4 ms·

Let’s raise the stakes even further than discussion forums. Search for “eve online betrayal” or “eve online heist” and determine if this algorithm could’ve prev

Let’s raise the stakes even further than discussion forums. Search for “eve online betrayal” or “eve online heist” and determine if this algorithm could’ve prevented those situations. Then raise the stakes more and consider the US presidential candidate nominations process. Push it to extreme situations, and finally in the end compare it to the Chinese social scoring system. This kind of journey of morals is what ultimately led to me transferring ownership of my own online community and walking away for good. It’s tough and I don’t envy the folks who keep up with these things.

_heimdall 3y ago
> Then raise the stakes more and consider the US presidential candidate nominations process. If there was any trust left here, the upcoming election cycle should have already destroyed it. The likely Republican candidate refuses to debate, the Democrats all seem to think the president shouldn't run again but won't stop him or allow a challenger, in all likelihood the two final candidates also won't debate each other, and we're left picking between two candidates that much of the country likely aren't happy with. That's neither democratic or trustworthy.
- kemotep 3y ago
  Both parties are still running primaries. None of the races have happened yet so whether Biden or Trump get the nomination isn’t set in stone. In addition to the two major parties, there are several independent and third parties. Because they are not popular enough to win isn’t a condemnation of democracy. That’s how it works.
  - _heimdall 3y ago
    The Republicans are running a primary, though the candidate with by far the most support isn't taking part. Trump will be on the primary ballot and always loves hearing himself talk on an empty stage, but he's avoided debates entirely. That isn't the fault of voters or the party necessarily, though the party can and possibly should require candidates to take part in the primary process if they want to be on the party's ballot. The Democrats effectively aren't running a primary at all. There are technically two challengers[1], though there are no debates planned [2]. RFK was running on the ticket and had plenty of support in polls to warrant primary debates, though he's now running as an independent after what he viewed as a refusal by the party to allow a primary process to challenge Biden (his opinion, I can't vouch for inner workings of the DNC). [1] https://www.reuters.com/world/us/democratic-candidates-running-us-president-2024-2023-09-18/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/democratic-candidates-runni... [2] https://deadline.com/feature/2024-presidential-debates-schedule-1235523892/ https://deadline.com/feature/2024-presidential-debates-sched...
    - girvo 3y ago
      > RFK was running on the ticket As a non-American, who's RFK? Not the long-dead Robert F Kennedy, of course, but my ability to search that acronym pretty much only brings him up
      - _heimdall 3y ago
        Oh sorry, yeah I shouldn't have gone with initials there! Yes that was referencing Robert F Kennedy
        girvo 3y ago
        Oh! I must've really misunderstood your comment, my apologies, I thought you were talking about someone today!
        _heimdall 3y ago
        Well I'm failing at writing clear messages today. I was referencing a candidate today, Rover F Kennedy Jr Honestly I never really think to refer to him as a Junior, his dad was assassinated shortly before I was born, but I should have not only avoided using initials I should have also included the "Jr"
  - actionfromafar 3y ago
    That's not how it works in a first-past-the-post voting system! Third parties can not gain traction. (Hence all the effort spent on co-opting and riding one of the existing parties like a zombie.)
    - dartos 3y ago
      This. Third parties effectively exists as free research for what positions will be popular next cycle
    - kemotep 3y ago
