While a nice idea, the problem is convincing people that compromise is a better alternative to winning.
How a social network could save democracy from deadlock
31–37 of 37 posts
Re: How a social network could save democracy from deadlock
#32Gamified Nuance. What a brilliant idea.
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.
Re: How a social network could save democracy from deadlock
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How is there democracy if the majority cannot decide to do X or Y. The majority can't decide that gravity should cease to exist or the sun shouldn't shine within their borders. Some limitations on democracy are natural, others are imposed by those who established it. That doesn't mean it's not a democracy. You could do the same thought experiment with dictatorships or any form of government really. If a dictator ca…
> The majority can't decide that gravity should cease to exist or the sun shouldn't shine within their borders. Some limitations on democracy are natural, others are imposed by those who established it. That doesn't mean it's not a democracy. I don't think anyone is arguing that not being able to impose the voters' will over the laws of nature is any indication of whether a system is democratic. Nor should not being…
> If someone who is long gone (and no longer has voting rights) imposed limitations on a democratic system then how is it even a democracy?
You are always asking for "how" X can still be a democracy, which is a weird question I don't even know how to answer, since I really don't even know what you understand under a democracy.
What do you mean how? Can you throw me a rope and explain this to me then:
> Nor should not being able to vote away natural rights (like the right not to be murdered) have any bearing
If I can't vote to legalize murder, how is it still a democracy?
Re: How a social network could save democracy from deadlock
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You just simply restated what the article's author said and to which I responded at length already. But I'll rephrase from a different angle further below for your benefit. Only some parts (there were more objections besides this), yes, to emphasize the word "wanted" because your comment seemed to have omitted that crucial part and operated under the assumption that people do not want to do that, which misses the p…
> How is there democracy if the majority cannot decide to do X or Y. The majority can't decide that gravity should cease to exist or the sun shouldn't shine within their borders. Some limitations on democracy are natural, others are imposed by those who established it. That doesn't mean it's not a democracy. You could do the same thought experiment with dictatorships or any form of government really. If a dictator ca…
> Some limitations on democracy are natural, others are imposed by those who established it. That doesn't mean it's not a democracy.
The second clearly does; government by the dead is incompatible with government by the governed, a point Thomas Jefferson is noted for addressing at some length: https://jeffersonpapers.princeton.edu/selected-documents/tho...
Re: How a social network could save democracy from deadlock
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Sometimes 90% vote benefits for themselves at the expense of 10%. Most unbalanced budgets fall in this category. In isolation you can find many examples of this. But, political alliances mean that group may be trading financial support for support of another issue. Farm subsidies and net neutrality could be traded with people voting for both even if they only care for one or the other. It smells like corruption, bu…
A lot of political compromise always seems to me of the form: we have a cake to share, I want the whole cake and you, being reasonable, want the 'fair' portion of half a cake. So we compromise and I get three quarters of the cake and you get a quarter.
The secret is to acknowledge that 25% is better than 0%, if you don't have leverage to force the fair 50%. And begrudgingly accept the 25% "under duress".
Re: How a social network could save democracy from deadlock
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Can you draft a reply before that times has passed? I wonder how that would influence the conversation.
No, you cannot. I think the intention is to deprive you of the opportunity to start writing at all. There are studies that show the longer you take thinking before acting, the better your outcomes are.
Re: How a social network could save democracy from deadlock
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you draft a reply before that times has passed? I wonder how that would influence the conversation.
No, you cannot. I think the intention is to deprive you of the opportunity to start writing at all. There are studies that show the longer you take thinking before acting, the better your outcomes are.
That's what I thought is the intention. But writing can be part of thinking so if people don't write immediately and send when they can letting them draft might improve outcomes.