Discussion:
[MG] Problems with filtering systems
(too old to reply)
James Hancock
2014-04-24 20:22:32 UTC
Permalink
*I just started a new thread on the issue because the other on is getting
to long, so ignore my other post.*
*Executive Summary*
You saying, "*me* choosing to do this based on information provided by
other users" = euphemism for furthering your own bias justified that a lot
of people agree with you.

Then I provide an example of a user of the system and his thought processes
showing that religion is just one example. And, I state a few flaws that
the example illustrates.

- People would make decisions on the filtering level before they
actually had an educated opinion
- This system leads to a false sense of reality because you are only
seeing part of the population or argument
- It doesn't help people see the nuances of the counter argument or the
deeper levels that need to be discussed
- It actually encourages and rewards closed mindedness
- You keep people from arguments that might actually change their
opinion furthering ignorance on the topic

Finally, it sounds like you would want to filter out people entirely based
on one held opinion essentially saying, "Because you believe this one
thing. Everything else you believe is invalid". That in psychology is
called "Black and White Thinking" and is labeled in the category of
Thinking Errors.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The point of the system is to keep you from *wading* through it (which
through technology would be possible). One note that says xx number of
people are religiously opposed to this (more info link that then list out
the debates) is to much for you to read?. Further, ignoring them just
because you don't agree with their point of view... that just keeps you
thinking what you already are thinking further separating groups instead of
fostering understanding. You find people who are like you and agree with
you and further separate yourself from others who don't. I am not saying
you have to agree with these people or convince them, but if you are going
to make decision that impact them. You should at least know what their
opinion is. If you are a leader you are expected to make informed
decisions. Which should include all of the information. It shouldn't be
easy to be a leader.

It translates to much more than just religion. I feel that this thread has
narrowed on that topic as an example and it has become "I just don't agree
Scott Raney
2014-04-25 00:21:29 UTC
Permalink
I just started a new thread on the issue because the other on is getting to
long, so ignore my other post.
Executive Summary
You saying, "*me* choosing to do this based on information provided by other
users" = euphemism for furthering your own bias justified that a lot of
people agree with you.
If you filter based on political position *in general*. But that
would make you prejudiced and so likely to be an authoritarian. And
if you read my and Altemeyer's book you would know that allowing that
group to remove themselves from the process is a feature, not a bug:
they are irrational (or more accurately "significantly more irrational
than Neurotypicals", since we all have this problem to one degree or
another) and generally contribute nothing to the debate unless maybe
the debate concerns why and how to commit genocide or other acts of
extreme prejudice, since they're the experts in that domain.

But Neurotypicals are *not* likely to do this, preferring instead to
use the system to filter out other types of problem posts. And there
is lots of research to back up this claim.
People would make decisions on the filtering level before they actually had
an educated opinion
This system leads to a false sense of reality because you are only seeing
part of the population or argument
It doesn't help people see the nuances of the counter argument or the deeper
levels that need to be discussed
It actually encourages and rewards closed mindedness
You keep people from arguments that might actually change their opinion
furthering ignorance on the topic
All of the above is a pretty good description of authoritarian
behavior. Good Job! Maybe we can use people's using the filtering
system that way as a filter!
Finally, it sounds like you would want to filter out people entirely based
on one held opinion essentially saying, "Because you believe this one thing.
Everything else you believe is invalid". That in psychology is called "Black
and White Thinking" and is labeled in the category of Thinking Errors.
Unfortunately filtering on political position, especially on a single
issue, is not what the system would do (or even allow, although now
that you bring it up I guess I could see how a third-party could use
the open data model to build a tool like that). Again, maybe you
haven't spent time on these forums, but it is incredibly easy to spot
trolls and other problem participants, not by their political
persuasion (although there does seem to me a pretty high correlation
with authoritarianism) but by their tactics. A good example is one of
the trolls my local paper's site that one of the editorial board
members asked me if my proposal would filter posts like his. One of
the things he does is have "canned screed" that he posts whenever
certain issues come up (taxes, government regulation,
environmentalism, etc., you know the drill). He even bragged to me
that the fact that he'd posted over 20,000 times to that forum doesn't
mean he wastes his whole life on it, instead had a "system" for
locating and copy/pasting his screed that made him very efficient!

Maybe it would help if I suggest some flags that maybe you might find
more acceptable to filter on. Note that you'd probably not want to
set the threshold too low, but if maybe 1% of people had flagged
someone as having multiple posts with one or more of these traits you
might consider adding them to the filter, and certainly if 50% of
people had you would want to:

1) Flamer (particularly ad hominem attacks)

2) Contrarian (gives downvotes/1 star ratings more than twice as often
as upvotes/5 star ratings)

3) Polyanna (the inverse of 2)

4) Troll (screed designed to inflame or annoy rather than enlighten)

5) Mobster (lots of "yeah, what he said" posts).

6) Profane (every thread ends in an explosion of swearing)

7) Loose screw (posts that don't make sense or are internally inconsistent)

Any others?

I might want to keep 6 and 7 in my feed because they can be
entertaining, but have a very low tolerance for 1 and 4. Others might
be the opposite.

I think I'd also like the option to easily turn filters on and off and
filter individuals. Maybe a proposal is written such that half the
comments are from people who are one or more of the above, in which
case I'd know not to even bother analyzing it since it was obviously
written by a troll. Or maybe one individual gets a little excited and
posts something snide after *every* other comment (I've seen it
happen) and I'd like to see what the conversation looks like without
that distraction. I'd like option of keeping that person filtered if
I see this problem a lot, but maybe by default that filter would go
away at the end of the session if I didn't explicitly save it. Or
again, if I want to filter out specific "but the bible says" people in
an abortion or separation of church and state proposal, I need to be
able to do that, at least temporarily.

Note that flags might also be used to *boost* the odds that you see a
post based on your preferences by putting them at the top or calling
them out in some fashion. For that there might be *positive* flags
such as:

1) Linker (provides useful links to external sites)

2) Scientist (provides links to academic research)

3) Wordsmith (expresses a thought very efficiently and/or elegantly)

4) Shaper (makes good suggestions about how to improve a proposal)

5) Inquisitor (asks key questions that must be answered before a
proposal could be approved)

These are kind of derivative of the badges Stack Exchange uses, but
the tools are maybe a little sharper since the world we're working in
is a lot rougher than one where everybody is just trying to be helpful
as is (at least ostensibly) the motivation there. I'd mostly be
interested in 2 and 5 in that second list and would want to see those
comments first.
Regards,
Scott

PS: "Jake" sounds like an interesting character: I'll bet if he set
his filters the way you describe he'd be *very happy* if he discovered
he wasn't the only person who felt that way ;-)
James Hancock
2014-04-25 04:35:20 UTC
Permalink
*Summary*
Your first statement is actually conflicting with your later statement
because you admit it would allow you to filter based on beliefs.

Temporarily filtering to see one side of an issue is actually a UI feature
as long as the user explicitly does it and the system does not. When the
system is doing things automatically is where you run into the problems I
mentioned. But there are better ways you could do that for example having
each side of the argument side by side. I think you should think bigger
than it just being a forum/comment like user interface. There is so much
more room to innovate. As you said we have bigger fish to fry and to fry
bigger fish your going to need a bigger fire.

And, I think you missed the point about Jake. I could have split each
belief in to just one person and negative effects would still have applied
to each person.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, I guess we can agree that filtering should be about behavior and not
beliefs. But, then you go on to say that you would filter based on a
belief... which means the system would allow that? But you said it wouldn't
right in the beginning? How would you differentiate your filtering of a
belief from someone else's filtering of beliefs in the system? Would you
filter the belief based on the users beliefs? It gets hairy very quickly.
All of my examples would then apply to said system. I would keep shy from
filtering beliefs at all to keep from the negative consequences that it
would allow.

But I like the more details on the proposal. Your example of temporary
filtering is in fact a UI feature compared to a system feature, as long as
it doesn't hit save and effect other parts of the system. I am fine with
that because it would be in fact useful to view the posts based on topics
so you could be further informed on each side. But there is a different
between you explicitly doing it your self compared to the system
automatically doing it for you. The later is when you run into trouble.

Now we just need to find a way to test that your filtering does as intended
without the negative possibilities that can come from abuse of a filtering
system that I highlighted. But before that you need to decide on your
mission statement. Which then allows you to define a feature set to carry
it out. You seem to be very back and forth about what it would do and not
do. Maybe the negative consequences would be negligible and work fine.
Maybe not.

Also I think you should think bigger than it just being a forum interface.
You could actually put both arguments visually side by side effectively
doing what you want while minimizing the negative impacts.

Cheers,
James.

P.S. I think you missed the point about Jake. He was not meant to be an
actual representation but and example of how different ways filtering could
go wrong within the system. You could have made one person have just one of
each of those opinions and the flaws would still be there in each example.
Post by Scott Raney
Post by James Hancock
I just started a new thread on the issue because the other on is getting
to
Post by James Hancock
long, so ignore my other post.
Executive Summary
You saying, "*me* choosing to do this based on information provided by
other
Post by James Hancock
users" = euphemism for furthering your own bias justified that a lot of
people agree with you.
If you filter based on political position *in general*. But that
would make you prejudiced and so likely to be an authoritarian. And
if you read my and Altemeyer's book you would know that allowing that
they are irrational (or more accurately "significantly more irrational
than Neurotypicals", since we all have this problem to one degree or
another) and generally contribute nothing to the debate unless maybe
the debate concerns why and how to commit genocide or other acts of
extreme prejudice, since they're the experts in that domain.
But Neurotypicals are *not* likely to do this, preferring instead to
use the system to filter out other types of problem posts. And there
is lots of research to back up this claim.
Post by James Hancock
People would make decisions on the filtering level before they actually
had
Post by James Hancock
an educated opinion
This system leads to a false sense of reality because you are only seeing
part of the population or argument
It doesn't help people see the nuances of the counter argument or the
deeper
Post by James Hancock
levels that need to be discussed
It actually encourages and rewards closed mindedness
You keep people from arguments that might actually change their opinion
furthering ignorance on the topic
All of the above is a pretty good description of authoritarian
behavior. Good Job! Maybe we can use people's using the filtering
system that way as a filter!
Post by James Hancock
Finally, it sounds like you would want to filter out people entirely
based
Post by James Hancock
on one held opinion essentially saying, "Because you believe this one
thing.
Post by James Hancock
Everything else you believe is invalid". That in psychology is called
"Black
Post by James Hancock
and White Thinking" and is labeled in the category of Thinking Errors.
Unfortunately filtering on political position, especially on a single
issue, is not what the system would do (or even allow, although now
that you bring it up I guess I could see how a third-party could use
the open data model to build a tool like that). Again, maybe you
haven't spent time on these forums, but it is incredibly easy to spot
trolls and other problem participants, not by their political
persuasion (although there does seem to me a pretty high correlation
with authoritarianism) but by their tactics. A good example is one of
the trolls my local paper's site that one of the editorial board
members asked me if my proposal would filter posts like his. One of
the things he does is have "canned screed" that he posts whenever
certain issues come up (taxes, government regulation,
environmentalism, etc., you know the drill). He even bragged to me
that the fact that he'd posted over 20,000 times to that forum doesn't
mean he wastes his whole life on it, instead had a "system" for
locating and copy/pasting his screed that made him very efficient!
Maybe it would help if I suggest some flags that maybe you might find
more acceptable to filter on. Note that you'd probably not want to
set the threshold too low, but if maybe 1% of people had flagged
someone as having multiple posts with one or more of these traits you
might consider adding them to the filter, and certainly if 50% of
1) Flamer (particularly ad hominem attacks)
2) Contrarian (gives downvotes/1 star ratings more than twice as often
as upvotes/5 star ratings)
3) Polyanna (the inverse of 2)
4) Troll (screed designed to inflame or annoy rather than enlighten)
5) Mobster (lots of "yeah, what he said" posts).
6) Profane (every thread ends in an explosion of swearing)
7) Loose screw (posts that don't make sense or are internally inconsistent)
Any others?
I might want to keep 6 and 7 in my feed because they can be
entertaining, but have a very low tolerance for 1 and 4. Others might
be the opposite.
I think I'd also like the option to easily turn filters on and off and
filter individuals. Maybe a proposal is written such that half the
comments are from people who are one or more of the above, in which
case I'd know not to even bother analyzing it since it was obviously
written by a troll. Or maybe one individual gets a little excited and
posts something snide after *every* other comment (I've seen it
happen) and I'd like to see what the conversation looks like without
that distraction. I'd like option of keeping that person filtered if
I see this problem a lot, but maybe by default that filter would go
away at the end of the session if I didn't explicitly save it. Or
again, if I want to filter out specific "but the bible says" people in
an abortion or separation of church and state proposal, I need to be
able to do that, at least temporarily.
Note that flags might also be used to *boost* the odds that you see a
post based on your preferences by putting them at the top or calling
them out in some fashion. For that there might be *positive* flags
1) Linker (provides useful links to external sites)
2) Scientist (provides links to academic research)
3) Wordsmith (expresses a thought very efficiently and/or elegantly)
4) Shaper (makes good suggestions about how to improve a proposal)
5) Inquisitor (asks key questions that must be answered before a
proposal could be approved)
These are kind of derivative of the badges Stack Exchange uses, but
the tools are maybe a little sharper since the world we're working in
is a lot rougher than one where everybody is just trying to be helpful
as is (at least ostensibly) the motivation there. I'd mostly be
interested in 2 and 5 in that second list and would want to see those
comments first.
Regards,
Scott
PS: "Jake" sounds like an interesting character: I'll bet if he set
his filters the way you describe he'd be *very happy* if he discovered
he wasn't the only person who felt that way ;-)
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
James Hancock
2014-04-25 04:41:31 UTC
Permalink
This is also an example of doing what you said was impossible. Is it going
to work or not? Only time will tell.
http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/24/5645290/facebook-newswire-aims-to-be-a-primary-source-for-journalists
Essentially Facebook is using an outside vendor to help scour their site
for credible notable news in an effort to give journalism a reason to turn
to Facebook for breaking news.

And Facebook has to deal with 684,000 pieces of
content<http://mashable.com/2012/06/22/data-created-every-minute/>
posted every minute to come up with legitimate news stories. That is much
much more complex then the problem you are dealing with.

