81–90 of 168 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe we can solve both anonymity + proof-of-humanity using zero-knowledge proofs that act as intermediary between a trusted identity provider and the service provider. I.e. you get a digital id but you use it to generate proofs rather than handing out your identity. Right?
And who is going to be a trusted identity provider in authoritarian regimes?
More at https://compdemocracy.org/ and source code at https://github.com/compdemocracy/polis .
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.
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…
IIUC, this was a finding when they ran the Polis experiments in Taiwan: when you map the arguments of the different sides, there are actually large areas of agreement. In other words, the median person who disagrees with you is a "potential common ground" guy, not a "planet Zargon" guy.
I guess the theory is that you put the entire spectrum of positions on the line which allows fully biased positions on each end to exist. Then biased people on both ends will vote on slightly less and less biased positions that they still agree with and you'll see the true shared positions. But I still think that if you don't have a perfectly equal number of positions to vote on for each side you'll end up with the same problem we already have in society, people are being given biased questions not necessarily by strength but by amount. Therefore they will subconsciously and consciously conclude that the world wants them to be more towards the position that had more questions presented.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IIUC, this was a finding when they ran the Polis experiments in Taiwan: when you map the arguments of the different sides, there are actually large areas of agreement. In other words, the median person who disagrees with you is a "potential common ground" guy, not a "planet Zargon" guy.
I find that the median person who disagrees with me, actually agrees with me, but I accidentally triggered their social media PTSD and they flagged me as an enemy because I didnt slavishly polish their preferred set of boots.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Radicalized spaces are offline too. You can't cure anyone of being irrational while they still live in a cult.
So just throw away this solution then? Never use it because it can’t solve this one tiny issue you’re putting forward as an argument? What’s your point? Everything you’re saying on this thread seems negative and puts the product (Polis) into a negative light as if somehow it’s trying to do more harm than good, or can never work because .