At scale, you would have a large enough population to make a random sampling representative of the majority worldview. Random selection solves most of the problems once you have a big population. The trick is when you’re smaller, you need to make sure your initial user base is very fair minded and able to produce quality, interesting output. That’s one of the reasons I’d actually prefer to see a place like substack do this. We all paid some number of dollars because our truth tellers are really important to us. After that, and I know this phrase is used way too often and often incorrectly, the whole thing is anti-fragile. The more people you piss off the more people participate. Even if they don’t post their rebuttal on the Index someone else could link their rebuttal on the Index. The only thing they’d be doing is leaving money on the table. Do that enough times and you have all the people who care about this stuff fighting productively because they know the win mechanism is production of an intelligible, persuasive argument.
No twitter but there’s definitely some pitfalls. Me having made most of it up being the primary one. I’d actually like it to evolve in a sort of a/b test democracy. Resistance to it makes it stronger though, so I don’t think media could meaningfully turn it off. I’d like it to act like a big sieve and roseate signal from noise.
How would you stop like-minded people from joining together to push an agenda? Or stop people from selling their votes?
At scale, you would have a large enough population to make a random sampling representative of the majority worldview. Random selection solves most of the problems once you have a big population. The trick is when you’re smaller, you need to make sure your initial user base is very fair minded and able to produce quality, interesting output. That’s one of the reasons I’d actually prefer to see a place like substack do this. We all paid some number of dollars because our truth tellers are really important to us. After that, and I know this phrase is used way too often and often incorrectly, the whole thing is anti-fragile. The more people you piss off the more people participate. Even if they don’t post their rebuttal on the Index someone else could link their rebuttal on the Index. The only thing they’d be doing is leaving money on the table. Do that enough times and you have all the people who care about this stuff fighting productively because they know the win mechanism is production of an intelligible, persuasive argument.
No comments? Wow. I like the way you're thinking!
I can see traditional media fighting this as it could/should make them antiquated. Or! It could save them.
The social credit system comparison came to mind for me, too. What other pitfalls do you see?
You can dm me on twitter. Same username.
No twitter but there’s definitely some pitfalls. Me having made most of it up being the primary one. I’d actually like it to evolve in a sort of a/b test democracy. Resistance to it makes it stronger though, so I don’t think media could meaningfully turn it off. I’d like it to act like a big sieve and roseate signal from noise.