ground with significant popular support.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx
calmworm|6 years ago
Johnwbh|6 years ago
refset|6 years ago
lbj|6 years ago
big_chungus|6 years ago
Indeed, too much democracy can lead to disaster. We're seeing already that we end up with mob politics, populism, and candidates competing as to who can spend more of the other side's money, pass more laws they hate, etc. I hate it, and this is why the federal government was supposed to be elected mostly indirectly and given a small role to play.
johnisgood|6 years ago
foobar_|6 years ago
English translation anyone?
heisenbit|6 years ago
johnday|6 years ago
tus88|6 years ago
known|6 years ago
th-th-throwaway|6 years ago
I don't know if this particular design will work but I expect to see a lot more attempts now that the idea has entered the public consciousness.
Current social networks are gamified for virality which implicitly rewards the lack of nuance. So statements that are as short, simple, and wrong as possible will spread faster within the supporters while encouraging flaming from the opposition. This is such an inherent property of every social network in existence that I didn't even realize fixing it was an option.
K0SM0S|6 years ago
emsign|6 years ago
Ever since the shift of storing the user's data not on their devices but in the cloud and ever since rendering ad blockers useless by tailoring not just the ads but the actual content towards the user's behavior and biases, the internet has gone down the drain. And more and more people are fed up with it.
Societies can be "hacked" via social media, that technology is out there and it is being used not only by superpowers like the US or Russia, but also by political actors in smaller countries like Myanmar or Ethiopia. People die. Mobs incited by fake news campaigns on Facebook kill people. Elections get hacked, not by manipulating voting machines but by manipulating people's minds using the same technology advertisers use. That's some scary stuff. Social Media manipulation is the nuclear bomb of the early 21st century, it's that hot new weapon every sleazy political actor wants to get their hands on. And so we are in a new Cold War, actually it's many cold wars. Unlike the one in the 50s-80s these new ones are invisible and don't feel as scary, which makes them... more scary?! Weapons of mass propaganda... we have to take action to render them useless by abonding social networks and cloud services as we know them today. But that can only happen with a better replacement that's harder to manipulate and that has a higher incentive to be used by the masses.
Without an internet connection your smartphones and even your PC becomes either almost completely or at least partially useless. That is not scary because we have to fear network issues or censorship but it's scary because it means so much of the information acquisitioning and processing is out of our control. Modern devices are perfectly capable of handling all the user's data and then some, they have the storage capacity and they have the processing power, the only reason the cloud still exists for end user's is because analyzing everyone's data makes them money.
And you can't even blame developers and companies jumping on this bandwaggon. Everyone else does it, the tools are out there, ready to be used, and that sweet ad money pays the bills or the investor's demand it because they think that sweet ad money will reimburse their investment.
But is it ethical? Hell no!
It seems like nobody is thinking about putting that processing power and that storage capacity that people own in their pockets to use. I welcome the initiatives that do exist, but I feel like that only something massive, something disruptive can change that.