2 ms·

Hello! I'm an engineer at Civil. I'm not really sure what you mean by this. Once the Registry contract is deployed on the blockchain, it will continue to funct

Hello! I'm an engineer at Civil. I'm not really sure what you mean by this. Once the Registry contract is deployed on the blockchain, it will continue to function and provide utility no matter what happens to the "Civil Media Company". No involvement on our part is needed to "recognize the voting power" as any individual, entity, or website can use the information contained in the registry however they want. A social media site, for example, could query the registry and decide to render a "credibility badge" when displaying links from a news organization that is whitelisted. Happy to help clarify if you still have questions. -- Nick Reynolds

root_axis 8y ago
> A social media site, for example, could query the registry and decide to render a "credibility badge" when displaying links from a news organization that is whitelisted. Yes, the key word is "decide". To use your "credibility badge" example, an organization could ostensibly behave like they accurately respect the registry while also surreptitiously ignoring the registry in situations that suit them. You might say, "well those organizations will develop a reputation for dishonesty", which might be true if they get caught, but also isn't at all different from the status quo today where selective reporting and partisan bias are bemoaned loudly and often by every side regarding every issue.
- okay_nick 8y ago
  Since the registry is public, it would be very easy to write tools like a browser extension that would handle validating against the registry, preventing the type of fraud you're talking about. More generally, there's an interesting project called MetaCert that is doing just that (fraud/phishing prevention) using their own cryptoeconomic incentive system.
Vinnl 8y ago
Hi Nick, thanks for answering questions in here. Elsewhere you said > We've further refined this idea by creating an independent non-profit body known as the Civil Council made up of well respected journalists and academics that can step in in situations where a vote was clearly motivated by political bias and not made in good faith. Isn't this still centralisation? Either the Civil Council would not be necessary, in which case it's odd that you're setting it up, or it's still a centralised entity that has the final say and you might just as well skip the blockchain - or is my understanding incorrect/incomplete?
- okay_nick 8y ago
  I think of the relationship between the voters and the Council to be like a 2-branch government with checks and balances. The voters are the legislative branch, but their decisions can be overturned by the judicial branch (the Council). Those judicial decisions can themselves be overturned by a supermajority of the legislative branch. Decentralization is a spectrum, not a binary. While a centralized entity plays a part in the process, ultimate authority rests with the voters. The Council also has a plan to decentralize itself over time and voters will eventually be able to vote on removing or replacing the Council.

root_axis 8y ago

> A social media site, for example, could query the registry and decide to render a "credibility badge" when displaying links from a news organization that is whitelisted. Yes, the key word is "decide". To use your "credibility badge" example, an organization could ostensibly behave like they accurately respect the registry while also surreptitiously ignoring the registry in situations that suit them. You might say, "well those organizations will develop a reputation for dishonesty", which might be true if they get caught, but also isn't at all different from the status quo today where selective reporting and partisan bias are bemoaned loudly and often by every side regarding every issue.

okay_nick 8y ago
Since the registry is public, it would be very easy to write tools like a browser extension that would handle validating against the registry, preventing the type of fraud you're talking about. More generally, there's an interesting project called MetaCert that is doing just that (fraud/phishing prevention) using their own cryptoeconomic incentive system.

Vinnl 8y ago

Hi Nick, thanks for answering questions in here. Elsewhere you said > We've further refined this idea by creating an independent non-profit body known as the Civil Council made up of well respected journalists and academics that can step in in situations where a vote was clearly motivated by political bias and not made in good faith. Isn't this still centralisation? Either the Civil Council would not be necessary, in which case it's odd that you're setting it up, or it's still a centralised entity that has the final say and you might just as well skip the blockchain - or is my understanding incorrect/incomplete?

okay_nick 8y ago
I think of the relationship between the voters and the Council to be like a 2-branch government with checks and balances. The voters are the legislative branch, but their decisions can be overturned by the judicial branch (the Council). Those judicial decisions can themselves be overturned by a supermajority of the legislative branch. Decentralization is a spectrum, not a binary. While a centralized entity plays a part in the process, ultimate authority rests with the voters. The Council also has a plan to decentralize itself over time and voters will eventually be able to vote on removing or replacing the Council.