I contribute to a neat platform called https://pol.is/home https://pol.is/home. It's used to shape legislation in Taiwan. It's basically a techno-social exoskel

I contribute to a neat platform called https://pol.is/home https://pol.is/home. It's used to shape legislation in Taiwan. It's basically a techno-social exoskeleton that gives laypersons the superpower to see the whole forest (10,000s of ppl) via dimensional reduction over a chaotic matrix of agree/disagree statements. Or rather: To "listen at scale". Like these: https://pol.is/4yy3sh84js https://pol.is/4yy3sh84js https://pol.is/5pch2hmyn7 https://pol.is/5pch2hmyn7 https://pol.is/4hnmy3zeff https://pol.is/4hnmy3zeff It has some emergent properties that are a bit of a mindfuck. You can use it to help ppl see a more neutral landscape of complex opinion groups. Less us-vs-them, and more us's-and-thems. And you can incentivize participants to do the hard work of finding consensus statements, by dropping statement "between groups" in the visualization. So if you tell ppl you'll reward them for thinking up and submitting "consensus statements" that straddle groups (e.g. like "finders get their item onto agenda of big meeting"), then the most passionate participants (who might otherwise shake apart consensus) will scour the tool to build up a working model of other groups, so they can "trick" them into agreeing with the statements this passionate user submit. But surprise -- in selfishly trying to achieve that, they've now accidentally built their own stories about the groups, and laid the foundations for empathy :) And they're a changed participant going forward. Perhaps more likely to hold a middle position... Further, the tools definitely opens up questions about how a system could elevate the voices of moderate particpnts (from the liminal spaces between groups) who might guide the discourse. What if we elevated these boundary folks, plucked from the math, to hold power? To decide? To represent?