6 ms·

the key feature of sybil attacks is that they are fake or semi fake. the majority overriding the minority (regardless of correctness), is a feature of democrac

the key feature of sybil attacks is that they are fake or semi fake. the majority overriding the minority (regardless of correctness), is a feature of democracy, not a bug.

tialaramex 6y ago
What you've got there is majoritarianism not strictly democracy. We should hope that a democracy would consider not only whether there are more in favour than against but also other factors. For example. Suppose there are two rabbits and three foxes and the question is what's for dinner? Majoritarianism suggests that the foxes can vote "Rabbit" and then eat the rabbits, all is fair. But I think we'd want our democracies to consider that there is an outsize cost to this choice compared to the 40% vote for "Fresh fruit and vegetables" from the rabbits. [A fox isn't an obligate carnivore, its digestive system is perfectly capable of obtaining nutrients from a meal of fruit and vegetables, although rabbit is delicious].
- dane-pgp 6y ago
  The success of democracy is not that it allows 2 rabbits to convince 3 foxes to eat vegetables, but merely that it convinces 2 foxes to limit themselves to eating vegetables based on the votes of 3 rabbits. To achieve the result that you're hoping democracy will provide, it is perhaps better to rely on the principle of Freedom of Speech / Expression.
  - wizzwizz4 6y ago
    Everyone's a "fox" or a "rabbit" about different things, and often the foxes are in the majority for each issue, but (almost) everyone would be better off with "rabbit for everything" than "fox for everything". The most obvious cases of fox / rabbit issues are regarding GRSM rights. A majority would weakly prefer that gay people not marry (but they'd just shrug and move on if overruled), a small minority would strongly prefer that gay people not marry… and then you've got all the gay people, most of whom would very strongly prefer that gay people can marry. The weak majority who care enough to block "rabbit", but not enough to actually be upset if it happened, rule the policy – until democracy becomes indirect, anyway. Indirect democracy should never have superior properties to direct democracy. Is there a way of fixing this?

the key feature of sybil attacks is that they are fake or semi fake. the majority overriding the minority (regardless of correctness), is a feature of democracy, not a bug.

tialaramex 6y ago

What you've got there is majoritarianism not strictly democracy. We should hope that a democracy would consider not only whether there are more in favour than against but also other factors. For example. Suppose there are two rabbits and three foxes and the question is what's for dinner? Majoritarianism suggests that the foxes can vote "Rabbit" and then eat the rabbits, all is fair. But I think we'd want our democracies to consider that there is an outsize cost to this choice compared to the 40% vote for "Fresh fruit and vegetables" from the rabbits. [A fox isn't an obligate carnivore, its digestive system is perfectly capable of obtaining nutrients from a meal of fruit and vegetables, although rabbit is delicious].

dane-pgp 6y ago
The success of democracy is not that it allows 2 rabbits to convince 3 foxes to eat vegetables, but merely that it convinces 2 foxes to limit themselves to eating vegetables based on the votes of 3 rabbits. To achieve the result that you're hoping democracy will provide, it is perhaps better to rely on the principle of Freedom of Speech / Expression.
- wizzwizz4 6y ago
  Everyone's a "fox" or a "rabbit" about different things, and often the foxes are in the majority for each issue, but (almost) everyone would be better off with "rabbit for everything" than "fox for everything". The most obvious cases of fox / rabbit issues are regarding GRSM rights. A majority would weakly prefer that gay people not marry (but they'd just shrug and move on if overruled), a small minority would strongly prefer that gay people not marry… and then you've got all the gay people, most of whom would very strongly prefer that gay people can marry. The weak majority who care enough to block "rabbit", but not enough to actually be upset if it happened, rule the policy – until democracy becomes indirect, anyway. Indirect democracy should never have superior properties to direct democracy. Is there a way of fixing this?