Cheers,
James
Post by James Hancock
*Summary*
Your first statement is actually conflicting with your later statement
because you admit it would allow you to filter based on beliefs.
Temporarily filtering to see one side of an issue is actually a UI feature
as long as the user explicitly does it and the system does not. When the
system is doing things automatically is where you run into the problems I
mentioned. But there are better ways you could do that for example having
each side of the argument side by side. I think you should think bigger
than it just being a forum/comment like user interface. There is so much
more room to innovate. As you said we have bigger fish to fry and to fry
bigger fish your going to need a bigger fire.
And, I think you missed the point about Jake. I could have split each
belief in to just one person and negative effects would still have applied
to each person.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, I guess we can agree that filtering should be about behavior and not
beliefs. But, then you go on to say that you would filter based on a
belief... which means the system would allow that? But you said it wouldn't
right in the beginning? How would you differentiate your filtering of a
belief from someone else's filtering of beliefs in the system? Would you
filter the belief based on the users beliefs? It gets hairy very quickly.
All of my examples would then apply to said system. I would keep shy from
filtering beliefs at all to keep from the negative consequences that it
would allow.
But I like the more details on the proposal. Your example of temporary
filtering is in fact a UI feature compared to a system feature, as long as
it doesn't hit save and effect other parts of the system. I am fine with
that because it would be in fact useful to view the posts based on topics
so you could be further informed on each side. But there is a different
between you explicitly doing it your self compared to the system
automatically doing it for you. The later is when you run into trouble.
Now we just need to find a way to test that your filtering does as
intended without the negative possibilities that can come from abuse of a
filtering system that I highlighted. But before that you need to decide on
your mission statement. Which then allows you to define a feature set to
carry it out. You seem to be very back and forth about what it would do and
not do. Maybe the negative consequences would be negligible and work fine.
Maybe not.
Also I think you should think bigger than it just being a forum interface.
You could actually put both arguments visually side by side effectively
doing what you want while minimizing the negative impacts.
Cheers,
James.
P.S. I think you missed the point about Jake. He was not meant to be an
actual representation but and example of how different ways filtering could
go wrong within the system. You could have made one person have just one of
each of those opinions and the flaws would still be there in each example.
Post by James Hancock
I just started a new thread on the issue because the other on is
getting to
Post by James Hancock
long, so ignore my other post.
Executive Summary
You saying, "*me* choosing to do this based on information provided by
other
Post by James Hancock
users" = euphemism for furthering your own bias justified that a lot of
people agree with you.
If you filter based on political position *in general*. But that
would make you prejudiced and so likely to be an authoritarian. And
if you read my and Altemeyer's book you would know that allowing that
they are irrational (or more accurately "significantly more irrational
than Neurotypicals", since we all have this problem to one degree or
another) and generally contribute nothing to the debate unless maybe
the debate concerns why and how to commit genocide or other acts of
extreme prejudice, since they're the experts in that domain.
But Neurotypicals are *not* likely to do this, preferring instead to
use the system to filter out other types of problem posts. And there
is lots of research to back up this claim.
Post by James Hancock
People would make decisions on the filtering level before they actually
had
Post by James Hancock
an educated opinion
This system leads to a false sense of reality because you are only
seeing
Post by James Hancock
part of the population or argument
It doesn't help people see the nuances of the counter argument or the
deeper
Post by James Hancock
levels that need to be discussed
It actually encourages and rewards closed mindedness
You keep people from arguments that might actually change their opinion
furthering ignorance on the topic
All of the above is a pretty good description of authoritarian
behavior. Good Job! Maybe we can use people's using the filtering
system that way as a filter!
Post by James Hancock
Finally, it sounds like you would want to filter out people entirely
based
Post by James Hancock
on one held opinion essentially saying, "Because you believe this one
thing.
Post by James Hancock
Everything else you believe is invalid". That in psychology is called
"Black
Post by James Hancock
and White Thinking" and is labeled in the category of Thinking Errors.
Unfortunately filtering on political position, especially on a single
issue, is not what the system would do (or even allow, although now
that you bring it up I guess I could see how a third-party could use
the open data model to build a tool like that). Again, maybe you
haven't spent time on these forums, but it is incredibly easy to spot
trolls and other problem participants, not by their political
persuasion (although there does seem to me a pretty high correlation
with authoritarianism) but by their tactics. A good example is one of
the trolls my local paper's site that one of the editorial board
members asked me if my proposal would filter posts like his. One of
the things he does is have "canned screed" that he posts whenever
certain issues come up (taxes, government regulation,
environmentalism, etc., you know the drill). He even bragged to me
that the fact that he'd posted over 20,000 times to that forum doesn't
mean he wastes his whole life on it, instead had a "system" for
locating and copy/pasting his screed that made him very efficient!
Maybe it would help if I suggest some flags that maybe you might find
more acceptable to filter on. Note that you'd probably not want to
set the threshold too low, but if maybe 1% of people had flagged
someone as having multiple posts with one or more of these traits you
might consider adding them to the filter, and certainly if 50% of
1) Flamer (particularly ad hominem attacks)
2) Contrarian (gives downvotes/1 star ratings more than twice as often
as upvotes/5 star ratings)
3) Polyanna (the inverse of 2)
4) Troll (screed designed to inflame or annoy rather than enlighten)
5) Mobster (lots of "yeah, what he said" posts).
6) Profane (every thread ends in an explosion of swearing)
7) Loose screw (posts that don't make sense or are internally
inconsistent)
Any others?
I might want to keep 6 and 7 in my feed because they can be
entertaining, but have a very low tolerance for 1 and 4. Others might
be the opposite.
I think I'd also like the option to easily turn filters on and off and
filter individuals. Maybe a proposal is written such that half the
comments are from people who are one or more of the above, in which
case I'd know not to even bother analyzing it since it was obviously
written by a troll. Or maybe one individual gets a little excited and
posts something snide after *every* other comment (I've seen it
happen) and I'd like to see what the conversation looks like without
that distraction. I'd like option of keeping that person filtered if
I see this problem a lot, but maybe by default that filter would go
away at the end of the session if I didn't explicitly save it. Or
again, if I want to filter out specific "but the bible says" people in
an abortion or separation of church and state proposal, I need to be
able to do that, at least temporarily.
Note that flags might also be used to *boost* the odds that you see a
post based on your preferences by putting them at the top or calling
them out in some fashion. For that there might be *positive* flags
1) Linker (provides useful links to external sites)
2) Scientist (provides links to academic research)
3) Wordsmith (expresses a thought very efficiently and/or elegantly)
4) Shaper (makes good suggestions about how to improve a proposal)
5) Inquisitor (asks key questions that must be answered before a
proposal could be approved)
These are kind of derivative of the badges Stack Exchange uses, but
the tools are maybe a little sharper since the world we're working in
is a lot rougher than one where everybody is just trying to be helpful
as is (at least ostensibly) the motivation there. I'd mostly be
interested in 2 and 5 in that second list and would want to see those
comments first.
Regards,
Scott
PS: "Jake" sounds like an interesting character: I'll bet if he set
his filters the way you describe he'd be *very happy* if he discovered
he wasn't the only person who felt that way ;-)
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
James Hancock
2014-04-25 04:51:18 UTC
Permalink
I founded an updated source on the content Facebook has to deal with.
http://www.domo.com/learn/data-never-sleeps-2

Apparently it is now 2,460,000 pieces of content a minute it has to wade
through.

Cheers,
James
Post by James Hancock
This is also an example of doing what you said was impossible. Is it going
to work or not? Only time will tell.
http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/24/5645290/facebook-newswire-aims-to-be-a-primary-source-for-journalists
Essentially Facebook is using an outside vendor to help scour their site
for credible notable news in an effort to give journalism a reason to turn
to Facebook for breaking news.
And Facebook has to deal with 684,000 pieces of content<http://mashable.com/2012/06/22/data-created-every-minute/>
posted every minute to come up with legitimate news stories. That is
much much more complex then the problem you are dealing with.
Cheers,
James
Post by James Hancock
*Summary*
Your first statement is actually conflicting with your later statement
because you admit it would allow you to filter based on beliefs.
Temporarily filtering to see one side of an issue is actually a UI
feature as long as the user explicitly does it and the system does not.
When the system is doing things automatically is where you run into the
problems I mentioned. But there are better ways you could do that for
example having each side of the argument side by side. I think you should
think bigger than it just being a forum/comment like user interface. There
is so much more room to innovate. As you said we have bigger fish to fry
and to fry bigger fish your going to need a bigger fire.
And, I think you missed the point about Jake. I could have split each
belief in to just one person and negative effects would still have applied
to each person.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, I guess we can agree that filtering should be about behavior and not
beliefs. But, then you go on to say that you would filter based on a
belief... which means the system would allow that? But you said it wouldn't
right in the beginning? How would you differentiate your filtering of a
belief from someone else's filtering of beliefs in the system? Would you
filter the belief based on the users beliefs? It gets hairy very quickly.
All of my examples would then apply to said system. I would keep shy from
filtering beliefs at all to keep from the negative consequences that it
would allow.
But I like the more details on the proposal. Your example of temporary
filtering is in fact a UI feature compared to a system feature, as long as
it doesn't hit save and effect other parts of the system. I am fine with
that because it would be in fact useful to view the posts based on topics
so you could be further informed on each side. But there is a different
between you explicitly doing it your self compared to the system
automatically doing it for you. The later is when you run into trouble.
Now we just need to find a way to test that your filtering does as
intended without the negative possibilities that can come from abuse of a
filtering system that I highlighted. But before that you need to decide on
your mission statement. Which then allows you to define a feature set to
carry it out. You seem to be very back and forth about what it would do and
not do. Maybe the negative consequences would be negligible and work fine.
Maybe not.
Also I think you should think bigger than it just being a forum
interface. You could actually put both arguments visually side by side
effectively doing what you want while minimizing the negative impacts.
Cheers,
James.
P.S. I think you missed the point about Jake. He was not meant to be an
actual representation but and example of how different ways filtering could
go wrong within the system. You could have made one person have just one of
each of those opinions and the flaws would still be there in each example.
Post by James Hancock
I just started a new thread on the issue because the other on is
getting to
Post by James Hancock
long, so ignore my other post.
Executive Summary
You saying, "*me* choosing to do this based on information provided by
other
Post by James Hancock
users" = euphemism for furthering your own bias justified that a lot of
people agree with you.
If you filter based on political position *in general*. But that
would make you prejudiced and so likely to be an authoritarian. And
if you read my and Altemeyer's book you would know that allowing that
they are irrational (or more accurately "significantly more irrational
than Neurotypicals", since we all have this problem to one degree or
another) and generally contribute nothing to the debate unless maybe
the debate concerns why and how to commit genocide or other acts of
extreme prejudice, since they're the experts in that domain.
But Neurotypicals are *not* likely to do this, preferring instead to
use the system to filter out other types of problem posts. And there
is lots of research to back up this claim.
Post by James Hancock
People would make decisions on the filtering level before they
actually had
Post by James Hancock
an educated opinion
This system leads to a false sense of reality because you are only
seeing
Post by James Hancock
part of the population or argument
It doesn't help people see the nuances of the counter argument or the
deeper
Post by James Hancock
levels that need to be discussed
It actually encourages and rewards closed mindedness
You keep people from arguments that might actually change their opinion
furthering ignorance on the topic
All of the above is a pretty good description of authoritarian
behavior. Good Job! Maybe we can use people's using the filtering
system that way as a filter!
Post by James Hancock
Finally, it sounds like you would want to filter out people entirely
based
Post by James Hancock
on one held opinion essentially saying, "Because you believe this one
thing.
Post by James Hancock
Everything else you believe is invalid". That in psychology is called
"Black
Post by James Hancock
and White Thinking" and is labeled in the category of Thinking Errors.
Unfortunately filtering on political position, especially on a single
issue, is not what the system would do (or even allow, although now
that you bring it up I guess I could see how a third-party could use
the open data model to build a tool like that). Again, maybe you
haven't spent time on these forums, but it is incredibly easy to spot
trolls and other problem participants, not by their political
persuasion (although there does seem to me a pretty high correlation
with authoritarianism) but by their tactics. A good example is one of
the trolls my local paper's site that one of the editorial board
members asked me if my proposal would filter posts like his. One of
the things he does is have "canned screed" that he posts whenever
certain issues come up (taxes, government regulation,
environmentalism, etc., you know the drill). He even bragged to me
that the fact that he'd posted over 20,000 times to that forum doesn't
mean he wastes his whole life on it, instead had a "system" for
locating and copy/pasting his screed that made him very efficient!
Maybe it would help if I suggest some flags that maybe you might find
more acceptable to filter on. Note that you'd probably not want to
set the threshold too low, but if maybe 1% of people had flagged
someone as having multiple posts with one or more of these traits you
might consider adding them to the filter, and certainly if 50% of
1) Flamer (particularly ad hominem attacks)
2) Contrarian (gives downvotes/1 star ratings more than twice as often
as upvotes/5 star ratings)
3) Polyanna (the inverse of 2)
4) Troll (screed designed to inflame or annoy rather than enlighten)
5) Mobster (lots of "yeah, what he said" posts).
6) Profane (every thread ends in an explosion of swearing)
7) Loose screw (posts that don't make sense or are internally inconsistent)
Any others?
I might want to keep 6 and 7 in my feed because they can be
entertaining, but have a very low tolerance for 1 and 4. Others might
be the opposite.
I think I'd also like the option to easily turn filters on and off and
filter individuals. Maybe a proposal is written such that half the
comments are from people who are one or more of the above, in which
case I'd know not to even bother analyzing it since it was obviously
written by a troll. Or maybe one individual gets a little excited and
posts something snide after *every* other comment (I've seen it
happen) and I'd like to see what the conversation looks like without
that distraction. I'd like option of keeping that person filtered if
I see this problem a lot, but maybe by default that filter would go
away at the end of the session if I didn't explicitly save it. Or
again, if I want to filter out specific "but the bible says" people in
an abortion or separation of church and state proposal, I need to be
able to do that, at least temporarily.
Note that flags might also be used to *boost* the odds that you see a
post based on your preferences by putting them at the top or calling
them out in some fashion. For that there might be *positive* flags
1) Linker (provides useful links to external sites)
2) Scientist (provides links to academic research)
3) Wordsmith (expresses a thought very efficiently and/or elegantly)
4) Shaper (makes good suggestions about how to improve a proposal)
5) Inquisitor (asks key questions that must be answered before a
proposal could be approved)
These are kind of derivative of the badges Stack Exchange uses, but
the tools are maybe a little sharper since the world we're working in
is a lot rougher than one where everybody is just trying to be helpful
as is (at least ostensibly) the motivation there. I'd mostly be
interested in 2 and 5 in that second list and would want to see those
comments first.
Regards,
Scott
PS: "Jake" sounds like an interesting character: I'll bet if he set
his filters the way you describe he'd be *very happy* if he discovered
he wasn't the only person who felt that way ;-)
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
Reid Millerd
2014-04-27 03:01:03 UTC
Permalink
I think that instead of having filtering systems (which I see as
potentially confusing conversations or limiting valuable information) it
would be simpler to make everyone operate under established guidelines that
you need to agree with before registering to the site. This way when
someone is acting out, their post can be flagged according to the
guidelines, enough flags could result in a penalty for the individual. The
penalties can accumulate until they lose their privilege to post anything.
This is of course assuming that each user is linked with their actual
identity, which needs to be a goal if proper voting is to occur. Attaching
consequences to posts which limits the individuals ability to post will
make users more mindful of their characters, and if they're not then they
are punished and we rid the site of a troll. Discouraging rampant posting
by having rules that limit the freedom to say whatever. Not turn a blind
eye to trolls and allow them to carry on unchecked. The site should attempt
to uphold a standard of professionalism.
Post by James Hancock
I founded an updated source on the content Facebook has to deal with.
http://www.domo.com/learn/data-never-sleeps-2
Apparently it is now 2,460,000 pieces of content a minute it has to wade
through.
Cheers,
James
Post by James Hancock
This is also an example of doing what you said was impossible. Is it
going to work or not? Only time will tell.
http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/24/5645290/facebook-newswire-aims-to-be-a-primary-source-for-journalists
Essentially Facebook is using an outside vendor to help scour their site
for credible notable news in an effort to give journalism a reason to turn
to Facebook for breaking news.
And Facebook has to deal with 684,000 pieces of content<http://mashable.com/2012/06/22/data-created-every-minute/>
posted every minute to come up with legitimate news stories. That is
much much more complex then the problem you are dealing with.
Cheers,
James
Post by James Hancock
*Summary*
Your first statement is actually conflicting with your later statement
because you admit it would allow you to filter based on beliefs.
Temporarily filtering to see one side of an issue is actually a UI
feature as long as the user explicitly does it and the system does not.
When the system is doing things automatically is where you run into the
problems I mentioned. But there are better ways you could do that for
example having each side of the argument side by side. I think you should
think bigger than it just being a forum/comment like user interface. There
is so much more room to innovate. As you said we have bigger fish to fry
and to fry bigger fish your going to need a bigger fire.
And, I think you missed the point about Jake. I could have split each
belief in to just one person and negative effects would still have applied
to each person.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, I guess we can agree that filtering should be about behavior and not
beliefs. But, then you go on to say that you would filter based on a
belief... which means the system would allow that? But you said it wouldn't
right in the beginning? How would you differentiate your filtering of a
belief from someone else's filtering of beliefs in the system? Would you
filter the belief based on the users beliefs? It gets hairy very quickly.
All of my examples would then apply to said system. I would keep shy from
filtering beliefs at all to keep from the negative consequences that it
would allow.
But I like the more details on the proposal. Your example of temporary
filtering is in fact a UI feature compared to a system feature, as long as
it doesn't hit save and effect other parts of the system. I am fine with
that because it would be in fact useful to view the posts based on topics
so you could be further informed on each side. But there is a different
between you explicitly doing it your self compared to the system
automatically doing it for you. The later is when you run into trouble.
Now we just need to find a way to test that your filtering does as
intended without the negative possibilities that can come from abuse of a
filtering system that I highlighted. But before that you need to decide on
your mission statement. Which then allows you to define a feature set to
carry it out. You seem to be very back and forth about what it would do and
not do. Maybe the negative consequences would be negligible and work fine.
Maybe not.
Also I think you should think bigger than it just being a forum
interface. You could actually put both arguments visually side by side
effectively doing what you want while minimizing the negative impacts.
Cheers,
James.
P.S. I think you missed the point about Jake. He was not meant to be an
actual representation but and example of how different ways filtering could
go wrong within the system. You could have made one person have just one of
each of those opinions and the flaws would still be there in each example.
Post by James Hancock
I just started a new thread on the issue because the other on is
getting to
Post by James Hancock
long, so ignore my other post.
Executive Summary
You saying, "*me* choosing to do this based on information provided
by other
Post by James Hancock
users" = euphemism for furthering your own bias justified that a lot
of
Post by James Hancock
people agree with you.
If you filter based on political position *in general*. But that
would make you prejudiced and so likely to be an authoritarian. And
if you read my and Altemeyer's book you would know that allowing that
they are irrational (or more accurately "significantly more irrational
than Neurotypicals", since we all have this problem to one degree or
another) and generally contribute nothing to the debate unless maybe
the debate concerns why and how to commit genocide or other acts of
extreme prejudice, since they're the experts in that domain.
But Neurotypicals are *not* likely to do this, preferring instead to
use the system to filter out other types of problem posts. And there
is lots of research to back up this claim.
Post by James Hancock
People would make decisions on the filtering level before they
actually had
Post by James Hancock
an educated opinion
This system leads to a false sense of reality because you are only
seeing
Post by James Hancock
part of the population or argument
It doesn't help people see the nuances of the counter argument or the
deeper
Post by James Hancock
levels that need to be discussed
It actually encourages and rewards closed mindedness
You keep people from arguments that might actually change their
opinion
Post by James Hancock
furthering ignorance on the topic
All of the above is a pretty good description of authoritarian
behavior. Good Job! Maybe we can use people's using the filtering
system that way as a filter!
Post by James Hancock
Finally, it sounds like you would want to filter out people entirely
based
Post by James Hancock
on one held opinion essentially saying, "Because you believe this one
thing.
Post by James Hancock
Everything else you believe is invalid". That in psychology is called
"Black
Post by James Hancock
and White Thinking" and is labeled in the category of Thinking Errors.
Unfortunately filtering on political position, especially on a single
issue, is not what the system would do (or even allow, although now
that you bring it up I guess I could see how a third-party could use
the open data model to build a tool like that). Again, maybe you
haven't spent time on these forums, but it is incredibly easy to spot
trolls and other problem participants, not by their political
persuasion (although there does seem to me a pretty high correlation
with authoritarianism) but by their tactics. A good example is one of
the trolls my local paper's site that one of the editorial board
members asked me if my proposal would filter posts like his. One of
the things he does is have "canned screed" that he posts whenever
certain issues come up (taxes, government regulation,
environmentalism, etc., you know the drill). He even bragged to me
that the fact that he'd posted over 20,000 times to that forum doesn't
mean he wastes his whole life on it, instead had a "system" for
locating and copy/pasting his screed that made him very efficient!
Maybe it would help if I suggest some flags that maybe you might find
more acceptable to filter on. Note that you'd probably not want to
set the threshold too low, but if maybe 1% of people had flagged
someone as having multiple posts with one or more of these traits you
might consider adding them to the filter, and certainly if 50% of
1) Flamer (particularly ad hominem attacks)
2) Contrarian (gives downvotes/1 star ratings more than twice as often
as upvotes/5 star ratings)
3) Polyanna (the inverse of 2)
4) Troll (screed designed to inflame or annoy rather than enlighten)
5) Mobster (lots of "yeah, what he said" posts).
6) Profane (every thread ends in an explosion of swearing)
7) Loose screw (posts that don't make sense or are internally inconsistent)
Any others?
I might want to keep 6 and 7 in my feed because they can be
entertaining, but have a very low tolerance for 1 and 4. Others might
be the opposite.
I think I'd also like the option to easily turn filters on and off and
filter individuals. Maybe a proposal is written such that half the
comments are from people who are one or more of the above, in which
case I'd know not to even bother analyzing it since it was obviously
written by a troll. Or maybe one individual gets a little excited and
posts something snide after *every* other comment (I've seen it
happen) and I'd like to see what the conversation looks like without
that distraction. I'd like option of keeping that person filtered if
I see this problem a lot, but maybe by default that filter would go
away at the end of the session if I didn't explicitly save it. Or
again, if I want to filter out specific "but the bible says" people in
an abortion or separation of church and state proposal, I need to be
able to do that, at least temporarily.
Note that flags might also be used to *boost* the odds that you see a
post based on your preferences by putting them at the top or calling
them out in some fashion. For that there might be *positive* flags
1) Linker (provides useful links to external sites)
2) Scientist (provides links to academic research)
3) Wordsmith (expresses a thought very efficiently and/or elegantly)
4) Shaper (makes good suggestions about how to improve a proposal)
5) Inquisitor (asks key questions that must be answered before a
proposal could be approved)
These are kind of derivative of the badges Stack Exchange uses, but
the tools are maybe a little sharper since the world we're working in
is a lot rougher than one where everybody is just trying to be helpful
as is (at least ostensibly) the motivation there. I'd mostly be
interested in 2 and 5 in that second list and would want to see those
comments first.
Regards,
Scott
PS: "Jake" sounds like an interesting character: I'll bet if he set
his filters the way you describe he'd be *very happy* if he discovered
he wasn't the only person who felt that way ;-)
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
max stalnaker
2014-04-27 03:54:50 UTC
Permalink
Consider Ender's Game and that culture's Internet discussion and voting
system. In this consider the identity issue.

