There's a pretty bad bias problem here because the probe app scans domains that are frequently blocked in dictatorships, but doesn't scan domains that are frequently blocked in "democracies", like Anna's Archive. Then it ends up looking like the dictatorship countries have all the censorship.
Scare quoting democracies is probably telling, but OONI absolutely does test content blocked in Western countries. <a href="https://explorer.ooni.org/domain/annas-archive.org" rel="nofollow">https://explorer.ooni.org/domain/annas-archive.org
scare quoting """""""""democracies""""""""" is perfectly acceptable when it couldn't be more obvious that those so-called democracies do anything but represent the will of their peoples. do you know anyone who'd voted for having to scan their face to access verboten webseites? to have encryption backdoors in their messengers? to have state-mandated spyware preinstalled on their phones?
They don’t represent the people’s will, but unfortunately many people believe in censorship, so even if they were true direct democracies we may still see some.
With modern technology, we might be in the first era where direct democracy is truly viable. Frankly I think the people should have direct veto power on any legislation.
The normal approach is to compromise across topics.
Maybe one should have a finite number of winning votes in a period. Then the majority might want something (or not want) but wouldn't consider it important enough to spend their vote on.
I think that would reduce the sense of urgency where there is non, equalize involvement, foster debate with the barely involved and ofc create a focus on things one wants rather than things one doesn't want.
Who knows, maybe one should be able to spend more than one vote per topic.
> . Then the majority might want something (or not want) but wouldn't consider it important enough to spend their vote on.
Rule of the thumb: everyone will not 'just' [1]
The majority is not a single person that will somehow behave like a rational being that will count their votes and vote only for "things that matter". People view very different things as "things that matter", and the system is easily gamed. Run a few popular, but pointless votes, exhaust available winning votes for the period, then try to pass a meaningful legislation. You will have riots form people who have spent their votes, but still want to vote for something truly important.
And that's before we start talking about whether people should directly vote on removing building code regulations for example. Or whether or not measles vaccines should be mandatory.
I'm just playing with the puzzle. It's not like I deeply thought about it and this was my conclusion.
Votes per period might not work. You could in stead accumulate votes over time.
Of course the proposals could repeatedly go against a specific group. Not sure if you could create a unit of accounting for it or have some kind of independent jury examine the gaming.
I also wondered if the price could scale with the % victory. Like, if 100% votes A it costs zero votes. 51% would be the most expensive.
Maybe give the proposal makers a bunch of tokens, filling a proposal costs x, each vote against it costs y.
The core thought is basically, if people are overly attached to something they will get it but will have reduced influence on everything else.
I don't know if it's possible to improve every kind of voting in the same way.
But we could improve some parts. For example, voting in elections could be improved by introducing Single Transferrable Vote <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote (CGP Grey had a bunch of videos on this: <a href="https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3897F608FAD61E88&si=TzEP91pKPyG_P3Zt" rel="nofollow">https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3897F608FAD61E88&si=TzEP...)
The only good clue I have for a new or modified system is that it has to be simple enough for the voter to understand it. The single transferable vote is technically great but the name doesn't explain how it works. You have to make up for that with education (which seems doable)
I wonder how similar the result would be if the voter could cast one vote for something and one against. This seems less complex.
It has other advantages. A large election budget shouldn't automatically convert to votes. Doing a pis poor job should probably cost more than a few votes.
Well, that's already viable in Switzerland. Any proposed law can be forced into a national vote by collecting 50'000 signatures for a Referendum.
...you'd be surprised, plenty of regular people actually want these things to happen. State is God for reliably the majority of the population of the world (seeing as the majority resides in China and South Asia).
> do you know anyone who'd voted for having to scan their face to access verboten webseites? to have encryption backdoors in their messengers? to have state-mandated spyware preinstalled on their phones?
I know a few. They're called "normal people who don't suffer from crippling tech libertarianism" and there's more of them than of you.
> I know a few. They're called "normal people who don't suffer from crippling tech libertarianism" and there's more of them than of you.
They voted for it or you assume they don't mind it existing?
They accept it as a tradeoff. They vote for things like "less crime" or "our children don't access things that are bad for them".
They're all around you irl. Touch grass and find out.
And to your sarcastic remarks about those people being dumb, believe it or not not everyone is willing to forgo every possible evil in the name of personal privacy in remote communication. Such privacy was never a thing until very recently anyway.
(In fact as far as most people are concerned it isn't a thing today either, you'd be surprised how many people assume that their messages and calls are spied on anyway)
and so you've spent 20 minutes editing this comment to optimize the amount of snark instead of simply showing me one proof of that silent majority's existence :)
oh, but it's the exact opposite. the people IRL tend to react to censorship and surveillance with the word пидорасы, while the regime's eunuchs on the Internet defend it.
maybe having lived under the Soviets makes my people less welcoming to the idea of a commissar deciding what they're allowed to see, hear, say, and ultimately think.
