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

21–30 of 168 posts

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

#21

Post by acgourley »

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.

We really need proof of soul systems to exist, extended to also have a proof of citizenship. While the proof of soul systems can plausible be done in a decentralized manner, proof of citizenship is much harder, and in my opinion this is one of (the few) things the government should really do.

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

#22

Post by reliabilityguy »

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…

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

I think the first step is always to separate a fact (I.e., X happened), from why did X happen. Afterwards, you move towards the steps that could prevent X from happening, or reactive protocols to X that minimize the chance of conspiracy theories, etc.

Of course it will not work with all, but, in my opinion, with enough of “alternative facts” lovers that it will be sufficient.

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

#23

Post by anigbrowl »

movedx wrote: post #11
sapphicsnail wrote: post #8

I don't understand the utility of this. Maybe it works for things like noise ordinances, but I can't imagine finding common ground with people who want me dead or imprisoned simply for existing.

Every Body Corporate Strata in Australia basically goes through something like this at least once a year (by law.) Questions are posed about what to vote on and you either vote for, against, or abstain. Something like Polis would be good for putting forward ideas throughout the year leading up to the vote, as it would find a consensus of ideas and help shape what you eventually vote on (you decide as a body corporate…

Hundreds of people is a village. I don't feel this is responsive to GP's point.

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

#24

Post by Lerc »

acgourley wrote: post #21
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.

We really need proof of soul systems to exist, extended to also have a proof of citizenship. While the proof of soul systems can plausible be done in a decentralized manner, proof of citizenship is much harder, and in my opinion this is one of (the few) things the government should really do.

Either I'm not sure what you mean by soul, or you are all-in on dualism.

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

#25

Post by Lerc »

reliabilityguy wrote: post #22
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…

> Interesting, but how's it work out when people believe in "alternative facts"? I think the first step is always to separate a fact (I.e., X happened), from why did X happen. Afterwards, you move towards the steps that could prevent X from happening, or reactive protocols to X that minimize the chance of conspiracy theories, etc. Of course it will not work with all, but, in my opinion, with enough of “alternative fa…

I don't understand "why did X happen?" presupposes X happened. We seem to be at the level of X pretty obviously did not happen but people believe it did.

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

#26

Post by acgourley »

Lerc wrote: post #24
acgourley wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We really need proof of soul systems to exist, extended to also have a proof of citizenship. While the proof of soul systems can plausible be done in a decentralized manner, proof of citizenship is much harder, and in my opinion this is one of (the few) things the government should really do.

Either I'm not sure what you mean by soul, or you are all-in on dualism.

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 layer on citizenship on top if you want to use this for polling, voting, etc.

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

#28

Post by gpm »

sapphicsnail wrote: post #8

I don't understand the utility of this. Maybe it works for things like noise ordinances, but I can't imagine finding common ground with people who want me dead or imprisoned simply for existing.

Those people came to those views somehow. I'd hope that a less radicalizing social media platform might move them away from those views. Finding common ground isn't just about figuring out where people currently agree, it's also an act of persuasion convincing people to change views to then-mutually shared views.

Wanting people dead or imprisoned simply for existing is the sort of inconsistent view that is likely easiest to change by moving people out of radicalized spaces...

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

#30

Post by nerdsniper »

acgourley wrote: post #21
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.

We really need proof of soul systems to exist, extended to also have a proof of citizenship. While the proof of soul systems can plausible be done in a decentralized manner, proof of citizenship is much harder, and in my opinion this is one of (the few) things the government should really do.

Worldcoin tried to solve that. Any solution for this will be similarly creepy.
Post reply on HN