8 ms·

So, this platform allows policy to be decided by a "technorati"[1] class? Are there individuals with low-income, little to no internet access, don't know what

So, this platform allows policy to be decided by a "technorati"[1] class? Are there individuals with low-income, little to no internet access, don't know what a blockchain or open source is, have hectic work schedules with the addition of raising a family participating on your platform? From what I can tell this platform is giving more power to those who already have some sense of power. This platform does not alleviate the problem of those in society who do not have any power or say in political processes. It may even be argued this platform may contribute to the problem. [1] Those who have the privilege, time, and monetary means of internet access, acquiring/have knowledge of internet technologies, and being a participant.

santisiri 12y ago
The only people that believe that internet access is only for the rich, is rich people. We come from Argentina, a latinamerican country and we are very aware of the social challenges we face. But it's not just a technological solution, we ALSO created a Political party that does a lot of offline activism helping society understand the power they have using digital technology. The Net Party ran for elections in 2013 and got 1.2% of the votes in Buenos Aires, it was an incredible first election for a small party and that led to DemocracyOS being implemented officially by the Congress. Thanks to that, a lot of bills got attention. For example: Nureses now have better working conditions thanks to the action taken on DemocracyOS for the Congress of Buenos Aires. Read more about it here: http://democracyos.org/about-us http://democracyos.org/about-us
- seppo0010 12y ago
  > The only people that believe that internet access is only for the rich, is rich people. > The Net Party ran for elections in 2013 and got 1.2% of the votes in Buenos Aires How do you justify that most of the votes came from wealthy neighborhoods of the city? https://twitter.com/seppo0010/status/578031940651118593 https://twitter.com/seppo0010/status/578031940651118593
  - santisiri 12y ago
    we had votes in every single neighborhood of the city. Our correlation was better with progressive parties (ARI) than conservative (PRO) ones even. Actually in Congress, The Workers Party (PO) brought more users to DemocracyOS than ANY other party.
    - seppo0010 12y ago
      I tried to do the math myself about the correlation, but it seems like my statistics teachers would be disappointed[1]. What R^2 did you get compared to ARI and what with PRO? At first sight, it does not seem significant. My claim was about poor and rich people, and you used progressive and conservatives parties as a proxy indicator, which is not great. In USA, for example, California and New York are two of the richest states and they are progressive, while the poorest tend to be conservative. In the "comunas" 4, 8 and 9 (Lugano, Mataderos, Soldati, Pompeya, Barracas) the party "UNION PRO" did better than "UNEN" (a.k.a.: "ARI"), and in the 12, 13, 14 (Urquiza, Belgrano, Palermo) their percentages were really close. If anything, your statement is completely unrelated to my question. > Actually in Congress, The Workers Party (PO) brought more users to DemocracyOS than ANY other party. Correlation does not imply causality. One possible explanation is that both DemocracyOS and PO have a stronger impact on young people. [1] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1TqWBMk18bbr1TQV-Wq0aRdWpF8SclQBtqjtq3KvHRgQ/edit?usp=sharing https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1TqWBMk18bbr1TQV-Wq0a...
      - santisiri 12y ago
        Yes. We do better in the younger generation. We are building for the future and thinking the long term. and again: only rich people believe internet is for the rich. In every slum you'll find every single kid with a huge smartphone. As you came to realize by the end of your rant: the gap is more generational than Socio-economical. That's why this makes sense in the long term.
        seppo0010 12y ago
        Rant? Do you really consider I was ranting at any point? I think I've exhibit thoughts, tried to look for mathematical proof, quoted people who are smarter than me, wonder about known problems when making decisions, and you consider that a rant? You have no addressed a single concern I have shared. You don't have to, but your replies are infuriating because you are missing the point every time. You are just repeating marketing phrases like "every single kid with a huge smartphone". Well, what does that prove? Does it prove that internet has as much penetration in lower income population than it does in high income one? I think not. And if you keep repeating that you are just insulting the young people who live in a slum and do not have smartphone, because you are blaming them for not having one. > the gap is more generational than Socio-economical That gap is not related to democracyOS but to technology. You will have a stronger impact on a young generation not because "you are thinking in long term" but because they'll understand it faster. This comment was mostly a rant. And from now on I'll refuse to answer any comment you write until you want to provide something useful to talk about, or even back your statements.
- jonnybgood 12y ago
  "Its candidates are committed to always vote in Congress according to what citizens vote online." You've built a system that requires privilege. And you're giving power only to those who have that privilege. You didn't address the fact there are those who do not have that privilege. Helping people understand the power of digital technology is meaningless if there are those who do not even have the digital technology. Are you going to buy them the digital technology? Are you going to pay for their internet access? How are you going to provide equal privilege? EDIT: Who is your demographic?
  - santisiri 12y ago
    The only source that can provide equal access without using market forces, is the State. For the State to have such political will, it must have a political party that embraces the view on why internet access means access to education and knowledge. And that's one of the core aspects of our political party. Privilege? Think about a system that has 500 decision makers for a population of 300 million. That certainly requires TONS of more privilege than the idea we are proposing here where citizens can have a direct input NOT once every 2 years, but every week if they want to. Take your time.
    - jonnybgood 12y ago
      I'm not in disagreement with your ideas behind your political party, but I do not agree with the system you want to institute.
      - lifty 12y ago
        Can you explain why? I agree with their stystem but I think that any system that gives direct voting power has to solve issues like vote selling and engagement. I think both should be introduced in the system as explicit economic incentives.
  - moe 12y ago
    Are you going to buy them the digital technology? Are you going to pay for their internet access? How are you going to provide equal privilege? It may come as a shock to you, but poor people have cellphones and internet, too.
- nanna 12y ago
  Why employ the means of a party though? Isn't that the 19th century political form par excellence? In particular - why the one party? I get that you're trying to reinvigorate the notion of the political party, but there is an argument to be made that a form of politics which reflects the internet itself would have no parties, and certainly not one party - no universal representation of particularities, since, as you write in the manifesto, the 'peers' are themselves singularities, and by definition singularities cannot be subsumed. (Kant 101.)