GWB had a second term. Trump had a second term. I would find it reassuring to believe that democracies don't represent the "will of the people", but I've come to accept that, much of the time, the "the people" and I don't see eye to eye.
mitxela · · focus · HN ↗
averysmallbird · · focus · HN ↗
vlyan · · focus · HN ↗
armchairhacker · · focus · HN ↗
troupo · · focus · HN ↗
I think we would see more.
pennomi · · focus · HN ↗
troupo · · focus · HN ↗
Counterpoint: see any NIMBY meetings where they shut down any and all proposals and legislations, even the obviously beneficial common sense ones.
Rule by mob has rarely been productive.
mitxela · · focus · HN ↗
econ · · focus · HN ↗
Maybe one should have a finite number of winning votes in a period. Then the majority might want something (or not want) but wouldn't consider it important enough to spend their vote on.
I think that would reduce the sense of urgency where there is non, equalize involvement, foster debate with the barely involved and ofc create a focus on things one wants rather than things one doesn't want.
Who knows, maybe one should be able to spend more than one vote per topic.
troupo · · focus · HN ↗
Rule of the thumb: everyone will not 'just' [1]
The majority is not a single person that will somehow behave like a rational being that will count their votes and vote only for "things that matter". People view very different things as "things that matter", and the system is easily gamed. Run a few popular, but pointless votes, exhaust available winning votes for the period, then try to pass a meaningful legislation. You will have riots form people who have spent their votes, but still want to vote for something truly important.
And that's before we start talking about whether people should directly vote on removing building code regulations for example. Or whether or not measles vaccines should be mandatory.
[1] <a href="https://www.tumblr.com/squareallworthy/163790039847/everyone-will-not-just" rel="nofollow">https://www.tumblr.com/squareallworthy/163790039847/everyone...
econ · · focus · HN ↗
Votes per period might not work. You could in stead accumulate votes over time.
Of course the proposals could repeatedly go against a specific group. Not sure if you could create a unit of accounting for it or have some kind of independent jury examine the gaming.
I also wondered if the price could scale with the % victory. Like, if 100% votes A it costs zero votes. 51% would be the most expensive.
Maybe give the proposal makers a bunch of tokens, filling a proposal costs x, each vote against it costs y.
The core thought is basically, if people are overly attached to something they will get it but will have reduced influence on everything else.
troupo · · focus · HN ↗
econ · · focus · HN ↗
troupo · · focus · HN ↗
But we could improve some parts. For example, voting in elections could be improved by introducing Single Transferrable Vote <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote (CGP Grey had a bunch of videos on this: <a href="https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3897F608FAD61E88&si=TzEP91pKPyG_P3Zt" rel="nofollow">https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3897F608FAD61E88&si=TzEP...)
econ · · focus · HN ↗
I wonder how similar the result would be if the voter could cast one vote for something and one against. This seems less complex.
It has other advantages. A large election budget shouldn't automatically convert to votes. Doing a pis poor job should probably cost more than a few votes.
ShadowOfThePit · · focus · HN ↗
zaik · · focus · HN ↗
nephihaha · · focus · HN ↗
snowram · · focus · HN ↗
dartharva · · focus · HN ↗
ModernMech · · focus · HN ↗
ShinyLeftPad · · focus · HN ↗
I know a few. They're called "normal people who don't suffer from crippling tech libertarianism" and there's more of them than of you.
choo-t · · focus · HN ↗
They voted for it or you assume they don't mind it existing?
ShinyLeftPad · · focus · HN ↗
vlyan · · focus · HN ↗
where do these paragons of civil obedience congregate? how do they express their wishes for less freedom and more surveillance?
ShinyLeftPad · · focus · HN ↗
And to your sarcastic remarks about those people being dumb, believe it or not not everyone is willing to forgo every possible evil in the name of personal privacy in remote communication. Such privacy was never a thing until very recently anyway.
(In fact as far as most people are concerned it isn't a thing today either, you'd be surprised how many people assume that their messages and calls are spied on anyway)
vlyan · · focus · HN ↗
physicalecon · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
mitxela · · focus · HN ↗
ShinyLeftPad · · focus · HN ↗
why would i waste that much time on writing a reply to you and where do you see snark exactly?
> one proof
i just talk about it with people irl, yeah that thing i suggest you try;)
vlyan · · focus · HN ↗
maybe having lived under the Soviets makes my people less welcoming to the idea of a commissar deciding what they're allowed to see, hear, say, and ultimately think.
ShinyLeftPad · · focus · HN ↗
consider that not everyone grew up in an oppressive dictatorship.
mitxela · · focus · HN ↗
ShinyLeftPad · · focus · HN ↗
thomassmith65 · · focus · HN ↗