I think people are making a damn movie out of this story. If you want a
vision statement then say this is what we will build then work back to some
simple mission and go forward to a business plan. Drop the analytics
except for MBA stuff which no funder cares about anyway except in the sense
of HR types wanting to know if you can fill out an application.
Post by Reid Millerd
I think that instead of having filtering systems (which I see as
potentially confusing conversations or limiting valuable information) it
would be simpler to make everyone operate under established guidelines that
you need to agree with before registering to the site. This way when
someone is acting out, their post can be flagged according to the
guidelines, enough flags could result in a penalty for the individual. The
penalties can accumulate until they lose their privilege to post anything.
This is of course assuming that each user is linked with their actual
identity, which needs to be a goal if proper voting is to occur. Attaching
consequences to posts which limits the individuals ability to post will
make users more mindful of their characters, and if they're not then they
are punished and we rid the site of a troll. Discouraging rampant posting
by having rules that limit the freedom to say whatever. Not turn a blind
eye to trolls and allow them to carry on unchecked. The site should attempt
to uphold a standard of professionalism.
Post by James Hancock
I founded an updated source on the content Facebook has to deal with.
http://www.domo.com/learn/data-never-sleeps-2
Apparently it is now 2,460,000 pieces of content a minute it has to wade
through.
Cheers,
James
Post by James Hancock
This is also an example of doing what you said was impossible. Is it
going to work or not? Only time will tell.
http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/24/5645290/facebook-newswire-aims-to-be-a-primary-source-for-journalists
Essentially Facebook is using an outside vendor to help scour their site
for credible notable news in an effort to give journalism a reason to turn
to Facebook for breaking news.
And Facebook has to deal with 684,000 pieces of content<http://mashable.com/2012/06/22/data-created-every-minute/>
posted every minute to come up with legitimate news stories. That is
much much more complex then the problem you are dealing with.
Cheers,
James
Post by James Hancock
*Summary*
Your first statement is actually conflicting with your later statement
because you admit it would allow you to filter based on beliefs.
Temporarily filtering to see one side of an issue is actually a UI
feature as long as the user explicitly does it and the system does not.
When the system is doing things automatically is where you run into the
problems I mentioned. But there are better ways you could do that for
example having each side of the argument side by side. I think you should
think bigger than it just being a forum/comment like user interface. There
is so much more room to innovate. As you said we have bigger fish to fry
and to fry bigger fish your going to need a bigger fire.
And, I think you missed the point about Jake. I could have split each
belief in to just one person and negative effects would still have applied
to each person.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, I guess we can agree that filtering should be about behavior and
not beliefs. But, then you go on to say that you would filter based on a
belief... which means the system would allow that? But you said it wouldn't
right in the beginning? How would you differentiate your filtering of a
belief from someone else's filtering of beliefs in the system? Would you
filter the belief based on the users beliefs? It gets hairy very quickly.
All of my examples would then apply to said system. I would keep shy from
filtering beliefs at all to keep from the negative consequences that it
would allow.
But I like the more details on the proposal. Your example of temporary
filtering is in fact a UI feature compared to a system feature, as long as
it doesn't hit save and effect other parts of the system. I am fine with
that because it would be in fact useful to view the posts based on topics
so you could be further informed on each side. But there is a different
between you explicitly doing it your self compared to the system
automatically doing it for you. The later is when you run into trouble.
Now we just need to find a way to test that your filtering does as
intended without the negative possibilities that can come from abuse of a
filtering system that I highlighted. But before that you need to decide on
your mission statement. Which then allows you to define a feature set to
carry it out. You seem to be very back and forth about what it would do and
not do. Maybe the negative consequences would be negligible and work fine.
Maybe not.
Also I think you should think bigger than it just being a forum
interface. You could actually put both arguments visually side by side
effectively doing what you want while minimizing the negative impacts.
Cheers,
James.
P.S. I think you missed the point about Jake. He was not meant to be an
actual representation but and example of how different ways filtering could
go wrong within the system. You could have made one person have just one of
each of those opinions and the flaws would still be there in each example.
Post by James Hancock
I just started a new thread on the issue because the other on is
getting to
Post by James Hancock
long, so ignore my other post.
Executive Summary
You saying, "*me* choosing to do this based on information provided
by other
Post by James Hancock
users" = euphemism for furthering your own bias justified that a lot
of
Post by James Hancock
people agree with you.
If you filter based on political position *in general*. But that
would make you prejudiced and so likely to be an authoritarian. And
if you read my and Altemeyer's book you would know that allowing that
they are irrational (or more accurately "significantly more irrational
than Neurotypicals", since we all have this problem to one degree or
another) and generally contribute nothing to the debate unless maybe
the debate concerns why and how to commit genocide or other acts of
extreme prejudice, since they're the experts in that domain.
But Neurotypicals are *not* likely to do this, preferring instead to
use the system to filter out other types of problem posts. And there
is lots of research to back up this claim.
Post by James Hancock
People would make decisions on the filtering level before they
actually had
Post by James Hancock
an educated opinion
This system leads to a false sense of reality because you are only
seeing
Post by James Hancock
part of the population or argument
It doesn't help people see the nuances of the counter argument or
the deeper
Post by James Hancock
levels that need to be discussed
It actually encourages and rewards closed mindedness
You keep people from arguments that might actually change their
opinion
Post by James Hancock
furthering ignorance on the topic
All of the above is a pretty good description of authoritarian
behavior. Good Job! Maybe we can use people's using the filtering
system that way as a filter!
Post by James Hancock
Finally, it sounds like you would want to filter out people entirely
based
Post by James Hancock
on one held opinion essentially saying, "Because you believe this
one thing.
Post by James Hancock
Everything else you believe is invalid". That in psychology is
called "Black
Post by James Hancock
and White Thinking" and is labeled in the category of Thinking
Errors.
Unfortunately filtering on political position, especially on a single
issue, is not what the system would do (or even allow, although now
that you bring it up I guess I could see how a third-party could use
the open data model to build a tool like that). Again, maybe you
haven't spent time on these forums, but it is incredibly easy to spot
trolls and other problem participants, not by their political
persuasion (although there does seem to me a pretty high correlation
with authoritarianism) but by their tactics. A good example is one of
the trolls my local paper's site that one of the editorial board
members asked me if my proposal would filter posts like his. One of
the things he does is have "canned screed" that he posts whenever
certain issues come up (taxes, government regulation,
environmentalism, etc., you know the drill). He even bragged to me
that the fact that he'd posted over 20,000 times to that forum doesn't
mean he wastes his whole life on it, instead had a "system" for
locating and copy/pasting his screed that made him very efficient!
Maybe it would help if I suggest some flags that maybe you might find
more acceptable to filter on. Note that you'd probably not want to
set the threshold too low, but if maybe 1% of people had flagged
someone as having multiple posts with one or more of these traits you
might consider adding them to the filter, and certainly if 50% of
1) Flamer (particularly ad hominem attacks)
2) Contrarian (gives downvotes/1 star ratings more than twice as often
as upvotes/5 star ratings)
3) Polyanna (the inverse of 2)
4) Troll (screed designed to inflame or annoy rather than enlighten)
5) Mobster (lots of "yeah, what he said" posts).
6) Profane (every thread ends in an explosion of swearing)
7) Loose screw (posts that don't make sense or are internally inconsistent)
Any others?
I might want to keep 6 and 7 in my feed because they can be
entertaining, but have a very low tolerance for 1 and 4. Others might
be the opposite.
I think I'd also like the option to easily turn filters on and off and
filter individuals. Maybe a proposal is written such that half the
comments are from people who are one or more of the above, in which
case I'd know not to even bother analyzing it since it was obviously
written by a troll. Or maybe one individual gets a little excited and
posts something snide after *every* other comment (I've seen it
happen) and I'd like to see what the conversation looks like without
that distraction. I'd like option of keeping that person filtered if
I see this problem a lot, but maybe by default that filter would go
away at the end of the session if I didn't explicitly save it. Or
again, if I want to filter out specific "but the bible says" people in
an abortion or separation of church and state proposal, I need to be
able to do that, at least temporarily.
Note that flags might also be used to *boost* the odds that you see a
post based on your preferences by putting them at the top or calling
them out in some fashion. For that there might be *positive* flags
1) Linker (provides useful links to external sites)
2) Scientist (provides links to academic research)
3) Wordsmith (expresses a thought very efficiently and/or elegantly)
4) Shaper (makes good suggestions about how to improve a proposal)
5) Inquisitor (asks key questions that must be answered before a
proposal could be approved)
These are kind of derivative of the badges Stack Exchange uses, but
the tools are maybe a little sharper since the world we're working in
is a lot rougher than one where everybody is just trying to be helpful
as is (at least ostensibly) the motivation there. I'd mostly be
interested in 2 and 5 in that second list and would want to see those
comments first.
Regards,
Scott
PS: "Jake" sounds like an interesting character: I'll bet if he set
his filters the way you describe he'd be *very happy* if he discovered
he wasn't the only person who felt that way ;-)
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
James Hancock
2014-04-28 23:00:48 UTC
Permalink
+1
I like this idea because it will keep the community at a higher standard
(like valve does. It has system requirements) while curbing bad behavior (
notice: not beliefs ) clear expectations lead to greater understanding