      Well at one point the Republicans were a third party. Yes First past the post is terrible, but to say your candidate can’t win without getting the most votes is how nearly all election systems work. A lot needs to be reformed with regards to voting and election systems in the US but to claim it is impossible for a third party to win is factually incorrect. How else would independent politicians like Bernie Sanders or third party candidates like Abraham Lincoln would have ever been elected?
      - actionfromafar 3y ago
        That's not how nearly all election systems work. Who wins is often not determined on election day, but in coalition making after the election. If you have 5 - 10 parties, it's often not immediately apparent on election night who can gather a majority behind them.
      - _heimdall 3y ago
        Agreed that third parties are possible, though it is still worth noting that a third party win would almost certainly result in an existing party being replaced for a different two party system. The parties in the US have changed around something like 5 or 6 times. In the last 2 or 3 changes the party names didn't change but the parties did fundamentally change. After each shakeup, we've ended up with a two party system that's structurally unworkable for independents to win at the highest level.
- mistermann 3y ago
  Public consensus on Israel-Palestine ceasefire vs the stance of their "democratically" elected, to enact "the will of the people" politicians also reveals the the theatrical aspect as well, even without adjusting for the massive home field propaganda advantage. How much longer they can keep this illusion running has got to be THE most interesting thing happening at the moment if you ask me.
  - _heimdall 3y ago
    To be fair, the UN itself is revealing its own theatrical aspects. What would the ceasefire have done at the end of the day? Would the UN kick Israel out if they continue the war despite a UNSC vote? Would the UN somehow force Israel to stop fighting? Would countries go to war with Israel specifically to uphold the UNSC vote? When push comes to shove the UN has very little power here and is at risk of going the way of the League of Nations if it pushes too hard without having any meaningful enforcement mechanisms.
    - mistermann 3y ago
      > What would the ceasefire have done at the end of the day? It would better prove out that the UN is also a psychological operation to a non-trivial degree. > Would the UN kick Israel out if they continue the war despite a UNSC vote? The US is the military muscle of the UN, and as far as I can tell, Israel largely controls the US, at least with respect to Israel. Who Epstein worked for, and who has has on tape seems like a relevant aspect of this issue, that hasn't gotten much traction even on TikTok. > When push comes to shove the UN has very little power here... The UN, or at least the idea of the UN that has been distributed among the minds of people in Western countries, has massive power. Control people's beliefs and you can control the world, and the US and Israel are both masters at that game. For evidence, I present the conversations that take place on social media, including HN. > ...and is at risk of going the way of the League of Nations if it pushes too hard without having any meaningful enforcement mechanisms. Dare to dream! I can't think of any "reasonably" likely scenario how that could come about, but maybe I lack imagination. I do however think the decades long psy op that Israel and the US have had going in this specific region is at serious risk though. However, I do not underestimate the "Public Relations / Journalism / etc" skills of who we're dealing with - I think one well designed "event" could easily put most people right back into their trance.
wredue 3y ago
You can also look at the /r/Canada takeover, where a small group of people pretended for YEARS to be something they were not till they were able to seat, and subsequently stage a coup on the sub.
- phatskat 3y ago
  Do you have any links to writeups about this? I haven’t heard of the /r/Canada coup
8note 3y ago
Why would you want an algorithm to prevent those situations; aren't betrayals and heists what make eve fun over time?

