3 ms·

> How is lack of consensus not the inevitable outcome of a widely diverse committee? That sounds fine to me if there’s actually a diverse set of view points. G

by koolba 4y ago

> How is lack of consensus not the inevitable outcome of a widely diverse committee? That sounds fine to me if there’s actually a diverse set of view points. Getting censored should require a wide swathe of agreement. Not just a vocal minority.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
yboris 4y ago
They could implement quadratic voting which may solve the challenge of getting people to more-correctly express their intensity of concern. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadratic_voting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadratic_voting
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  Imagine trying to explain this complex of a voting system to the folks whose argument the election was rigged sometimes boiled down to "I saw more Trump signs, so Biden can't have gotten votes". The more complex the system, the less it'll be trusted; something with "quadratic" in the name is gonna make eyes glaze over.
layer8 4y ago
The tweet also mentions account reinstatements, so it goes both ways.
saltminer 4y ago
I feel like this "content moderation council" would be a fine idea if there weren't a large segment of the US population (the country which will almost certainly dominate the council) still living in a complete fantasy land where Trump won the 2020 election by a landslide and explaining the continuing effects of racist policies of the past is secretly a plot to kill off white people. Those people might not be a majority, but they certainly aren't a "vocal minority" that can safely be ignored, either.
encryptluks2 4y ago
A whole swathe of agreement will be difficult if your diverse viewpoints include racists and bigots.
esoterica 4y ago
How do you decide which diverse view points are worthy of including and which aren't? Do we need a neo-nazi, an ISIS supporter, a 9/11 truther, a creationist, and a flat earther on the committee for the sake or intellectual diversity? I guess people will want conservatives on the committee, but are you happy with a normie Reagan republican or do we have to add a QAnoner and JFK Jr guy for the sake of representation?
bryananderson 4y ago
This makes sense, but only in a world where we can trust that almost everyone is operating in good faith. Does that sound like contemporary American political discourse to you? Those from “our side” on the committee can just unite to block anyone from “our side” from being banned. And those on “their side” can do the same. In fact, anyone who doesn’t do this will probably be branded a sellout. I just don’t see how to do this in a way that actually functions and also promotes broad-based faith that it’s a fair system.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

by koolba 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

yboris 4y ago

They could implement quadratic voting which may solve the challenge of getting people to more-correctly express their intensity of concern. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadratic_voting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadratic_voting

ceejayoz 4y ago
Imagine trying to explain this complex of a voting system to the folks whose argument the election was rigged sometimes boiled down to "I saw more Trump signs, so Biden can't have gotten votes". The more complex the system, the less it'll be trusted; something with "quadratic" in the name is gonna make eyes glaze over.

layer8 4y ago

The tweet also mentions account reinstatements, so it goes both ways.

saltminer 4y ago

I feel like this "content moderation council" would be a fine idea if there weren't a large segment of the US population (the country which will almost certainly dominate the council) still living in a complete fantasy land where Trump won the 2020 election by a landslide and explaining the continuing effects of racist policies of the past is secretly a plot to kill off white people. Those people might not be a majority, but they certainly aren't a "vocal minority" that can safely be ignored, either.

encryptluks2 4y ago

A whole swathe of agreement will be difficult if your diverse viewpoints include racists and bigots.

esoterica 4y ago

How do you decide which diverse view points are worthy of including and which aren't? Do we need a neo-nazi, an ISIS supporter, a 9/11 truther, a creationist, and a flat earther on the committee for the sake or intellectual diversity? I guess people will want conservatives on the committee, but are you happy with a normie Reagan republican or do we have to add a QAnoner and JFK Jr guy for the sake of representation?

bryananderson 4y ago

This makes sense, but only in a world where we can trust that almost everyone is operating in good faith. Does that sound like contemporary American political discourse to you? Those from “our side” on the committee can just unite to block anyone from “our side” from being banned. And those on “their side” can do the same. In fact, anyone who doesn’t do this will probably be branded a sellout. I just don’t see how to do this in a way that actually functions and also promotes broad-based faith that it’s a fair system.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]