carlo von lynX on Wed, 30 Jan 2019 14:23:06 +0100 (CET) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
Re: <nettime> No evidence of digital wrong-doing... |
On 01/28/19 13:57, Joseph Rabie wrote: > "...is to make wrongdoing technically impossible..." > > I guess that all we have to do is get Adam and Eve to regurgitate the apple. No, it's like introducing seat belts. Cars didn't have to stay so dangerous as they were in the first decade. On 01/28/19 14:41, David Garcia wrote: > Thanks Carlo, no need for an either/or choice here. True. > I’d be interested in any examples you have of liquid democracy in action and yielding concrete results. There should be some of that in http://my.pages.de/thomasfazi On 01/28/19 14:55, Felix Stalder wrote: > As far as I know from the German Pirate Party, the use of liquid > democracy has been pretty problematic, to say the least. But anyway, > these are different things, as David said, no either or. Yes there has been impressive amounts of spin in that regard which was most visible in the total unscientific content of the article in the German Wikipedia (and German only) at the time. I debunked all of the assertions back then: http://my.pages.de/liquidspin I still wonder who had such a strong interest in getting liquid democracy out of the picture for a decade to come. This was harsher than just the pushback from elected representatives who obviously liked their representative role and didn't want to give decision- making power back to the base, and the otherwise allergic reaction to certain arrogant promoters. > Citizens' Assemblies are for a smaller number of citizens coming > together multiple times over longer period of times (say one year), > discussing, in depth and with experts, contentious issues. The > advantages of a small number is that you can be more clear with the > selection process (ensuring a minimum of diversity) and you can > materially support the participants (again, important is you want to > include people who cannot afford "free labor".). Just comparing with a liquid democratic approach: When the decision-making process is optimized for collective rationality, then minorities will be heard even if they are minorities - so if the virtual assembly has enough people of all backgrounds, there should be no need for a selection process which is itself likely to be problematic. The question whether a bias is created if some people cannot afford the time to participate as intensely, may need further research. The only paper we have on the subject so far indicates that liquid democracy does indeed do its job which means that it models the political will also of the less active participants. So there should be no need for selection and remuneration. This paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1503.07723 > The advantage of such assemblies really lies in the qualitative > dimension, people from different backgrounds being forced to listen to > each other, respond face-to-face to each other, and seeing where > agreements can be reached and were disagreement might be rephrased to > change the question into something more productive. That is an aspect that liquid democracy doesn't solve just by itself. If you let it run free, especially if you let it take decisions by unqualified majorities, then there is a risk that the parliament is split into pieces that do not talk to each other as much as they should since they winning side already has whatever majority. That's why I'm promoting consensus-oriented usage of liquid democracy - that would create a *need* for at least the bearers of delegations to have a serious debate which they can do in physical or electronic meetings. So far we found a 'discourse' forum platform pretty suitable for keeping a discussion fact-based and structured. On 01/30/19 02:35, André Rebentisch wrote: > Or you get > something like a social democratic committee paper, where each sentence > has to be vague and is agreed upon by all, or has been previously agreed > upon, thus the outcome is mostly baseless or manipulative, e.g. by That is what I criticize about committees, working groups or "tables" as they are called in Italy. It does not apply to a liquid democracy virtual parliament as there is no pre-selection of who's participating. On 01/28/19 21:53, Brian Holmes wrote: > Starting in the late 1990s and proceeding apace, most of us "tactical > media" types on nettime approved and participated, at our micro-scales, > in the process of destabilizing these mechanisms of public opinion > formation, which we thought were rigged by elites. Now our minority > opinion has become majority as the technological sector has matured, and > the result is a vast crisis of governance. We had a couple of naive hacktivist ideals in our heads, expecting that decentralization would somehow make things better. Instead we empowered totally intransparent manipulation by automatons. Being hackers we should have seen it coming, that at some point it would no longer be cool and fun kids like us doing the trollbots. Yes, in 1989 I thought that the net would only make things better. Around 1995 I started seeing things I didn't like and didn't look like they could be fixed with a new RFC. Then around 1997 I started worrying. So I'm not a typical example of a nettimer, I guess. > Some people writing here have framed the results as a savage contest > between the corporate capacities of digital mind-manipulation and the > individual's autonomous capacity to self-educate. If that's the case, > the results are totally predictable: your mind is wiped. Solid realism here. > Some people writing here have framed the results as a savage contest > between the corporate capacities of digital mind-manipulation and the > individual's autonomous capacity to self-educate. If that's the case, > the results are totally predictable: your mind is wiped. Exactly. > But all those micropolitical fora have been too small and > too disconnected from decision-making power. In the present, > nation-states and supra-national formations are threatened with > political breakdown, leaving no replacement strategies except > authoritarianism or Hobbesian civil war. That's why this discussion has somehow led me into mentioning liquid democracy again… it could be the path to an improved and corruption-resistant form of governance. At least I thought it through and see no stumbling blocks, and I've been working in the Italian parliament for a bit and got half a clue there. On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 10:58:24AM -0500, tbyfield wrote: > Feel like your governance process is out of sorts? Try Transparency™! lulz. -- Please use the attached PGP key for an encrypted reply or meet me on my torified chat server. irc://loupsycedyglgamf.onion:67/lynX http://loupsycedyglgamf.onion/LynX/ torify telnet loupsycedyglgamf.onion
Attachment:
0x4E8A9FBA4FC9BCE4.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@kein.org # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: