4 ms·

https://ncase.me/trust/ https://ncase.me/trust/ This game beautifully explains the prisoners dilemma. At first it might not seem relevant, but after playing th

https://ncase.me/trust/ https://ncase.me/trust/ This game beautifully explains the prisoners dilemma. At first it might not seem relevant, but after playing the game I think you will see. From a game theory perspective bad faith actors that are not punished create more bad faith actors. So if your model of information does not involve the idea of defection (lying for self enrichment) vs cooperation (trying to achieve mutual understanding) and how the defectors are punished (or at the very least not rewarded), then the philosophical foundation is shaky. Bad faith actors exist and must be accounted for directly without hand waviness. This article has a presumption of desired mutual understanding but fails to account for those who benefit the most from chaos or from those who have incompatible first principals to your own. Dominance agnostic political ideas are contradictory, because much in the same way Kant's categorical imperative defines a contradiction, political ideas that are not able to maintain dominance are contradictory, since a more dominant party will destroy it. That's why countries have militaries. As a small thought experiment, let's say you live in Consenusland next door to Authorityville. Authorityville comes to your richest members of society and says "we will pay you big money if you write news articles that cause chaos." Because the richest members of your society own all the media, all the business, and have control over politicians, they could easily do this. So some of them do and some of them don't, and society pays the cost of the chaos. When things get bad enough all of the rich people buy a house in New Zealand to escape the chaos. How do you defeat that?

woojoo666 4y ago
> As a small thought experiment, let's say you live in Consenusland next door to Authorityville. Authorityville comes to your richest members of society and says "we will pay you big money if you write news articles that cause chaos." Because the richest members of your society own all the media, all the business, and have control over politicians, they could easily do this. So some of them do and some of them don't, and society pays the cost of the chaos. Consensus based systems assume that bad actors make up less than 50% of the political power. As long as that is true, Consensusville should be able to fight off the chaos from bad actors
- hayst4ck 4y ago
  That's not the nature of misinformation. Misinformation isn't binary. "I'm not sure if man made climate change is true" is still an example of the output of misinformation. Chaos's purpose is to attack the very idea of consensus itself. It's to corrupt the idea of what an authority is and confuse people about who authorities are. There is a large difference between a 90% consensus and a 50% consensus. With a 50% consensus it's hard to make decisions. With a 90% consensus, the decisions are obvious.
raxxorraxor 4y ago
But this model and your strategy makes dissent necessary in the first place. To such a degree that the content of any opposing view is secondary compared to the mere existence of dissent as there is a guarantee that you will be wrong when enforcing consensus at some point. The categorical imperative would only forbid the people of Authorityville to spread chaos in Consensusland. It has no intrinsic contradiction as it is not a strategy for conflict resolution and you would need to adhere to it in dominant and not dominant positions. There are just some wrong premises for misinformation. Misinformation is fought best with free information. There are untrue statements about the economics of misinformation and that it would win against free information because it is easier to produce. I believe this is empirically wrong and has lead us to wrong conclusion who best to combat it. And this will result in less ability to form consensus and also less trust.

woojoo666 4y ago

> As a small thought experiment, let's say you live in Consenusland next door to Authorityville. Authorityville comes to your richest members of society and says "we will pay you big money if you write news articles that cause chaos." Because the richest members of your society own all the media, all the business, and have control over politicians, they could easily do this. So some of them do and some of them don't, and society pays the cost of the chaos. Consensus based systems assume that bad actors make up less than 50% of the political power. As long as that is true, Consensusville should be able to fight off the chaos from bad actors

hayst4ck 4y ago
That's not the nature of misinformation. Misinformation isn't binary. "I'm not sure if man made climate change is true" is still an example of the output of misinformation. Chaos's purpose is to attack the very idea of consensus itself. It's to corrupt the idea of what an authority is and confuse people about who authorities are. There is a large difference between a 90% consensus and a 50% consensus. With a 50% consensus it's hard to make decisions. With a 90% consensus, the decisions are obvious.

raxxorraxor 4y ago

But this model and your strategy makes dissent necessary in the first place. To such a degree that the content of any opposing view is secondary compared to the mere existence of dissent as there is a guarantee that you will be wrong when enforcing consensus at some point. The categorical imperative would only forbid the people of Authorityville to spread chaos in Consensusland. It has no intrinsic contradiction as it is not a strategy for conflict resolution and you would need to adhere to it in dominant and not dominant positions. There are just some wrong premises for misinformation. Misinformation is fought best with free information. There are untrue statements about the economics of misinformation and that it would win against free information because it is easier to produce. I believe this is empirically wrong and has lead us to wrong conclusion who best to combat it. And this will result in less ability to form consensus and also less trust.