_heimdall 3y ago

> Then raise the stakes more and consider the US presidential candidate nominations process. If there was any trust left here, the upcoming election cycle should have already destroyed it. The likely Republican candidate refuses to debate, the Democrats all seem to think the president shouldn't run again but won't stop him or allow a challenger, in all likelihood the two final candidates also won't debate each other, and we're left picking between two candidates that much of the country likely aren't happy with. That's neither democratic or trustworthy.

kemotep 3y ago
Both parties are still running primaries. None of the races have happened yet so whether Biden or Trump get the nomination isn’t set in stone. In addition to the two major parties, there are several independent and third parties. Because they are not popular enough to win isn’t a condemnation of democracy. That’s how it works.
- _heimdall 3y ago
  The Republicans are running a primary, though the candidate with by far the most support isn't taking part. Trump will be on the primary ballot and always loves hearing himself talk on an empty stage, but he's avoided debates entirely. That isn't the fault of voters or the party necessarily, though the party can and possibly should require candidates to take part in the primary process if they want to be on the party's ballot. The Democrats effectively aren't running a primary at all. There are technically two challengers[1], though there are no debates planned [2]. RFK was running on the ticket and had plenty of support in polls to warrant primary debates, though he's now running as an independent after what he viewed as a refusal by the party to allow a primary process to challenge Biden (his opinion, I can't vouch for inner workings of the DNC). [1] https://www.reuters.com/world/us/democratic-candidates-running-us-president-2024-2023-09-18/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/democratic-candidates-runni... [2] https://deadline.com/feature/2024-presidential-debates-schedule-1235523892/ https://deadline.com/feature/2024-presidential-debates-sched...
  - girvo 3y ago
    > RFK was running on the ticket As a non-American, who's RFK? Not the long-dead Robert F Kennedy, of course, but my ability to search that acronym pretty much only brings him up
    - _heimdall 3y ago
      Oh sorry, yeah I shouldn't have gone with initials there! Yes that was referencing Robert F Kennedy
      - girvo 3y ago
        Oh! I must've really misunderstood your comment, my apologies, I thought you were talking about someone today!
        _heimdall 3y ago
        Well I'm failing at writing clear messages today. I was referencing a candidate today, Rover F Kennedy Jr Honestly I never really think to refer to him as a Junior, his dad was assassinated shortly before I was born, but I should have not only avoided using initials I should have also included the "Jr"
- actionfromafar 3y ago
  That's not how it works in a first-past-the-post voting system! Third parties can not gain traction. (Hence all the effort spent on co-opting and riding one of the existing parties like a zombie.)
  - dartos 3y ago
    This. Third parties effectively exists as free research for what positions will be popular next cycle
  - kemotep 3y ago
    Well at one point the Republicans were a third party. Yes First past the post is terrible, but to say your candidate can’t win without getting the most votes is how nearly all election systems work. A lot needs to be reformed with regards to voting and election systems in the US but to claim it is impossible for a third party to win is factually incorrect. How else would independent politicians like Bernie Sanders or third party candidates like Abraham Lincoln would have ever been elected?
    - actionfromafar 3y ago
      That's not how nearly all election systems work. Who wins is often not determined on election day, but in coalition making after the election. If you have 5 - 10 parties, it's often not immediately apparent on election night who can gather a majority behind them.
    - _heimdall 3y ago
      Agreed that third parties are possible, though it is still worth noting that a third party win would almost certainly result in an existing party being replaced for a different two party system. The parties in the US have changed around something like 5 or 6 times. In the last 2 or 3 changes the party names didn't change but the parties did fundamentally change. After each shakeup, we've ended up with a two party system that's structurally unworkable for independents to win at the highest level.
mistermann 3y ago
Public consensus on Israel-Palestine ceasefire vs the stance of their "democratically" elected, to enact "the will of the people" politicians also reveals the the theatrical aspect as well, even without adjusting for the massive home field propaganda advantage. How much longer they can keep this illusion running has got to be THE most interesting thing happening at the moment if you ask me.
- _heimdall 3y ago
  To be fair, the UN itself is revealing its own theatrical aspects. What would the ceasefire have done at the end of the day? Would the UN kick Israel out if they continue the war despite a UNSC vote? Would the UN somehow force Israel to stop fighting? Would countries go to war with Israel specifically to uphold the UNSC vote? When push comes to shove the UN has very little power here and is at risk of going the way of the League of Nations if it pushes too hard without having any meaningful enforcement mechanisms.
  - mistermann 3y ago
    > What would the ceasefire have done at the end of the day? It would better prove out that the UN is also a psychological operation to a non-trivial degree. > Would the UN kick Israel out if they continue the war despite a UNSC vote? The US is the military muscle of the UN, and as far as I can tell, Israel largely controls the US, at least with respect to Israel. Who Epstein worked for, and who has has on tape seems like a relevant aspect of this issue, that hasn't gotten much traction even on TikTok. > When push comes to shove the UN has very little power here... The UN, or at least the idea of the UN that has been distributed among the minds of people in Western countries, has massive power. Control people's beliefs and you can control the world, and the US and Israel are both masters at that game. For evidence, I present the conversations that take place on social media, including HN. > ...and is at risk of going the way of the League of Nations if it pushes too hard without having any meaningful enforcement mechanisms. Dare to dream! I can't think of any "reasonably" likely scenario how that could come about, but maybe I lack imagination. I do however think the decades long psy op that Israel and the US have had going in this specific region is at serious risk though. However, I do not underestimate the "Public Relations / Journalism / etc" skills of who we're dealing with - I think one well designed "event" could easily put most people right back into their trance.

wredue 3y ago

You can also look at the /r/Canada takeover, where a small group of people pretended for YEARS to be something they were not till they were able to seat, and subsequently stage a coup on the sub.

phatskat 3y ago
Do you have any links to writeups about this? I haven’t heard of the /r/Canada coup

8note 3y ago

Why would you want an algorithm to prevent those situations; aren't betrayals and heists what make eve fun over time?