Cheers,
James
Post by Reid Millerd
I think that instead of having filtering systems (which I see as
potentially confusing conversations or limiting valuable information) it
would be simpler to make everyone operate under established guidelines that
you need to agree with before registering to the site. This way when
someone is acting out, their post can be flagged according to the
guidelines, enough flags could result in a penalty for the individual. The
penalties can accumulate until they lose their privilege to post anything.
This is of course assuming that each user is linked with their actual
identity, which needs to be a goal if proper voting is to occur. Attaching
consequences to posts which limits the individuals ability to post will
make users more mindful of their characters, and if they're not then they
are punished and we rid the site of a troll. Discouraging rampant posting
by having rules that limit the freedom to say whatever. Not turn a blind
eye to trolls and allow them to carry on unchecked. The site should attempt
to uphold a standard of professionalism.
I founded an updated source on the content Facebook has to deal with.
http://www.domo.com/learn/data-never-sleeps-2
Apparently it is now 2,460,000 pieces of content a minute it has to wade
through.
Cheers,
James
This is also an example of doing what you said was impossible. Is it going
to work or not? Only time will tell.
http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/24/5645290/facebook-newswire-aims-to-be-a-primary-source-for-journalists
Essentially Facebook is using an outside vendor to help scour their site
for credible notable news in an effort to give journalism a reason to turn
to Facebook for breaking news.
And Facebook has to deal with 684,000 pieces of content<http://mashable.com/2012/06/22/data-created-every-minute/>
posted every minute to come up with legitimate news stories. That is
much much more complex then the problem you are dealing with.
Cheers,
James
*Summary*
Your first statement is actually conflicting with your later statement
because you admit it would allow you to filter based on beliefs.
Temporarily filtering to see one side of an issue is actually a UI feature
as long as the user explicitly does it and the system does not. When the
system is doing things automatically is where you run into the problems I
mentioned. But there are better ways you could do that for example having
each side of the argument side by side. I think you should think bigger
than it just being a forum/comment like user interface. There is so much
more room to innovate. As you said we have bigger fish to fry and to fry
bigger fish your going to need a bigger fire.
And, I think you missed the point about Jake. I could have split each
belief in to just one person and negative effects would still have applied
to each person.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, I guess we can agree that filtering should be about behavior and not
beliefs. But, then you go on to say that you would filter based on a
belief... which means the system would allow that? But you said it wouldn't
right in the beginning? How would you differentiate your filtering of a
belief from someone else's filtering of beliefs in the system? Would you
filter the belief based on the users beliefs? It gets hairy very quickly.
All of my examples would then apply to said system. I would keep shy from
filtering beliefs at all to keep from the negative consequences that it
would allow.
But I like the more details on the proposal. Your example of temporary
filtering is in fact a UI feature compared to a system feature, as long as
it doesn't hit save and effect other parts of the system. I am fine with
that because it would be in fact useful to view the posts based on topics
so you could be further informed on each side. But there is a different
between you explicitly doing it your self compared to the system
automatically doing it for you. The later is when you run into trouble.
Now we just need to find a way to test that your filtering
Scott Raney
2014-04-27 16:58:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Hancock
This is also an example of doing what you said was impossible. Is it going
to work or not? Only time will tell.
Time (and resources) we don't have unfortunately. In defense of
filtering again (once more unto the breach!):

1) AI for analysis/sorting/filtering is not an option. Even if we had
the resources to develop such a system it would almost certainly fail
to work properly (as all other public trials of these things have,
although I have to admit that Amazon's review system works pretty well
in the limited domain it has to function, although of course we don't
really know how much of that is some sort of "Mechanical Turk" kind of
trick). Even if we did build a system that worked, few people would
trust it (would *you* trust a machine to filter your feed for you?
People trust FB to do this, but IMHO that's only because it really
doesn't matter if it filters out something important because the
assumption is that there is very little in that category on FB ;-)

2) We will have moderators to handle technical problems and the worst
offenders (criminal acts), but don't have enough resources (especially
starting up) to rely on them to do any actual content filtering.

3) People are very good at identifying trolls and other problem users,
and they'll do it for free if we provide them the tools to do so.
Seems to me this is a tremendous opportunity to not only solve the
filtering problem itself, but also the resource limitations we face in
building a filtering system.

4) Banning problem users is not an option: This is their government
too and they have to be allowed to participate. We just need a way to
apply social pressure to them to improve their behavior (pressures
that are constantly in place out in the real world but are lacking in
cyberspace), or, if that fails, a way to minimize their disruption
(i.e., making it so that people don't have to see or deal with their
posts unless they really want to).
Post by James Hancock
http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/24/5645290/facebook-newswire-aims-to-be-a-primary-source-for-journalists
Essentially Facebook is using an outside vendor to help scour their site
for credible notable news in an effort to give journalism a reason to turn
to Facebook for breaking news.
Yeah, FB may one day be useful and relevant. I'm not holding my
breath (and I'm also not shorting their stock although I'm quite sure
that someone who knew what they were doing could make hundreds of
millions of dollars doing exactly that ;-)
Post by James Hancock
And Facebook has to deal with 684,000 pieces of content posted every
minute to come up with legitimate news stories. That is much much more
complex then the problem you are dealing with.
Umm, there are billions of people on this earth who should be
participating in their government, and far more of them will log in
regularly to this system than FB (half of their members log in less
than once a week, and that's assuming you trust FB's self reports (and
I don't)). Sure, there's a lot more useless stuff that FB has to
manage (more pictures of someone's food, yay!) but if we do this right
the scalability issues we will face will be even larger than what FB
is currently dealing with.
Regards,
Scott

PS: As for building the system, I've been doing Rails tutorials for
the past few days and believe it is the best option for a development
environment at this point. It is unfortunately an incredibly brittle
and baroque platform and it still boggles my mind that this is really
the best we CS types have come up with after all this time. I still
lament that we live in a browser-based world because if I could just
build this as an app I'd have a working prototype available already.
Ah, to be able to go back to the late 70s and be in a position to
guide development to prevent this abomination from evolving the way it
has...
James Hancock
2014-04-28 23:15:23 UTC
Permalink
So you've been doing some tutorials and feel qualified that rails would be
best to implement it?

Ummmm.... Rails is a little old school. If your going to learn something
try django, pyramid, or flask. Much easier to develop on and more powerful.
Plus you can build on the GAE (google app engine) which would make scaling
100 times easier. Your techn
Post by Scott Raney
Post by James Hancock
This is also an example of doing what you said was impossible. Is it
going
Post by James Hancock
to work or not? Only time will tell.
Time (and resources) we don't have unfortunately. In defense of
1) AI for analysis/sorting/filtering is not an option. Even if we had
the resources to develop such a system it would almost certainly fail
to work properly (as all other public trials of these things have,
although I have to admit that Amazon's review system works pretty well
in the limited domain it has to function, although of course we don't
really know how much of that is some sort of "Mechanical Turk" kind of
trick). Even if we did build a system that worked, few people would
trust it (would *you* trust a machine to filter your feed for you?
People trust FB to do this, but IMHO that's only because it really
doesn't matter if it filters out something important because the
assumption is that there is very little in that category on FB ;-)
2) We will have moderators to handle technical problems and the worst
offenders (criminal acts), but don't have enough resources (especially
starting up) to rely on them to do any actual content filtering.
3) People are very good at identifying trolls and other problem users,
and they'll do it for free if we provide them the tools to do so.
Seems to me this is a tremendous opportunity to not only solve the
filtering problem itself, but also the resource limitations we face in
building a filtering system.
4) Banning problem users is not an option: This is their government
too and they have to be allowed to participate. We just need a way to
apply social pressure to them to improve their behavior (pressures
that are constantly in place out in the real world but are lacking in
cyberspace), or, if that fails, a way to minimize their disruption
(i.e., making it so that people don't have to see or deal with their
posts unless they really want to).
http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/24/5645290/facebook-newswire-aims-to-be-a-primary-source-for-journalists
Post by James Hancock
Essentially Facebook is using an outside vendor to help scour their site
for credible notable news in an effort to give journalism a reason to
turn
Post by James Hancock
to Facebook for breaking news.
Yeah, FB may one day be useful and relevant. I'm not holding my
breath (and I'm also not shorting their stock although I'm quite sure
that someone who knew what they were doing could make hundreds of
millions of dollars doing exactly that ;-)
Post by James Hancock
And Facebook has to deal with 684,000 pieces of content posted every
minute to come up with legitimate news stories. That is much much more
complex then the problem you are dealing with.
Umm, there are billions of people on this earth who should be
participating in their government, and far more of them will log in
regularly to this system than FB (half of their members log in less
than once a week, and that's assuming you trust FB's self reports (and
I don't)). Sure, there's a lot more useless stuff that FB has to
manage (more pictures of someone's food, yay!) but if we do this right
the scalability issues we will face will be even larger than what FB
is currently dealing with.
Regards,
Scott
PS: As for building the system, I've been doing Rails tutorials for
the past few days and believe it is the best option for a development
environment at this point. It is unfortunately an incredibly brittle
and baroque platform and it still boggles my mind that this is really
the best we CS types have come up with after all this time. I still
lament that we live in a browser-based world because if I could just
build this as an app I'd have a working prototype available already.
Ah, to be able to go back to the late 70s and be in a position to
guide development to prevent this abomination from evolving the way it
has...
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
James Hancock
2014-04-28 23:26:01 UTC
Permalink
Sorry I am on my mobile and hit send on accident.

Your technological ignorance is showing a little in your last post. Is what
I ment to say. You really wish we would have stayed with
software applications instead of moving to the serverside applications?

Also, I have a hard time believing this would eclipse Facebook someday. In
the US you vote 1 time ever 4 years and how much time do they actually
research and post opinions about it? Not very much. How much do they hang
out and talk with their friends? A lot lot more. They even watch cat videos
more. I think a good measure of this is day to day how much does the
average person talk politics? If you can answer that, I think you would get
a good idea of how often people would use the system.

And even if it did explode in usage it's scope is so much more focused the
data won't be the issue. Getting participation would be.

Cheers,
James
Post by James Hancock
So you've been doing some tutorials and feel qualified that rails would be
best to implement it?
Ummmm.... Rails is a little old school. If your going to learn something
try django, pyramid, or flask. Much easier to develop on and more powerful.
Plus you can build on the GAE (google app engine) which would make scaling
100 times easier. Your techn
Post by James Hancock
This is also an example of doing what you said was impossible. Is it
going
Post by James Hancock
to work or not? Only time will tell.
Time (and resources) we don't have unfortunately. In defense of
1) AI for analysis/sorting/filtering is not an option. Even if we had
the resources to develop such a system it would almost certainly fail
to work properly (as all other public trials of these things have,
although I have to admit that Amazon's review system works pretty well
in the limited domain it has to function, although of course we don't
really know how much of that is some sort of "Mechanical Turk" kind of
trick). Even if we did build a system that worked, few people would
trust it (would *you* trust a machine to filter your feed for you?
People trust FB to do this, but IMHO that's only because it really
doesn't matter if it filters out something important because the
assumption is that there is very little in that category on FB ;-)
2) We will have moderators to handle technical problems and the worst
offenders (criminal acts), but don't have enough resources (especially
starting up) to rely on them to do any actual content filtering.
3) People are very good at identifying trolls and other problem users,
and they'll do it for free if we provide them the tools to do so.
Seems to me this is a tremendous opportunity to not only solve the
filtering problem itself, but also the resource limitations we face in
building a filtering system.
4) Banning problem users is not an option: This is their government
too and they have to be allowed to participate. We just need a way to
apply social pressure to them to improve their behavior (pressures
that are constantly in place out in the real world but are lacking in
cyberspace), or, if that fails, a way to minimize their disruption
(i.e., making it so that people don't have to see or deal with their
posts unless they really want to).
http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/24/5645290/facebook-newswire-aims-to-be-a-primary-source-for-journalists
Post by James Hancock
Essentially Facebook is using an outside vendor to help scour their site
for credible notable news in an effort to give journalism a reason to
turn
Post by James Hancock
to Facebook for breaking news.
Yeah, FB may one day be useful and relevant. I'm not holding my
breath (and I'm also not shorting their stock although I'm quite sure
that someone who knew what they were doing could make hundreds of
millions of dollars doing exactly that ;-)
Post by James Hancock
And Facebook has to deal with 684,000 pieces of content posted every
minute to come up with legitimate news stories. That is much much more
complex then the problem you are dealing with.
Umm, there are billions of people on this earth who should be
participating in their government, and far more of them will log in
regularly to this system than FB (half of their members log in less
than once a week, and that's assuming you trust FB's self reports (and
I don't)). Sure, there's a lot more useless stuff that FB has to
manage (more pictures of someone's food, yay!) but if we do this right
the scalability issues we will face will be even larger than what FB
is currently dealing with.
Regards,
Scott
PS: As for building the system, I've been doing Rails tutorials for
the past few days and believe it is the best option for a development
environment at this point. It is unfortunately an incredibly brittle
and baroque platform and it still boggles my mind that this is really
the best we CS types have come up with after all this time. I still
lament that we live in a browser-based world because if I could just
build this as an app I'd have a working prototype available already.
Ah, to be able to go back to the late 70s and be in a position to
guide development to prevent this abomination from evolving the way it
has...
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
Manage
Scott Raney
2014-04-29 02:46:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Hancock
Sorry I am on my mobile and hit send on accident.
Yeah, those little buttons are a pain ;-)
Post by James Hancock
Your technological ignorance is showing a little in your last post. Is what
I ment to say. You really wish we would have stayed with software
applications instead of moving to the serverside applications?
Definitely. Going a little off topic here, but the browser-based
architecture is incredibly limited, complicated, and brittle (meaning
it breaks with every little change, like version upgrades).
iPhone/Android is a little better because most things are apps and so
the developer has more control, but *ideally* versioning and
extensions would have been built into the OSs a long time ago so, for
example, instead of JavaScript which is a complete POS (and everyone
knows it which is why there are so many extensions and workarounds for
it), apps could have been built in any scripting language and the
necessary engines and libraries downloaded on the fly. This problem
could have been solved at several different junctures (e.g., when
Microsoft added automatically downloaded OS updates for Windows 95,
when HTML was originally defined to purposely exclude interactive
elements, or when Netscape chose to build in a weekend-hack scripting
language instead of defining an open architecture, etc.) but due to
shortsightedness and proprietary-think never has been. Like I said,
if it the web had been *designed* instead of evolving with the bizarre
set of constraints it has, I'd have a working voting system up and
running in days or weeks whereas now it's going to take me months.

As for "ignorance", I'll cop to that as, like I think I said, I burned
out and retired from software development about 10 years ago and so am
having to learn a lot about the current environment (and not liking it
much at all). But I've been developing software from microcode and
assembly languages through 3GLs and 4GLs up to AI languages since I
was a kid (40 years ago) so I think I have a pretty good awareness of
what works and what doesn't. And as for django/pyramid/flask or
anything based on Tcl or Python, talk about "old school"! I wouldn't
touch either of those languages with a 10 foot pole. Of course, it
doesn't help that the product I burned out developing was a major
competitor of those languages and yet still exists as a commercial
product (after enabling me to retire, unlike the the developers of
those other languages, who got the fame instead ;-)

Now that I've finished the main Rails tutorial I'm considerably less
enamored of it. The main concept that comes to my mind is "bag on the
side". The whole development environment is really just a collection
of hacks, kluges, preprocessors, and workarounds instead of a unified
architecture (which is why I had to spend the first few hours in the
tutorial *fixing* version incompatibilities in it!). It's really
designed for professional full-time developers who must deal with a
lot of different projects for different clients and where a project
may get passed around among several developers not all of whom will be
familiar with the overall design. Which unfortunately doesn't really
describe this project. I've written to my old crew to see if maybe
it might be faster and easier to customize the old product (which is
now open source) than punish myself by doing it the Rails way, but
using Rails is still the backup plan.
Post by James Hancock
Also, I have a hard time believing this would eclipse Facebook someday. In
the US you vote 1 time ever 4 years and how much time do they actually
research and post opinions about it? Not very much.
Maybe my FB "friends" are different, but although I'd agree that stuff
like cat videos and pictures of food are still the main fare, bitching
about governments, corporations, etc. make up a significant percentage
of the posts. Imagine what it would be like if they actually believed
that posting would *change* things...
Post by James Hancock
How much do they hang
out and talk with their friends? A lot lot more. They even watch cat videos
more. I think a good measure of this is day to day how much does the average
person talk politics? If you can answer that, I think you would get a good
idea of how often people would use the system.
Again, *everyone* is interested in this, many of them *intensely*
interested. It's just that they feel powerless and don't want to
waste their time, offend anyone, or end up looking foolish. We're
going to change all that. And even with filtering it'll still be a
lot less risky than talking politics with their family members,
friends, or neighbors ;-)
Post by James Hancock
And even if it did explode in usage it's scope is so much more focused the
data won't be the issue. Getting participation would be.
There's definitely a huge "crossing the chasm" issue here, which we'll
see when a few small organizations (HOAs, small towns, etc.) start
using the new system as their primary decisionmaking process. The
pressure on higher levels (county/state/federal/global) will build
very gradually, but eventually I believe will become irresistible and
we have to have a plan in place to specify how the transition will
occur. Which is why I wrote that book (learning from the mistakes of
the design of the WWW, and all our current types of government, as it
were).
Regards,
Scott
Post by James Hancock
Cheers,
James
max stalnaker
2014-04-29 03:38:58 UTC
Permalink
I suppose i might get into a tech religion argument instead but I instead
will say the obvious:

You need to make a guess about future tech to build your world domination
app upon.

