4 ms·

> 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 say

> 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.