Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had an idea in a similar vein after reading the article and I would be interested in getting your thoughts. As I see it, the problem statement is as follows: 1) individuals are subjected to vast amounts of political persuasion in their daily lives. This persuasion can be purchased by the highest bidder to subtly influence public opinion in a way that is counter to it's own interest. Ultimately, this can weaken the…
Hi! I like your comment, so thank you. > This persuasion can be purchased by the highest bidder Yes. In other words, they're purchasing weighted edges in the social graph: buying new edges (that send peer signals toward the target within a graph of social influence), or amplifying weight of existing edges representing peer relations. The whole attention economy is not actually about the knowledge or content that flow…
>why would people participate? I feel that without a self-interested reason, audience would bias toward process-oriented and highly empathic people who already care for the sake of caring.
My thought is that the "selfish" incentive would be to make impact on an issue you care about. In exchange, you give someone a chance to talk to you about an issue they care deeply about you don't.
The underlying premise is that caring and reasonable people can and do have differences of opinions. The "teeth" is giving access to likely voter will listen and not have a dogmatic position. I for example, would spend an hour to double the my effective voting power.
I have little interest in running for an office, and don't think that politicians are particularly effective about changing the minds of voters. They are tied to a multi-issue platform which is incredibly cumbersome, and disinterests many individuals from the process overall.