You are not yet a cool kid. Take a look at platform as a service There
is a fine chance that an operation like Hereko? Would handle all your
versioning issues and take care of the scaling from a few users to a few
billion with you just writing checks. Cost will run from zero at one end to
the GDP of several small countries at the other end. I rather like them in
particular because of ancient walk bys. This is all cloud stuff of course
and i am sort of puzzled about people talking about scaling to 10**9 users
and not starting with choices that imply that capability.

Try this: is there something in the non-existent mission vision that
implies a need to scale smoothly over 9 orders of magnitude with 5 9's
reliability? Is a vote error of 10 million votes on all world referendii
acceptable?

Max
Post by Scott Raney
Post by James Hancock
Sorry I am on my mobile and hit send on accident.
Yeah, those little buttons are a pain ;-)
Post by James Hancock
Your technological ignorance is showing a little in your last post. Is
what
Post by James Hancock
I ment to say. You really wish we would have stayed with software
applications instead of moving to the serverside applications?
Definitely. Going a little off topic here, but the browser-based
architecture is incredibly limited, complicated, and brittle (meaning
it breaks with every little change, like version upgrades).
iPhone/Android is a little better because most things are apps and so
the developer has more control, but *ideally* versioning and
extensions would have been built into the OSs a long time ago so, for
example, instead of JavaScript which is a complete POS (and everyone
knows it which is why there are so many extensions and workarounds for
it), apps could have been built in any scripting language and the
necessary engines and libraries downloaded on the fly. This problem
could have been solved at several different junctures (e.g., when
Microsoft added automatically downloaded OS updates for Windows 95,
when HTML was originally defined to purposely exclude interactive
elements, or when Netscape chose to build in a weekend-hack scripting
language instead of defining an open architecture, etc.) but due to
shortsightedness and proprietary-think never has been. Like I said,
if it the web had been *designed* instead of evolving with the bizarre
set of constraints it has, I'd have a working voting system up and
running in days or weeks whereas now it's going to take me months.
As for "ignorance", I'll cop to that as, like I think I said, I burned
out and retired from software development about 10 years ago and so am
having to learn a lot about the current environment (and not liking it
much at all). But I've been developing software from microcode and
assembly languages through 3GLs and 4GLs up to AI languages since I
was a kid (40 years ago) so I think I have a pretty good awareness of
what works and what doesn't. And as for django/pyramid/flask or
anything based on Tcl or Python, talk about "old school"! I wouldn't
touch either of those languages with a 10 foot pole. Of course, it
doesn't help that the product I burned out developing was a major
competitor of those languages and yet still exists as a commercial
product (after enabling me to retire, unlike the the developers of
those other languages, who got the fame instead ;-)
Now that I've finished the main Rails tutorial I'm considerably less
enamored of it. The main concept that comes to my mind is "bag on the
side". The whole development environment is really just a collection
of hacks, kluges, preprocessors, and workarounds instead of a unified
architecture (which is why I had to spend the first few hours in the
tutorial *fixing* version incompatibilities in it!). It's really
designed for professional full-time developers who must deal with a
lot of different projects for different clients and where a project
may get passed around among several developers not all of whom will be
familiar with the overall design. Which unfortunately doesn't really
describe this project. I've written to my old crew to see if maybe
it might be faster and easier to customize the old product (which is
now open source) than punish myself by doing it the Rails way, but
using Rails is still the backup plan.
Post by James Hancock
Also, I have a hard time believing this would eclipse Facebook someday.
In
Post by James Hancock
the US you vote 1 time ever 4 years and how much time do they actually
research and post opinions about it? Not very much.
Maybe my FB "friends" are different, but although I'd agree that stuff
like cat videos and pictures of food are still the main fare, bitching
about governments, corporations, etc. make up a significant percentage
of the posts. Imagine what it would be like if they actually believed
that posting would *change* things...
Post by James Hancock
How much do they hang
out and talk with their friends? A lot lot more. They even watch cat
videos
Post by James Hancock
more. I think a good measure of this is day to day how much does the
average
Post by James Hancock
person talk politics? If you can answer that, I think you would get a
good
Post by James Hancock
idea of how often people would use the system.
Again, *everyone* is interested in this, many of them *intensely*
interested. It's just that they feel powerless and don't want to
waste their time, offend anyone, or end up looking foolish. We're
going to change all that. And even with filtering it'll still be a
lot less risky than talking politics with their family members,
friends, or neighbors ;-)
Post by James Hancock
And even if it did explode in usage it's scope is so much more focused
the
Post by James Hancock
data won't be the issue. Getting participation would be.
There's definitely a huge "crossing the chasm" issue here, which we'll
see when a few small organizations (HOAs, small towns, etc.) start
using the new system as their primary decisionmaking process. The
pressure on higher levels (county/state/federal/global) will build
very gradually, but eventually I believe will become irresistible and
we have to have a plan in place to specify how the transition will
occur. Which is why I wrote that book (learning from the mistakes of
the design of the WWW, and all our current types of government, as it
were).
Regards,
Scott
Post by James Hancock
Cheers,
James
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
James Hancock
2014-04-29 09:03:28 UTC
Permalink
max stalnaker
2014-04-29 21:12:20 UTC
Permalink
Yah. I have used Web faction and in fact I owe them a few bucks. And I
love python. I do tend to django. But the versioning is a pain. Indeed
paas might get you around that which is really why i did tgat rant. But
with no nothing for mission how do you talk usefully about language choice?
Post by
The reason you use python is because the development cycle can be so much
faster. Not because it doesn't have it's weaknesses. Where with rails, you
sort of have to do it their way or it becomes very painful.
Normally the logic part of web apps is pretty straightforward the hard
part is making everything talk together over the web that is
difficult(database, templating, user authentication, etc), and then there
is JavaScript(which I agree is horrible) if you want to do anything client
side. Django makes that part very easy, and flask would be more bare bones
if you wanted to do it more hands on. I would say at least read the django
tutorial before you write it off. It sounds like you understand code
pretty well so I think you could build what you are saying pretty quick
there.
Then there is deploying it on some envoirnment to use it. Webfaction is
good for this or you good go platform as a service. But you should decide
where you are going to deploy before you build it so you can make sure of
their constraints or best practices they provide.
@max platform as a service is awesome which is why I mentioned GAE, but
there are many others, like heroku. But, you have to build something to go
on the platform first.
Cheers,
James
Post by max stalnaker
I suppose i might get into a tech religion argument instead but I instead
You need to make a guess about future tech to build your world domination
app upon.
You are not yet a cool kid. Take a look at platform as a service There
is a fine chance that an operation like Hereko? Would handle all your
versioning issues and take care of the scaling from a few users to a few
billion with you just writing checks. Cost will run from zero at one end to
the GDP of several small countries at the other end. I rather like them in
particular because of ancient walk bys. This is all cloud stuff of course
and i am sort of puzzled about people talking about scaling to 10**9 users
and not starting with choices that imply that capability.
Try this: is there something in the non-existent mission vision that
implies a need to scale smoothly over 9 orders of magnitude with 5 9's
reliability? Is a vote error of 10 million votes on all world referendii
acceptable?
Max
Post by James Hancock
Sorry I am on my mobile and hit send on accident.
Yeah, those little buttons are a pain ;-)
Post by James Hancock
Your technological ignorance is showing a little in your last post. Is
what
Post by James Hancock
I ment to say. You really wish we would have stayed with software
applications instead of moving to the serverside applications?
Definitely. Going a little off topic here, but the browser-based
architecture is incredibly limited, complicated, and brittle (meaning
it breaks with every little change, like version upgrades).
iPhone/Android is a little better because most things are apps and so
the developer has more control, but *ideally* versioning and
extensions would have been built into the OSs a long time ago so, for
example, instead of JavaScript which is a complete POS (and everyone
knows it which is why there are so many extensions and workarounds for
it), apps could have been built in any scripting language and the
necessary engines and libraries downloaded on the fly. This problem
could have been solved at several different junctures (e.g., when
Microsoft added automatically downloaded OS updates for Windows 95,
when HTML was originally defined to purposely exclude interactive
elements, or when Netscape chose to build in a weekend-hack scripting
language instead of defining an open architecture, etc.) but due to
shortsightedness and proprietary-think never has been. Like I said,
if it the web had been *designed* instead of evolving with the bizarre
set of constraints it has, I'd have a working voting system up and
running in days or weeks whereas now it's going to take me months.
As for "ignorance", I'll cop to that as, like I think I said, I burned
out and retired from software development about 10 years ago and so am
having to learn a lot about the current environment (and not liking it
much at all). But I've been developing software from microcode and
assembly languages through 3GLs and 4GLs up to AI languages since I
was a kid (40 years ago) so I think I have a pretty good awareness of
what works and what doesn't. And as for django/pyramid/flask or
anything based on Tcl or Python, talk about "old school"! I wouldn't
touch either of those languages with a 10 foot pole. Of course, it
doesn't help that the product I burned out developing was a major
competitor of those languages and yet still exists as a commercial
product (after enabling me to retire, unlike the the developers of
those other languages, who got the fame instead ;-)
Now that I've finished the main Rails tutorial I'm considerably less
enamored of it. The main concept that comes to my mind is "bag on the
side". The whole development environment is really just a collection
of hacks, kluges, preprocessors, and workarounds instead of a unified
architecture (which is why I had to spend the first few hours in the
tutorial *fixing* version incompatibilities in it!). It's really
designed for professional full-time developers who must deal with a
lot of different projects for different clients and where a project
may get passed around among several developers not all of whom will be
familiar with the overall design. Which unfortunately doesn't really
describe this project. I've written to my old crew to see if maybe
it might be faster and easier to customize the old product (which is
now open source) than punish myself by doing it the Rails way, but
using Rails is still the backup plan.
Post by James Hancock
Also, I have a hard time believing this would eclipse Facebook someday.
In
Post by James Hancock
the US you vote 1 time ever 4 years and how much time do they actually
research and post opinions about it? Not very much.
Maybe my FB "friends" are different, but although I'd agree that stuff
like cat videos and pictures of food are still the main fare, bitching
about governments, corporations, etc. make up a significant percentage
of the posts. Imagine what it would be like if they actually believed
that posting would *change* things...
Post by James Hancock
How much do they hang
out and talk with their friends? A lot lot more. They even watch cat
videos
Post by James Hancock
more. I think a good measure of this is day to day how much does the
average
Post by James Hancock
person talk politics? If you can answer that, I think you would get a
good
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
Reid Millerd
2014-04-30 05:13:22 UTC
Permalink
To get back to the filtering issue, I'd appreciate some clarity on the
issue Scott

Do you intend to have filters on particular language like any post that
included the word "homosexual" an individual could omit those results from
their feed? I think you can see that this would both confuse the
conversations to have randomly missing posts as well as deprive the
individual of a different opinion and a chance to expand their mind. This
way they could just vote against any gay rights without even hearing what
the other side had to hear. This is problematic would you not agree?


The other option which you seem to be hinting at is that users would be
able to flag other users into categories like, flammer, troll etc. and then
set filters to hide those individuals. My concern with this is people being
flagged as a troll will be stuck in that. What happens if someone comes to
their senses and decides to try and change, their already stuck as a troll
and mostly everyone has filtered them out already, they'll be invisible for
life. Seems like it would be very hard to correct their state once their
put in a box.


My recommendation is to instead have guidelines established, rules of what
kind of behavior is acceptable on the system. Break a rule and enough
people report/flag you, your post is locked and you are served a time
penalty where you are not allowed to post. Once the time period is up
you're free to post again but the next time you're caught breaking a rule
the time penalty increases. This enables and encourages individuals to
clean up their act but punishes continual offenders and rids the site of
problem people without having to sensor or omit any information, we should
all be on the same page and see what the community is talking about.


I do think we should allow filtering but they should be inclusive instead.
Keywords - so you can search "homosexual" if that's your area of expertise
and have a list populated with all topics including that word.


