Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Polis: Open-source platform for large-scale civic deliberation

pol.is

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 168 posts

Re: Polis: Open-source platform for large-scale civic deliberation

#101

Post by rwmj »

mejutoco wrote: post #99
goda90 wrote: post #12

What are some strategies a platform like this can take against spam or influence bots? Tying real life identities to users would certainly limit that(though identity theft and account selling could still happen), but that adds friction to joining, poses security risks, and many people might feel less comfortable putting their opinions openly online where backlash could impact real life.

There are so many things here that can work: - Not having just upvote or downvote, but upvote as funny or insightful (slashdot) - Not allowing to vote or comment until some karma has been reached (new accounts inflame topics and disappear later, having influenced). - Invite only so one can block while chain of accounts. - Not allowing to vote or comment every day or every hour, but randomly (more difficult for bots)…

Slashdot didn't allow you to vote and comment on the same topic. (If you voted, then commented, your votes on the post were rescinded.)

Re: Polis: Open-source platform for large-scale civic deliberation

#102

Post by mejutoco »

davidw wrote: post #3

Interesting, but how's it work out when people believe in "alternative facts"? That seems to be a pretty big problem in many places. I think I can find some common ground with people who have different views on corporate taxation if we both go over some data and economics and think about it and consider various tradeoffs. Especially if we chat face to face to avoid any 'keyboard warrior' effects. I probably can't fin…

> how's it work out when people believe in "alternative facts"?

People are free to believe what they want but when a platform is overrun with bots spewing this 24/7 (reddit, for example) we are giving a platform to those lies/falsehoods.

IMO that is the issue, we should make it difficult for those lies to spread, but the incentives are not aligned with engagement. If the platform provides measures to disincentivise spam, hate spread with low-effort there will be less of it. Just like spam. And less people tricked because of it.

Re: Polis: Open-source platform for large-scale civic deliberation

#103

Post by nottorp »

mejutoco wrote: post #99
goda90 wrote: post #12

What are some strategies a platform like this can take against spam or influence bots? Tying real life identities to users would certainly limit that(though identity theft and account selling could still happen), but that adds friction to joining, poses security risks, and many people might feel less comfortable putting their opinions openly online where backlash could impact real life.

There are so many things here that can work: - Not having just upvote or downvote, but upvote as funny or insightful (slashdot) - Not allowing to vote or comment until some karma has been reached (new accounts inflame topics and disappear later, having influenced). - Invite only so one can block while chain of accounts. - Not allowing to vote or comment every day or every hour, but randomly (more difficult for bots)…

> Automatically downvoting posts with grammatical or low-effort errors.

So allow only LLM generated posts?

Re: Polis: Open-source platform for large-scale civic deliberation

#104

Post by mejutoco »

nottorp wrote: post #103
mejutoco wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are so many things here that can work: - Not having just upvote or downvote, but upvote as funny or insightful (slashdot) - Not allowing to vote or comment until some karma has been reached (new accounts inflame topics and disappear later, having influenced). - Invite only so one can block while chain of accounts. - Not allowing to vote or comment every day or every hour, but randomly (more difficult for bots)…

> Automatically downvoting posts with grammatical or low-effort errors. So allow only LLM generated posts?

People are capable of writing correctly. Source: your post.

If someone cannot be bothered, why should we bother to read what they have to say? I think it is a good signal.

EDIT: plus it is not an allow or not allow. The more errors the more downvoted, so it is a small adjustment.

Re: Polis: Open-source platform for large-scale civic deliberation

#105

Post by sellmesoap »

longfacehorrace wrote: post #68
INTPenis wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

eID is the obvious answer here in Europe. Right now it's kinda scattered with different providers, but I believe EU is working on a more universal protocol. Unfortnately there are rumors it will require official Google/Apple play stores, unrooted devices, and all that it does today already. But it should be treated as a relatively safe ID, it's even used for voting. If you feel uncomfortable, just have one device for…

So a local ballot box. Host a platform like this at city hall, county building, capitol building, schools. Only a human can access a terminal. Have humans monitor ingress/egress. A more generalized solution that solves the specific problem inherent to all these digital ones.

Makes it hard for those with disabilities, overbearing work hours and family commitments, folks in the most need to have their voice heard?

Re: Polis: Open-source platform for large-scale civic deliberation

#106

Post by JanisErdmanis »

chapz wrote: post #87

Basically a glorified online survey tool.

This is the best way to look on this. Furthermore these surveys are susceptible to bias introduced by the varying degrees of participant engagement. One application I could see for such tools is distill some of participant generated proposals that could be rectified in a further surveys or referenda.

Re: Polis: Open-source platform for large-scale civic deliberation

#107

Post by nottorp »

mejutoco wrote: post #104
nottorp wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Automatically downvoting posts with grammatical or low-effort errors. So allow only LLM generated posts?

People are capable of writing correctly. Source: your post. If someone cannot be bothered, why should we bother to read what they have to say? I think it is a good signal. EDIT: plus it is not an allow or not allow. The more errors the more downvoted, so it is a small adjustment.

Of course, that excludes 90% of word plays.

Re: Polis: Open-source platform for large-scale civic deliberation

#108

Post by patcon »

Haha oof, the one day I wasn't checking hackernews, my obsession project comes up :)

I'm working on a Google Maps for human perspectives, that extends polislike vote data: https://patcon.github.io/polislike-human-cartography-prototy...

A presentation on my old prototype, describing my philosophy behind extending the tool: (the first 15 min gives the gist) https://youtube.com/watch?v=sSqo_m4cL2Q&list=PLMgSnvCsIgoFrV...

And a shorter video talking about plotting routes through "perspective space": every route is a chain of people with the most continuous chain of values (for e.g., from progressive left to alt right)... what might it be to host an event or conversation with the members of such a trajectory through perspective space? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3v-SMbs1reE&list=PLMgSnvCsIgoF...

Re: Polis: Open-source platform for large-scale civic deliberation

#109

Post by patcon »

patcon wrote: post #108

Haha oof, the one day I wasn't checking hackernews, my obsession project comes up :) I'm working on a Google Maps for human perspectives, that extends polislike vote data: https://patcon.github.io/polislike-human-cartography-prototy... A presentation on my old prototype, describing my philosophy behind extending the tool: (the first 15 min gives the gist) https://youtube.com/watch?v=sSqo_m4cL2Q&list=PLMgSnvCsIgoFrV..…

And I'm also building a research tool for more easily mining such data for democratic insight: https://patcon.github.io/valency-anndata/

I believe we can make maps of reactions [to information] on topics of societal impact, and we can literally make a new "National Weather Service" for helping as many people as possible understand the storms we live within, in a near instantaneous and fully enfranchised way.

Re: Polis: Open-source platform for large-scale civic deliberation

#110

Post by [deleted] »

protocolture wrote: post #66
acgourley wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry the term of art is really soulbound identity right now, I use POS but it's less common. Definitions vary but I say a useful system must allow people to endorse statements with evidence they are a) alive b) not able to be represented by more than one identity (id is linked to your entire soul, not a persona or facet of your being) c) a kind of socially recognized person (human in the expected case) and then laye…

How would this work considering that the soul is an entirely fictional concept?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN