3 ms·
>this is why we should worry about things like government collection of phone metadata). However, I think it's also worth considering that reputation could be u
by forgetsusername 11y ago
>this is why we should worry about things like government collection of phone metadata). However, I think it's also worth considering that reputation could be used as a tool by the people to obtain some accountability from the rich and powerful
I find myself in agreement with much of what you say, but the above argument always makes me pause in these discussions. Essentially, the argument is: "on the one hand, the rich can use this tech to control the poor. That's bad. On the other, the poor can control the rich. That's good."
Yeah, well, which one are you? Where do you draw that line between who is "rich" and "poor"? Why is one side coercive, while the other is obtaining accountability?
We're all, here, the poor and oppressed, of course, only willing to use our new-found power for good.
- elihu 11y agoIt's about finding the right balance. If members of society weren't accountable at all to the rest of society, we would have absolute anarchy. If we had perfect compliance, we would have a totalitarian state. Schneier makes this point very well in his book - it's good that society can force cooperation most of the time, but it's also good that it's not able to force cooperation from everyone, all the time. Reputation is a powerful (and rather dangerous) tool and software-assisted reputation calculation is something that's going to exist and can't be un-invented. Therefore, I think it would be best if that tool were accessible to all sides of society so it isn't exclusively applied by the powerful against the weak. I don't mean to imply that any use of reputation systems by the powerful is bad and any use by the less-powerful is inherently good, I just think that abuse is less likely if those wielding the tool are fully aware that the same tool can and will be used against them if they get enough people mad.