I agree with a lot of what you're saying but this area is still unclear to
me.
Post by max stalnaker
Yah. I have used Web faction and in fact I owe them a few bucks. And I
love python. I do tend to django. But the versioning is a pain. Indeed
paas might get you around that which is really why i did tgat rant. But
with no nothing for mission how do you talk usefully about language choice?
Post by
The reason you use python is because the development cycle can be so much
faster. Not because it doesn't have it's weaknesses. Where with rails, you
sort of have to do it their way or it becomes very painful.
Normally the logic part of web apps is pretty straightforward the hard
part is making everything talk together over the web that is
difficult(database, templating, user authentication, etc), and then there
is JavaScript(which I agree is horrible) if you want to do anything client
side. Django makes that part very easy, and flask would be more bare bones
if you wanted to do it more hands on. I would say at least read the django
tutorial before you write it off. It sounds like you understand code
pretty well so I think you could build what you are saying pretty quick
there.
Then there is deploying it on some envoirnment to use it. Webfaction is
good for this or you good go platform as a service. But you should decide
where you are going to deploy before you build it so you can make sure of
their constraints or best practices they provide.
@max platform as a service is awesome which is why I mentioned GAE, but
there are many others, like heroku. But, you have to build something to go
on the platform first.
Cheers,
James
Post by max stalnaker
I suppose i might get into a tech religion argument instead but I
You need to make a guess about future tech to build your world
domination app upon.
You are not yet a cool kid. Take a look at platform as a service
There is a fine chance that an operation like Hereko? Would handle all your
versioning issues and take care of the scaling from a few users to a few
billion with you just writing checks. Cost will run from zero at one end to
the GDP of several small countries at the other end. I rather like them in
particular because of ancient walk bys. This is all cloud stuff of course
and i am sort of puzzled about people talking about scaling to 10**9 users
and not starting with choices that imply that capability.
Try this: is there something in the non-existent mission vision that
implies a need to scale smoothly over 9 orders of magnitude with 5 9's
reliability? Is a vote error of 10 million votes on all world referendii
acceptable?
Max
Post by James Hancock
Sorry I am on my mobile and hit send on accident.
Yeah, those little buttons are a pain ;-)
Post by James Hancock
Your technological ignorance is showing a little in your last post. Is
what
Post by James Hancock
I ment to say. You really wish we would have stayed with software
applications instead of moving to the serverside applications?
Definitely. Going a little off topic here, but the browser-based
architecture is incredibly limited, complicated, and brittle (meaning
it breaks with every little change, like version upgrades).
iPhone/Android is a little better because most things are apps and so
the developer has more control, but *ideally* versioning and
extensions would have been built into the OSs a long time ago so, for
example, instead of JavaScript which is a complete POS (and everyone
knows it which is why there are so many extensions and workarounds for
it), apps could have been built in any scripting language and the
necessary engines and libraries downloaded on the fly. This problem
could have been solved at several different junctures (e.g., when
Microsoft added automatically downloaded OS updates for Windows 95,
when HTML was originally defined to purposely exclude interactive
elements, or when Netscape chose to build in a weekend-hack scripting
language instead of defining an open architecture, etc.) but due to
shortsightedness and proprietary-think never has been. Like I said,
if it the web had been *designed* instead of evolving with the bizarre
set of constraints it has, I'd have a working voting system up and
running in days or weeks whereas now it's going to take me months.
As for "ignorance", I'll cop to that as, like I think I said, I burned
out and retired from software development about 10 years ago and so am
having to learn a lot about the current environment (and not liking it
much at all). But I've been developing software from microcode and
assembly languages through 3GLs and 4GLs up to AI languages since I
was a kid (40 years ago) so I think I have a pretty good awareness of
what works and what doesn't. And as for django/pyramid/flask or
anything based on Tcl or Python, talk about "old school"! I wouldn't
touch either of those languages with a 10 foot pole. Of course, it
doesn't help that the product I burned out developing was a major
competitor of those languages and yet still exists as a commercial
product (after enabling me to retire, unlike the the developers of
those other languages, who got the fame instead ;-)
Now that I've finished the main Rails tutorial I'm considerably less
enamored of it. The main concept that comes to my mind is "bag on the
side". The whole development environment is really just a collection
of hacks, kluges, preprocessors, and workarounds instead of a unified
architecture (which is why I had to spend the first few hours in the
tutorial *fixing* version incompatibilities in it!). It's really
designed for professional full-time developers who must deal with a
lot of different projects for different clients and where a project
may get passed around among several developers not all of whom will be
familiar with the overall design. Which unfortunately doesn't really
describe this project. I've written to my old crew to see if maybe
it might be faster and easier to customize the old product (which is
now open source) than punish myself by doing it the Rails way, but
using Rails is still the backup plan.
Post by James Hancock
Also, I have a hard time believing this would eclipse Facebook
someday. In
Post by James Hancock
the US you vote 1 time ever 4 years and how much time do they actually
research and post opinions about it? Not very much.
Maybe my FB "friends" are different, but although I'd agree that stuff
like cat videos and pictures of food are still the main fare, bitching
about governments, corporations, etc. make up a significant percentage
of the posts. Imagine what it would be like if they actually believed
that posting would *change* things...
Post by James Hancock
How much do they hang
out and talk with their friends? A lot lot more. They even watch cat
videos
Post by James Hancock
more. I think a good measure of this is day to day how much does the
average
Post by James Hancock
person talk politics? If you can answer that, I think you would get a
good
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
Scott Raney
2014-05-01 00:34:39 UTC
Permalink
To get back to the filtering issue, I'd appreciate some clarity on the issue
Scott
Do you intend to have filters on particular language like any post that
included the word "homosexual" an individual could omit those results from
their feed? I think you can see that this would both confuse the
conversations to have randomly missing posts as well as deprive the
individual of a different opinion and a chance to expand their mind. This
way they could just vote against any gay rights without even hearing what
the other side had to hear. This is problematic would you not agree?
I wasn't proposing filtering on words, but instead on flags. There
would be obviously be some interaction between the two, so for example
if some individual repeatedly use racial or sexual orientation *slurs*
instead of whatever the PC term-du-jour is that their posts would
likely get flagged and as a result filtered by some/many people.

Missing posts in a feed are not that big of a deal and you see this
all the time on newspaper sites (someone will respond to a post prior
to a moderator getting around to deleting it). Whether or not some
clue that there was a filtered post is shown in the feed I think is a
UI issue we'll have to decide once we see how it works.
The other option which you seem to be hinting at is that users would be able
to flag other users into categories like, flammer, troll etc. and then set
filters to hide those individuals. My concern with this is people being
flagged as a troll will be stuck in that. What happens if someone comes to
their senses and decides to try and change, their already stuck as a troll
and mostly everyone has filtered them out already, they'll be invisible for
life. Seems like it would be very hard to correct their state once their put
in a box.
Good point, and one I've been struggling with myself. I've come up
with three solutions to this problem:
1) Flag expiration. Maybe they only stick around for a month or two,
so the affected user's posts will gradually start appearing in
people's feeds again, in proportion to how tight that individual's
filters are set.

2) On-line training: An individual could take a course on on-line
forum etiquette and have their flags cleared. Kind of like traffic
court, where taking a class reduces the points on against your
license.

3) "Forum Court", where an individual could appeal the flags to a jury
of their peers (self selected, or maybe chosen at random like regular
juries are) where the offending posts would be discussed and a vote
taken to reverse the user flags if warranted. I think we need this
option anyway because it would also be used to appeal moderator
decisions: Although user flagging should make up the bulk of the
moderation process (specifically there must not be any post removal by
moderators based on profanity or personal attacks) we're still going
to need moderators and we need a way for The People to review and
override those moderators both to help weed out the bad ones and to
prevent the moderators themselves from becoming a too-powerful
influence in the process.
My recommendation is to instead have guidelines established, rules of what
kind of behavior is acceptable on the system. Break a rule and enough people
report/flag you, your post is locked and you are served a time penalty where
you are not allowed to post. Once the time period is up you're free to post
again but the next time you're caught breaking a rule the time penalty
increases. This enables and encourages individuals to clean up their act but
punishes continual offenders and rids the site of problem people without
having to sensor or omit any information, we should all be on the same page
and see what the community is talking about.
As I expressed in my other posts I'm opposed to these types of
"punishments" because they're a relatively poor way to achieve the
desired outcome (as punishment for antisocial behavior is in general
according to just about all the psychological research (e.g., see the
section in the book on crime and punishment)). It *is* censorship and
also turns the whole process upside down: It should never be perceived
that The System that is punishing a user, it should always be known
that it is only the other users who are individually making the
decision to banish or ostracize a problem individual. This is the
technique that we *evolved* to use and be responsive to, and resorting
to authoritarian techniques is not only less effective, but has a
bunch of negative side effects that come along with it (i.e., this
huge problem we have of people hating on the government when in fact
*we are* the government).
I do think we should allow filtering but they should be inclusive instead.
Keywords - so you can search "homosexual" if that's your area of expertise
and have a list populated with all topics including that word.
We definitely need global search features and saved searches to
facilitate this. In the book I also propose ways to specify these
kinds of things in an individual's "Goals" settings area such that
like-minded individuals could find each other to work on a proposal if
no one of them has the time or skill to take on creating a proposal by
themselves.
I agree with a lot of what you're saying but this area is still unclear to
me.
As it is to me. This back-and-forth is how this thing *should* be
designed and I appreciate all the questions/comments as it really
helps me clarify my own understanding of the issues.
Regards,
Scott
Reid Millerd
2014-05-01 06:14:07 UTC
Permalink
Very good Scott, thanks for clearing some of that up.


You mention moderators. What do you foresee their job being exactly? Since
most is done by the flagging system. We may need moderators at first to
work out glitches. Ideally though I think you would agree would be a system
without moderators, a system that could run on the participation of its
members alone. I believe it's achievable.


I fail to see how missing posts doesn't distort the conversation. If a user
with no filters attached to their profile gets into an argument with an
individual who's been flagged as a troll, users with the troll filter on
would see a neutral user just arguing with himself pointlessly. This is
unnecessary space and time being wasted by actual users trying to read and
learn about real issues.


My envisioned model would not be "The System" that punishes them but in
fact other users. A post is flagged/reported several times. A message is
then sent out to a random unconnected active user that an infraction has
occurred. This user can then check the infraction and make a call whether
to punish the culprit or not based on the established rules of the forum.
If the user feels the culprit broke a rule they lock the post from
receiving any further replies and attaches a comment to the original post
on why the decision was made. The culprit must then take a time out from
posting. If the culprit does not feel the verdict was justified then I
think a situation like the "Forum Court" you suggested could be utilized.
However the punishment would have to be more severe in this stage.


I think the penalty aspect puts these annoying users out of commission for
an extended period so the rest of the site can get back to business. I
think we should be attempting to discourage rampant posting, keeping the
overall structure as clean and simple as possible. This would make the
site easier to navigate through and promoting a higher standard of posting
etiquette would ensure a greater ratio of quality posts, which would
encourage individuals to read more conversations since they know they're
not wasting their time with pointless posts.


Your method although nice to give everyone the freedom to post whatever, I
feel opens the site up to a lot of unnecessary discussion and confusion. I
feel like it would be an ongoing problem as there's no actual punishment
for being annoying, annoying people will just keep doing it, complicating
the site's view ability.