santisiri 12y ago

The only people that believe that internet access is only for the rich, is rich people. We come from Argentina, a latinamerican country and we are very aware of the social challenges we face. But it's not just a technological solution, we ALSO created a Political party that does a lot of offline activism helping society understand the power they have using digital technology. The Net Party ran for elections in 2013 and got 1.2% of the votes in Buenos Aires, it was an incredible first election for a small party and that led to DemocracyOS being implemented officially by the Congress. Thanks to that, a lot of bills got attention. For example: Nureses now have better working conditions thanks to the action taken on DemocracyOS for the Congress of Buenos Aires. Read more about it here: http://democracyos.org/about-us http://democracyos.org/about-us

seppo0010 12y ago
> The only people that believe that internet access is only for the rich, is rich people. > The Net Party ran for elections in 2013 and got 1.2% of the votes in Buenos Aires How do you justify that most of the votes came from wealthy neighborhoods of the city? https://twitter.com/seppo0010/status/578031940651118593 https://twitter.com/seppo0010/status/578031940651118593
- santisiri 12y ago
  we had votes in every single neighborhood of the city. Our correlation was better with progressive parties (ARI) than conservative (PRO) ones even. Actually in Congress, The Workers Party (PO) brought more users to DemocracyOS than ANY other party.
  - seppo0010 12y ago
    I tried to do the math myself about the correlation, but it seems like my statistics teachers would be disappointed[1]. What R^2 did you get compared to ARI and what with PRO? At first sight, it does not seem significant. My claim was about poor and rich people, and you used progressive and conservatives parties as a proxy indicator, which is not great. In USA, for example, California and New York are two of the richest states and they are progressive, while the poorest tend to be conservative. In the "comunas" 4, 8 and 9 (Lugano, Mataderos, Soldati, Pompeya, Barracas) the party "UNION PRO" did better than "UNEN" (a.k.a.: "ARI"), and in the 12, 13, 14 (Urquiza, Belgrano, Palermo) their percentages were really close. If anything, your statement is completely unrelated to my question. > Actually in Congress, The Workers Party (PO) brought more users to DemocracyOS than ANY other party. Correlation does not imply causality. One possible explanation is that both DemocracyOS and PO have a stronger impact on young people. [1] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1TqWBMk18bbr1TQV-Wq0aRdWpF8SclQBtqjtq3KvHRgQ/edit?usp=sharing https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1TqWBMk18bbr1TQV-Wq0a...
    - santisiri 12y ago
      Yes. We do better in the younger generation. We are building for the future and thinking the long term. and again: only rich people believe internet is for the rich. In every slum you'll find every single kid with a huge smartphone. As you came to realize by the end of your rant: the gap is more generational than Socio-economical. That's why this makes sense in the long term.
      - seppo0010 12y ago
        Rant? Do you really consider I was ranting at any point? I think I've exhibit thoughts, tried to look for mathematical proof, quoted people who are smarter than me, wonder about known problems when making decisions, and you consider that a rant? You have no addressed a single concern I have shared. You don't have to, but your replies are infuriating because you are missing the point every time. You are just repeating marketing phrases like "every single kid with a huge smartphone". Well, what does that prove? Does it prove that internet has as much penetration in lower income population than it does in high income one? I think not. And if you keep repeating that you are just insulting the young people who live in a slum and do not have smartphone, because you are blaming them for not having one. > the gap is more generational than Socio-economical That gap is not related to democracyOS but to technology. You will have a stronger impact on a young generation not because "you are thinking in long term" but because they'll understand it faster. This comment was mostly a rant. And from now on I'll refuse to answer any comment you write until you want to provide something useful to talk about, or even back your statements.
jonnybgood 12y ago
"Its candidates are committed to always vote in Congress according to what citizens vote online." You've built a system that requires privilege. And you're giving power only to those who have that privilege. You didn't address the fact there are those who do not have that privilege. Helping people understand the power of digital technology is meaningless if there are those who do not even have the digital technology. Are you going to buy them the digital technology? Are you going to pay for their internet access? How are you going to provide equal privilege? EDIT: Who is your demographic?
- santisiri 12y ago
  The only source that can provide equal access without using market forces, is the State. For the State to have such political will, it must have a political party that embraces the view on why internet access means access to education and knowledge. And that's one of the core aspects of our political party. Privilege? Think about a system that has 500 decision makers for a population of 300 million. That certainly requires TONS of more privilege than the idea we are proposing here where citizens can have a direct input NOT once every 2 years, but every week if they want to. Take your time.
  - jonnybgood 12y ago
    I'm not in disagreement with your ideas behind your political party, but I do not agree with the system you want to institute.
    - lifty 12y ago
      Can you explain why? I agree with their stystem but I think that any system that gives direct voting power has to solve issues like vote selling and engagement. I think both should be introduced in the system as explicit economic incentives.
- moe 12y ago
  Are you going to buy them the digital technology? Are you going to pay for their internet access? How are you going to provide equal privilege? It may come as a shock to you, but poor people have cellphones and internet, too.
nanna 12y ago
Why employ the means of a party though? Isn't that the 19th century political form par excellence? In particular - why the one party? I get that you're trying to reinvigorate the notion of the political party, but there is an argument to be made that a form of politics which reflects the internet itself would have no parties, and certainly not one party - no universal representation of particularities, since, as you write in the manifesto, the 'peers' are themselves singularities, and by definition singularities cannot be subsumed. (Kant 101.)