www.theinternetswebsite.com is my project. It's a working prototype of
sorts, though doesn't yet have the activity to realize its full potential
as a functioning forum of debate. The basic concepts at least for what
we're trying to accomplish are presented. I'd be interested to hear what
you thought of it as our views appear to be similar. I currently lack the
funds and the knowledge to continue to improve upon it. I'd be willing to
let you have access to build upon it if you thought it could make a solid
platform. Would save you some time and would make my efforts worth
something. If we were to partner up I would step up my efforts on promotion
of the idea. Media creation is more my strong suit and I believe it's going
to take a massive public awareness campaign to empower individuals to
believe in this new system, something that can come through viral videos.
We live in a very exciting time where all of this is possible even with
limited resources, collaboration is what we need.
Post by Scott Raney
Post by Reid Millerd
To get back to the filtering issue, I'd appreciate some clarity on the
issue
Post by Reid Millerd
Scott
Do you intend to have filters on particular language like any post that
included the word "homosexual" an individual could omit those results
from
Post by Reid Millerd
their feed? I think you can see that this would both confuse the
conversations to have randomly missing posts as well as deprive the
individual of a different opinion and a chance to expand their mind. This
way they could just vote against any gay rights without even hearing what
the other side had to hear. This is problematic would you not agree?
I wasn't proposing filtering on words, but instead on flags. There
would be obviously be some interaction between the two, so for example
if some individual repeatedly use racial or sexual orientation *slurs*
instead of whatever the PC term-du-jour is that their posts would
likely get flagged and as a result filtered by some/many people.
Missing posts in a feed are not that big of a deal and you see this
all the time on newspaper sites (someone will respond to a post prior
to a moderator getting around to deleting it). Whether or not some
clue that there was a filtered post is shown in the feed I think is a
UI issue we'll have to decide once we see how it works.
Post by Reid Millerd
The other option which you seem to be hinting at is that users would be
able
Post by Reid Millerd
to flag other users into categories like, flammer, troll etc. and then
set
Post by Reid Millerd
filters to hide those individuals. My concern with this is people being
flagged as a troll will be stuck in that. What happens if someone comes
to
Post by Reid Millerd
their senses and decides to try and change, their already stuck as a
troll
Post by Reid Millerd
and mostly everyone has filtered them out already, they'll be invisible
for
Post by Reid Millerd
life. Seems like it would be very hard to correct their state once their
put
Post by Reid Millerd
in a box.
Good point, and one I've been struggling with myself. I've come up
1) Flag expiration. Maybe they only stick around for a month or two,
so the affected user's posts will gradually start appearing in
people's feeds again, in proportion to how tight that individual's
filters are set.
2) On-line training: An individual could take a course on on-line
forum etiquette and have their flags cleared. Kind of like traffic
court, where taking a class reduces the points on against your
license.
3) "Forum Court", where an individual could appeal the flags to a jury
of their peers (self selected, or maybe chosen at random like regular
juries are) where the offending posts would be discussed and a vote
taken to reverse the user flags if warranted. I think we need this
option anyway because it would also be used to appeal moderator
decisions: Although user flagging should make up the bulk of the
moderation process (specifically there must not be any post removal by
moderators based on profanity or personal attacks) we're still going
to need moderators and we need a way for The People to review and
override those moderators both to help weed out the bad ones and to
prevent the moderators themselves from becoming a too-powerful
influence in the process.
Post by Reid Millerd
My recommendation is to instead have guidelines established, rules of
what
Post by Reid Millerd
kind of behavior is acceptable on the system. Break a rule and enough
people
Post by Reid Millerd
report/flag you, your post is locked and you are served a time penalty
where
Post by Reid Millerd
you are not allowed to post. Once the time period is up you're free to
post
Post by Reid Millerd
again but the next time you're caught breaking a rule the time penalty
increases. This enables and encourages individuals to clean up their act
but
Post by Reid Millerd
punishes continual offenders and rids the site of problem people without
having to sensor or omit any information, we should all be on the same
page
Post by Reid Millerd
and see what the community is talking about.
As I expressed in my other posts I'm opposed to these types of
"punishments" because they're a relatively poor way to achieve the
desired outcome (as punishment for antisocial behavior is in general
according to just about all the psychological research (e.g., see the
section in the book on crime and punishment)). It *is* censorship and
also turns the whole process upside down: It should never be perceived
that The System that is punishing a user, it should always be known
that it is only the other users who are individually making the
decision to banish or ostracize a problem individual. This is the
technique that we *evolved* to use and be responsive to, and resorting
to authoritarian techniques is not only less effective, but has a
bunch of negative side effects that come along with it (i.e., this
huge problem we have of people hating on the government when in fact
*we are* the government).
Post by Reid Millerd
I do think we should allow filtering but they should be inclusive
instead.
Post by Reid Millerd
Keywords - so you can search "homosexual" if that's your area of
expertise
Post by Reid Millerd
and have a list populated with all topics including that word.
We definitely need global search features and saved searches to
facilitate this. In the book I also propose ways to specify these
kinds of things in an individual's "Goals" settings area such that
like-minded individuals could find each other to work on a proposal if
no one of them has the time or skill to take on creating a proposal by
themselves.
Post by Reid Millerd
I agree with a lot of what you're saying but this area is still unclear
to
Post by Reid Millerd
me.
As it is to me. This back-and-forth is how this thing *should* be
designed and I appreciate all the questions/comments as it really
helps me clarify my own understanding of the issues.
Regards,
Scott
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
Reid Millerd
2014-05-04 22:00:14 UTC
Permalink
Did this whole group just die?
Post by Reid Millerd
Very good Scott, thanks for clearing some of that up.
You mention moderators. What do you foresee their job being exactly? Since
most is done by the flagging system. We may need moderators at first to
work out glitches. Ideally though I think you would agree would be a system
without moderators, a system that could run on the participation of its
members alone. I believe it's achievable.
I fail to see how missing posts doesn't distort the conversation. If a
user with no filters attached to their profile gets into an argument with
an individual who's been flagged as a troll, users with the troll filter on
would see a neutral user just arguing with himself pointlessly. This is
unnecessary space and time being wasted by actual users trying to read and
learn about real issues.
My envisioned model would not be "The System" that punishes them but in
fact other users. A post is flagged/reported several times. A message is
then sent out to a random unconnected active user that an infraction has
occurred. This user can then check the infraction and make a call whether
to punish the culprit or not based on the established rules of the forum.
If the user feels the culprit broke a rule they lock the post from
receiving any further replies and attaches a comment to the original post
on why the decision was made. The culprit must then take a time out from
posting. If the culprit does not feel the verdict was justified then I
think a situation like the "Forum Court" you suggested could be utilized.
However the punishment would have to be more severe in this stage.
I think the penalty aspect puts these annoying users out of commission for
an extended period so the rest of the site can get back to business. I
think we should be attempting to discourage rampant posting, keeping the
overall structure as clean and simple as possible. This would make the
site easier to navigate through and promoting a higher standard of posting
etiquette would ensure a greater ratio of quality posts, which would
encourage individuals to read more conversations since they know they're
not wasting their time with pointless posts.
Your method although nice to give everyone the freedom to post whatever, I
feel opens the site up to a lot of unnecessary discussion and confusion. I
feel like it would be an ongoing problem as there's no actual punishment
for being annoying, annoying people will just keep doing it, complicating
the site's view ability.
www.theinternetswebsite.com is my project. It's a working prototype of
sorts, though doesn't yet have the activity to realize its full potential
as a functioning forum of debate. The basic concepts at least for what
we're trying to accomplish are presented. I'd be interested to hear what
you thought of it as our views appear to be similar. I currently lack the
funds and the knowledge to continue to improve upon it. I'd be willing to
let you have access to build upon it if you thought it could make a solid
platform. Would save you some time and would make my efforts worth
something. If we were to partner up I would step up my efforts on
promotion of the idea. Media creation is more my strong suit and I believe
it's going to take a massive public awareness campaign to empower
individuals to believe in this new system, something that can come through
viral videos. We live in a very exciting time where all of this is possible
even with limited resources, collaboration is what we need.
Post by Scott Raney
Post by Reid Millerd
To get back to the filtering issue, I'd appreciate some clarity on the
issue
Post by Reid Millerd
Scott
Do you intend to have filters on particular language like any post that
included the word "homosexual" an individual could omit those results
from
Post by Reid Millerd
their feed? I think you can see that this would both confuse the
conversations to have randomly missing posts as well as deprive the
individual of a different opinion and a chance to expand their mind.
This
Post by Reid Millerd
way they could just vote against any gay rights without even hearing
what
Post by Reid Millerd
the other side had to hear. This is problematic would you not agree?
I wasn't proposing filtering on words, but instead on flags. There
would be obviously be some interaction between the two, so for example
if some individual repeatedly use racial or sexual orientation *slurs*
instead of whatever the PC term-du-jour is that their posts would
likely get flagged and as a result filtered by some/many people.
Missing posts in a feed are not that big of a deal and you see this
all the time on newspaper sites (someone will respond to a post prior
to a moderator getting around to deleting it). Whether or not some
clue that there was a filtered post is shown in the feed I think is a
UI issue we'll have to decide once we see how it works.
Post by Reid Millerd
The other option which you seem to be hinting at is that users would be
able
Post by Reid Millerd
to flag other users into categories like, flammer, troll etc. and then
set
Post by Reid Millerd
filters to hide those individuals. My concern with this is people being
flagged as a troll will be stuck in that. What happens if someone comes
to
Post by Reid Millerd
their senses and decides to try and change, their already stuck as a
troll
Post by Reid Millerd
and mostly everyone has filtered them out already, they'll be invisible
for
Post by Reid Millerd
life. Seems like it would be very hard to correct their state once
their put
Post by Reid Millerd
in a box.
Good point, and one I've been struggling with myself. I've come up
1) Flag expiration. Maybe they only stick around for a month or two,
so the affected user's posts will gradually start appearing in
people's feeds again, in proportion to how tight that individual's
filters are set.
2) On-line training: An individual could take a course on on-line
forum etiquette and have their flags cleared. Kind of like traffic
court, where taking a class reduces the points on against your
license.
3) "Forum Court", where an individual could appeal the flags to a jury
of their peers (self selected, or maybe chosen at random like regular
juries are) where the offending posts would be discussed and a vote
taken to reverse the user flags if warranted. I think we need this
option anyway because it would also be used to appeal moderator
decisions: Although user flagging should make up the bulk of the
moderation process (specifically there must not be any post removal by
moderators based on profanity or personal attacks) we're still going
to need moderators and we need a way for The People to review and
override those moderators both to help weed out the bad ones and to
prevent the moderators themselves from becoming a too-powerful
influence in the process.
Post by Reid Millerd
My recommendation is to instead have guidelines established, rules of
what
Post by Reid Millerd
kind of behavior is acceptable on the system. Break a rule and enough
people
Post by Reid Millerd
report/flag you, your post is locked and you are served a time penalty
where
Post by Reid Millerd
you are not allowed to post. Once the time period is up you're free to
post
Post by Reid Millerd
again but the next time you're caught breaking a rule the time penalty
increases. This enables and encourages individuals to clean up their
act but
Post by Reid Millerd
punishes continual offenders and rids the site of problem people without
having to sensor or omit any information, we should all be on the same
page
Post by Reid Millerd
and see what the community is talking about.
As I expressed in my other posts I'm opposed to these types of
"punishments" because they're a relatively poor way to achieve the
desired outcome (as punishment for antisocial behavior is in general
according to just about all the psychological research (e.g., see the
section in the book on crime and punishment)). It *is* censorship and
also turns the whole process upside down: It should never be perceived
that The System that is punishing a user, it should always be known
that it is only the other users who are individually making the
decision to banish or ostracize a problem individual. This is the
technique that we *evolved* to use and be responsive to, and resorting
to authoritarian techniques is not only less effective, but has a
bunch of negative side effects that come along with it (i.e., this
huge problem we have of people hating on the government when in fact
*we are* the government).
Post by Reid Millerd
I do think we should allow filtering but they should be inclusive
instead.
Post by Reid Millerd
Keywords - so you can search "homosexual" if that's your area of
expertise
Post by Reid Millerd
and have a list populated with all topics including that word.
We definitely need global search features and saved searches to
facilitate this. In the book I also propose ways to specify these
kinds of things in an individual's "Goals" settings area such that
like-minded individuals could find each other to work on a proposal if
no one of them has the time or skill to take on creating a proposal by
themselves.
Post by Reid Millerd
I agree with a lot of what you're saying but this area is still unclear
to
Post by Reid Millerd
me.
As it is to me. This back-and-forth is how this thing *should* be
designed and I appreciate all the questions/comments as it really
helps me clarify my own understanding of the issues.
Regards,
Scott
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
Steve Coffman
2014-05-05 20:21:17 UTC
Permalink
Hi Reid,
You didn’t hear the news? The world just came to an end. It’s just you and I now. :-(
We’ll need to set up a new form of government of course. My guess is that majority rule is probably out. :-)
Any thoughts….?
Steve
Post by Reid Millerd
Did this whole group just die?
Very good Scott, thanks for clearing some of that up.
You mention moderators. What do you foresee their job being exactly? Since most is done by the flagging system. We may need moderators at first to work out glitches. Ideally though I think you would agree would be a system without moderators, a system that could run on the participation of its members alone. I believe it's achievable.
I fail to see how missing posts doesn't distort the conversation. If a user with no filters attached to their profile gets into an argument with an individual who's been flagged as a troll, users with the troll filter on would see a neutral user just arguing with himself pointlessly. This is unnecessary space and time being wasted by actual users trying to read and learn about real issues.
My envisioned model would not be "The System" that punishes them but in fact other users. A post is flagged/reported several times. A message is then sent out to a random unconnected active user that an infraction has occurred. This user can then check the infraction and make a call whether to punish the culprit or not based on the established rules of the forum. If the user feels the culprit broke a rule they lock the post from receiving any further replies and attaches a comment to the original post on why the decision was made. The culprit must then take a time out from posting. If the culprit does not feel the verdict was justified then I think a situation like the "Forum Court" you suggested could be utilized. However the punishment would have to be more severe in this stage.
I think the penalty aspect puts these annoying users out of commission for an extended period so the rest of the site can get back to business. I think we should be attempting to discourage rampant posting, keeping the overall structure as clean and simple as possible. This would make the site easier to navigate through and promoting a higher standard of posting etiquette would ensure a greater ratio of quality posts, which would encourage individuals to read more conversations since they know they're not wasting their time with pointless posts.
Your method although nice to give everyone the freedom to post whatever, I feel opens the site up to a lot of unnecessary discussion and confusion. I feel like it would be an ongoing problem as there's no actual punishment for being annoying, annoying people will just keep doing it, complicating the site's view ability.
www.theinternetswebsite.com is my project. It's a working prototype of sorts, though doesn't yet have the activity to realize its full potential as a functioning forum of debate. The basic concepts at least for what we're trying to accomplish are presented. I'd be interested to hear what you thought of it as our views appear to be similar. I currently lack the funds and the knowledge to continue to improve upon it. I'd be willing to let you have access to build upon it if you thought it could make a solid platform. Would save you some time and would make my efforts worth something. If we were to partner up I would step up my efforts on promotion of the idea. Media creation is more my strong suit and I believe it's going to take a massive public awareness campaign to empower individuals to believe in this new system, something that can come through viral videos. We live in a very exciting time where all of this is possible even with limited resources, collaboration is what we need.
To get back to the filtering issue, I'd appreciate some clarity on the issue
Scott
Do you intend to have filters on particular language like any post that
included the word "homosexual" an individual could omit those results from
their feed? I think you can see that this would both confuse the
conversations to have randomly missing posts as well as deprive the
individual of a different opinion and a chance to expand their mind. This
way they could just vote against any gay rights without even hearing what
the other side had to hear. This is problematic would you not agree?
I wasn't proposing filtering on words, but instead on flags. There
would be obviously be some interaction between the two, so for example
if some individual repeatedly use racial or sexual orientation *slurs*
instead of whatever the PC term-du-jour is that their posts would
likely get flagged and as a result filtered by some/many people.
Missing posts in a feed are not that big of a deal and you see this
all the time on newspaper sites (someone will respond to a post prior
to a moderator getting around to deleting it). Whether or not some
clue that there was a filtered post is shown in the feed I think is a
UI issue we'll have to decide once we see how it works.
The other option which you seem to be hinting at is that users would be able
to flag other users into categories like, flammer, troll etc. and then set
filters to hide those individuals. My concern with this is people being
flagged as a troll will be stuck in that. What happens if someone comes to
their senses and decides to try and change, their already stuck as a troll
and mostly everyone has filtered them out already, they'll be invisible for
life. Seems like it would be very hard to correct their state once their put
in a box.
Good point, and one I've been struggling with myself. I've come up
1) Flag expiration. Maybe they only stick around for a month or two,
so the affected user's posts will gradually start appearing in
people's feeds again, in proportion to how tight that individual's
filters are set.
2) On-line training: An individual could take a course on on-line
forum etiquette and have their flags cleared. Kind of like traffic
court, where taking a class reduces the points on against your
license.
3) "Forum Court", where an individual could appeal the flags to a jury
of their peers (self selected, or maybe chosen at random like regular
juries are) where the offending posts would be discussed and a vote
taken to reverse the user flags if warranted. I think we need this
option anyway because it would also be used to appeal moderator
decisions: Although user flagging should make up the bulk of the
moderation process (specifically there must not be any post removal by
moderators based on profanity or personal attacks) we're still going
to need moderators and we need a way for The People to review and
override those moderators both to help weed out the bad ones and to
prevent the moderators themselves from becoming a too-powerful
influence in the process.
My recommendation is to instead have guidelines established, rules of what
kind of behavior is acceptable on the system. Break a rule and enough people
report/flag you, your post is locked and you are served a time penalty where
you are not allowed to post. Once the time period is up you're free to post
again but the next time you're caught breaking a rule the time penalty
increases. This enables and encourages individuals to clean up their act but
punishes continual offenders and rids the site of problem people without
having to sensor or omit any information, we should all be on the same page
and see what the community is talking about.
As I expressed in my other posts I'm opposed to these types of
"punishments" because they're a relatively poor way to achieve the
desired outcome (as punishment for antisocial behavior is in general
according to just about all the psychological research (e.g., see the
section in the book on crime and punishment)). It *is* censorship and
also turns the whole process upside down: It should never be perceived
that The System that is punishing a user, it should always be known
that it is only the other users who are individually making the
decision to banish or ostracize a problem individual. This is the
technique that we *evolved* to use and be responsive to, and resorting
to authoritarian techniques is not only less effective, but has a
bunch of negative side effects that come along with it (i.e., this
huge problem we have of people hating on the government when in fact
*we are* the government).
I do think we should allow filtering but they should be inclusive instead.
Keywords - so you can search "homosexual" if that's your area of expertise
and have a list populated with all topics including that word.
We definitely need global search features and saved searches to
facilitate this. In the book I also propose ways to specify these
kinds of things in an individual's "Goals" settings area such that
like-minded individuals could find each other to work on a proposal if
no one of them has the time or skill to take on creating a proposal by
themselves.
I agree with a lot of what you're saying but this area is still unclear to
me.
As it is to me. This back-and-forth is how this thing *should* be
designed and I appreciate all the questions/comments as it really
helps me clarify my own understanding of the issues.
Regards,
Scott
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
Manage subscription: http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
Manage subscription: http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
Paul Nollen
2014-05-06 06:33:48 UTC
Permalink
Maybe a double majority rule in some cases (Switserland for changing the constitution)
My thought is that I leave this group because it is a waist of my time

All the best

Paul
http://www.iri-europe.org/
http://www.democracy-international.org/

From: Steve Coffman
Sent: Monday, May 5, 2014 10:21 PM
To: Metagovernment Project
Subject: Re: [MG] Problems with filtering systems

Hi Reid,
You didn’t hear the news? The world just came to an end. It’s just you and I now. :-(
We’ll need to set up a new form of government of course. My guess is that majority rule is probably out. :-)
Any thoughts….?
Steve


On May 4, 2014, at 3:00 PM, Reid Millerd <***@gmail.com> wrote:


Did this whole group just die?



On 1 May 2014 02:14, Reid Millerd <***@gmail.com> wrote:

Very good Scott, thanks for clearing some of that up.



You mention moderators. What do you foresee their job being exactly? Since most is done by the flagging system. We may need moderators at first to work out glitches. Ideally though I think you would agree would be a system without moderators, a system that could run on the participation of its members alone. I believe it's achievable.



I fail to see how missing posts doesn't distort the conversation. If a user with no filters attached to their profile gets into an argument with an individual who's been flagged as a troll, users with the troll filter on would see a neutral user just arguing with himself pointlessly. This is unnecessary space and time being wasted by actual users trying to read and learn about real issues.



My envisioned model would not be "The System" that punishes them but in fact other users. A post is flagged/reported several times. A message is then sent out to a random unconnected active user that an infraction has occurred. This user can then check the infraction and make a call whether to punish the culprit or not based on the established rules of the forum. If the user feels the culprit broke a rule they lock the post from receiving any further replies and attaches a comment to the original post on why the decision was made. The culprit must then take a time out from posting. If the culprit does not feel the verdict was justified then I think a situation like the "Forum Court" you suggested could be utilized. However the punishment would have to be more severe in this stage.



I think the penalty aspect puts these annoying users out of commission for an extended period so the rest of the site can get back to business. I think we should be attempting to discourage rampant posting, keeping the overall structure as clean and simple as possible. This would make the site easier to navigate through and promoting a higher standard of posting etiquette would ensure a greater ratio of quality posts, which would encourage individuals to read more conversations since they know they're not wasting their time with pointless posts.



Your method although nice to give everyone the freedom to post whatever, I feel opens the site up to a lot of unnecessary discussion and confusion. I feel like it would be an ongoing problem as there's no actual punishment for being annoying, annoying people will just keep doing it, complicating the site's view ability.



www.theinternetswebsite.com is my project. It's a working prototype of sorts, though doesn't yet have the activity to realize its full potential as a functioning forum of debate. The basic concepts at least for what we're trying to accomplish are presented. I'd be interested to hear what you thought of it as our views appear to be similar. I currently lack the funds and the knowledge to continue to improve upon it. I'd be willing to let you have access to build upon it if you thought it could make a solid platform. Would save you some time and would make my efforts worth something. If we were to partner up I would step up my efforts on promotion of the idea. Media creation is more my strong suit and I believe it's going to take a massive public awareness campaign to empower individuals to believe in this new system, something that can come through viral videos. We live in a very exciting time where all of this is possible even with limited resources, collaboration is what we need.
To get back to the filtering issue, I'd appreciate some clarity on the issue
Scott
Do you intend to have filters on particular language like any post that
included the word "homosexual" an individual could omit those results from
their feed? I think you can see that this would both confuse the
conversations to have randomly missing posts as well as deprive the
individual of a different opinion and a chance to expand their mind. This
way they could just vote against any gay rights without even hearing what
the other side had to hear. This is problematic would you not agree?
I wasn't proposing filtering on words, but instead on flags. There
would be obviously be some interaction between the two, so for example
if some individual repeatedly use racial or sexual orientation *slurs*
instead of whatever the PC term-du-jour is that their posts would
likely get flagged and as a result filtered by some/many people.

Missing posts in a feed are not that big of a deal and you see this
all the time on newspaper sites (someone will respond to a post prior
to a moderator getting around to deleting it). Whether or not some
clue that there was a filtered post is shown in the feed I think is a
UI issue we'll have to decide once we see how it works.
The other option which you seem to be hinting at is that users would be able
to flag other users into categories like, flammer, troll etc. and then set
filters to hide those individuals. My concern with this is people being
flagged as a troll will be stuck in that. What happens if someone comes to
their senses and decides to try and change, their already stuck as a troll
and mostly everyone has filtered them out already, they'll be invisible for
life. Seems like it would be very hard to correct their state once their put
in a box.
Good point, and one I've been struggling with myself. I've come up
with three solutions to this problem:
1) Flag expiration. Maybe they only stick around for a month or two,
so the affected user's posts will gradually start appearing in
people's feeds again, in proportion to how tight that individual's
filters are set.

2) On-line training: An individual could take a course on on-line
forum etiquette and have their flags cleared. Kind of like traffic
court, where taking a class reduces the points on against your
license.

3) "Forum Court", where an individual could appeal the flags to a jury
of their peers (self selected, or maybe chosen at random like regular
juries are) where the offending posts would be discussed and a vote
taken to reverse the user flags if warranted. I think we need this
option anyway because it would also be used to appeal moderator
decisions: Although user flagging should make up the bulk of the
moderation process (specifically there must not be any post removal by
moderators based on profanity or personal attacks) we're still going
to need moderators and we need a way for The People to review and
override those moderators both to help weed out the bad ones and to
prevent the moderators themselves from becoming a too-powerful
influence in the process.
My recommendation is to instead have guidelines established, rules of what
kind of behavior is acceptable on the system. Break a rule and enough people
report/flag you, your post is locked and you are served a time penalty where
you are not allowed to post. Once the time period is up you're free to post
again but the next time you're caught breaking a rule the time penalty
increases. This enables and encourages individuals to clean up their act but
punishes continual offenders and rids the site of problem people without
having to sensor or omit any information, we should all be on the same page
and see what the community is talking about.
As I expressed in my other posts I'm opposed to these types of
"punishments" because they're a relatively poor way to achieve the
desired outcome (as punishment for antisocial behavior is in general
according to just about all the psychological research (e.g., see the
section in the book on crime and punishment)). It *is* censorship and
also turns the whole process upside down: It should never be perceived
that The System that is punishing a user, it should always be known
that it is only the other users who are individually making the
decision to banish or ostracize a problem individual. This is the
technique that we *evolved* to use and be responsive to, and resorting
to authoritarian techniques is not only less effective, but has a
bunch of negative side effects that come along with it (i.e., this
huge problem we have of people hating on the government when in fact
*we are* the government).
I do think we should allow filtering but they should be inclusive instead.
Keywords - so you can search "homosexual" if that's your area of expertise
and have a list populated with all topics including that word.
We definitely need global search features and saved searches to
facilitate this. In the book I also propose ways to specify these
kinds of things in an individual's "Goals" settings area such that
like-minded individuals could find each other to work on a proposal if
no one of them has the time or skill to take on creating a proposal by
themselves.
I agree with a lot of what you're saying but this area is still unclear to
me.
As it is to me. This back-and-forth is how this thing *should* be
designed and I appreciate all the questions/comments as it really
helps me clarify my own understanding of the issues.
Regards,
Scott


_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
Post to the list: ***@metagovernment.org
Manage subscription: http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org



_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
Post to the list: ***@metagovernment.org
Manage subscription: http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
Post to the list: ***@metagovernment.org
Manage subscription: http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org


---
Dit e-mailbericht bevat geen virussen en malware omdat avast! Antivirus-bescherming actief is.
http://www.avast.com
Steve Coffman
2014-05-06 13:31:25 UTC
Permalink
Hi Paul,
What would need to happen here for it not to be a waste of your time? Can you give a few specifics?
Steve
Post by Paul Nollen
Maybe a double majority rule in some cases (Switserland for changing the constitution)
My thought is that I leave this group because it is a waist of my time
All the best
Paul
http://www.iri-europe.org/
http://www.democracy-international.org/
From: Steve Coffman
Sent: Monday, May 5, 2014 10:21 PM
To: Metagovernment Project
Subject: Re: [MG] Problems with filtering systems
Hi Reid,
You didn’t hear the news? The world just came to an end. It’s just you and I now. :-(
We’ll need to set up a new form of government of course. My guess is that majority rule is probably out. :-)
Any thoughts….?
Steve
Post by Reid Millerd
Did this whole group just die?
Very good Scott, thanks for clearing some of that up.
You mention moderators. What do you foresee their job being exactly? Since most is done by the flagging system. We may need moderators at first to work out glitches. Ideally though I think you would agree would be a system without moderators, a system that could run on the participation of its members alone. I believe it's achievable.
I fail to see how missing posts doesn't distort the conversation. If a user with no filters attached to their profile gets into an argument with an individual who's been flagged as a troll, users with the troll filter on would see a neutral user just arguing with himself pointlessly. This is unnecessary space and time being wasted by actual users trying to read and learn about real issues.
My envisioned model would not be "The System" that punishes them but in fact other users. A post is flagged/reported several times. A message is then sent out to a random unconnected active user that an infraction has occurred. This user can then check the infraction and make a call whether to punish the culprit or not based on the established rules of the forum. If the user feels the culprit broke a rule they lock the post from receiving any further replies and attaches a comment to the original post on why the decision was made. The culprit must then take a time out from posting. If the culprit does not feel the verdict was justified then I think a situation like the "Forum Court" you suggested could be utilized. However the punishment would have to be more severe in this stage.
I think the penalty aspect puts these annoying users out of commission for an extended period so the rest of the site can get back to business. I think we should be attempting to discourage rampant posting, keeping the overall structure as clean and simple as possible. This would make the site easier to navigate through and promoting a higher standard of posting etiquette would ensure a greater ratio of quality posts, which would encourage individuals to read more conversations since they know they're not wasting their time with pointless posts.
Your method although nice to give everyone the freedom to post whatever, I feel opens the site up to a lot of unnecessary discussion and confusion. I feel like it would be an ongoing problem as there's no actual punishment for being annoying, annoying people will just keep doing it, complicating the site's view ability.
www.theinternetswebsite.com is my project. It's a working prototype of sorts, though doesn't yet have the activity to realize its full potential as a functioning forum of debate. The basic concepts at least for what we're trying to accomplish are presented. I'd be interested to hear what you thought of it as our views appear to be similar. I currently lack the funds and the knowledge to continue to improve upon it. I'd be willing to let you have access to build upon it if you thought it could make a solid platform. Would save you some time and would make my efforts worth something. If we were to partner up I would step up my efforts on promotion of the idea. Media creation is more my strong suit and I believe it's going to take a massive public awareness campaign to empower individuals to believe in this new system, something that can come through viral videos. We live in a very exciting time where all of this is possible even with limited resources, collaboration is what we need.
To get back to the filtering issue, I'd appreciate some clarity on the issue
Scott
Do you intend to have filters on particular language like any post that
included the word "homosexual" an individual could omit those results from
their feed? I think you can see that this would both confuse the
conversations to have randomly missing posts as well as deprive the
individual of a different opinion and a chance to expand their mind. This
way they could just vote against any gay rights without even hearing what
the other side had to hear. This is problematic would you not agree?
I wasn't proposing filtering on words, but instead on flags. There
would be obviously be some interaction between the two, so for example
if some individual repeatedly use racial or sexual orientation *slurs*
instead of whatever the PC term-du-jour is that their posts would
likely get flagged and as a result filtered by some/many people.
Missing posts in a feed are not that big of a deal and you see this
all the time on newspaper sites (someone will respond to a post prior
to a moderator getting around to deleting it). Whether or not some
clue that there was a filtered post is shown in the feed I think is a
UI issue we'll have to decide once we see how it works.
The other option which you seem to be hinting at is that users would be able
to flag other users into categories like, flammer, troll etc. and then set
filters to hide those individuals. My concern with this is people being
flagged as a troll will be stuck in that. What happens if someone comes to
their senses and decides to try and change, their already stuck as a troll
and mostly everyone has filtered them out already, they'll be invisible for
life. Seems like it would be very hard to correct their state once their put
in a box.
Good point, and one I've been struggling with myself. I've come up
1) Flag expiration. Maybe they only stick around for a month or two,
so the affected user's posts will gradually start appearing in
people's feeds again, in proportion to how tight that individual's
filters are set.
2) On-line training: An individual could take a course on on-line
forum etiquette and have their flags cleared. Kind of like traffic
court, where taking a class reduces the points on against your
license.
3) "Forum Court", where an individual could appeal the flags to a jury
of their peers (self selected, or maybe chosen at random like regular
juries are) where the offending posts would be discussed and a vote
taken to reverse the user flags if warranted. I think we need this
option anyway because it would also be used to appeal moderator
decisions: Although user flagging should make up the bulk of the
moderation process (specifically there must not be any post removal by
moderators based on profanity or personal attacks) we're still going
to need moderators and we need a way for The People to review and
override those moderators both to help weed out the bad ones and to
prevent the moderators themselves from becoming a too-powerful
influence in the process.
My recommendation is to instead have guidelines established, rules of what
kind of behavior is acceptable on the system. Break a rule and enough people
report/flag you, your post is locked and you are served a time penalty where
you are not allowed to post. Once the time period is up you're free to post
again but the next time you're caught breaking a rule the time penalty
increases. This enables and encourages individuals to clean up their act but
punishes continual offenders and rids the site of problem people without
having to sensor or omit any information, we should all be on the same page
and see what the community is talking about.
As I expressed in my other posts I'm opposed to these types of
"punishments" because they're a relatively poor way to achieve the
desired outcome (as punishment for antisocial behavior is in general
according to just about all the psychological research (e.g., see the
section in the book on crime and punishment)). It *is* censorship and
also turns the whole process upside down: It should never be perceived
that The System that is punishing a user, it should always be known
that it is only the other users who are individually making the
decision to banish or ostracize a problem individual. This is the
technique that we *evolved* to use and be responsive to, and resorting
to authoritarian techniques is not only less effective, but has a
bunch of negative side effects that come along with it (i.e., this
huge problem we have of people hating on the government when in fact
*we are* the government).
I do think we should allow filtering but they should be inclusive instead.
Keywords - so you can search "homosexual" if that's your area of expertise
and have a list populated with all topics including that word.
We definitely need global search features and saved searches to
facilitate this. In the book I also propose ways to specify these
kinds of things in an individual's "Goals" settings area such that
like-minded individuals could find each other to work on a proposal if
no one of them has the time or skill to take on creating a proposal by
themselves.
I agree with a lot of what you're saying but this area is still unclear to
me.
As it is to me. This back-and-forth is how this thing *should* be
designed and I appreciate all the questions/comments as it really
helps me clarify my own understanding of the issues.
Regards,
Scott
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
Manage subscription: http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
Manage subscription: http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
Manage subscription: http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
Dit e-mailbericht bevat geen virussen en malware omdat avast! Antivirus actief is.
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
Manage subscription: http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
--001a11c219ea98351004f82ab4d3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

The reason you use python is because the development cycle can be so much
faster. Not because it doesn't have it's weaknesses. Where with rails, you
sort of have to do it their way or it becomes very painful.

Normally the logic part of web apps is pretty straightforward the hard part
is making everything talk together over the web that is difficult(database,
templating, user authentication, etc), and then there is JavaScript(which I
agree is horrible) if you want to do anything client side. Django makes
that part very easy, and flask would be more bare bones if you wanted to do
it more hands on. I would say at least read the django tutorial before you
write it off. It sounds like you understand code pretty well so I think you
could build what you are saying pretty quick there.

Then there is deploying it on some envoirnment to use it. Webfaction is
good for this or you good go platform as a service. But you should decide
where you are going to deploy before you build it so you can make sure of
their constraints or best practices they provide.

@max platform as a service is awesome which is why I mentioned GAE, but
there are many others, like heroku. But, you have to build something to go
on the platform first.

Cheers,
James

On Tuesday, April 29, 2014, max stalnaker
Post by max stalnaker
I suppose i might get into a tech religion argument instead but I instead
You need to make a guess about future tech to build your world domination
app upon.
You are not yet a cool kid. Take a look at platform as a service There
is a fine chance that an operation like Hereko? Would handle all your
versioning issues and take care of the scaling from a few users to a few
billion with you just writing checks. Cost will run from zero at one end to
the GDP of several small countries at the other end. I rather like them in
particular because of ancient walk bys. This is all cloud stuff of course
and i am sort of puzzled about people talking about scaling to 10**9 users
and not starting with choices that imply that capability.
Try this: is there something in the non-existent mission vision that
implies a need to scale smoothly over 9 orders of magnitude with 5 9's
reliability? Is a vote error of 10 million votes on all world referendii
acceptable?
Max
Post by James Hancock
Sorry I am on my mobile and hit send on accident.
Yeah, those little buttons are a pain ;-)
Post by James Hancock
Your technological ignorance is showing a little in your last post. Is
what
Post by James Hancock
I ment to say. You really wish we would have stayed with software
applications instead of moving to the serverside applications?
Definitely. Going a little off topic here, but the browser-based
architecture is incredibly limited, complicated, and brittle (meaning
it breaks with every little change, like version upgrades).
iPhone/Android is a little better because most things are apps and so
the developer has more control, but *ideally* versioning and
extensions would have been built into the OSs a long time ago so, for
example, instead of JavaScript which is a complete POS (and everyone
knows it which is why there are so many extensions and workarounds for
it), apps could have been built in any scripting language and the
necessary engines and libraries downloaded on the fly. This problem
could have been solved at several different junctures (e.g., when
Microsoft added automatically downloaded OS updates for Windows 95,
when HTML was originally defined to purposely exclude interactive
elements, or when Netscape chose to build in a weekend-hack scripting
language instead of defining an open architecture, etc.) but due to
shortsightedness and proprietary-think never has been. Like I said,
if it the web had been *designed* instead of evolving with the bizarre
set of constraints it has, I'd have a working voting system up and
running in days or weeks whereas now it's going to take me months.
As for "ignorance", I'll cop to that as, like I think I said, I burned
out and retired from software development about 10 years ago and so am
having to learn a lot about the current environment (and not liking it
much at all). But I've been developing software from microcode and
assembly languages through 3GLs and 4GLs up to AI languages since I
was a kid (40 years ago) so I think I have a pretty good awareness of
what works and what doesn't. And as for django/pyramid/flask or
anything based on Tcl or Python, talk about "old school"! I wouldn't
touch either of those languages with a 10 foot pole. Of course, it
doesn't help that the product I burned out developing was a major
competitor of those languages and yet still exists as a commercial
product (after enabling me to retire, unlike the the developers of
those other languages, who got the fame instead ;-)
Now that I've finished the main Rails tutorial I'm considerably less
enamored of it. The main concept that comes to my mind is "bag on the
side". The whole development environment is really just a collection
of hacks, kluges, preprocessors, and workarounds instead of a unified
architecture (which is why I had to spend the first few hours in the
tutorial *fixing* version incompatibilities in it!). It's really
designed for professional full-time developers who must deal with a
lot of different projects for different clients and where a project
may get passed around among several developers not all of whom will be
familiar with the overall design. Which unfortunately doesn't really
describe this project. I've written to my old crew to see if maybe
it might be faster and easier to customize the old product (which is
now open source) than punish myself by doing it the Rails way, but
using Rails is still the backup plan.
Post by James Hancock
Also, I have a hard time believing this would eclipse Facebook someday.
In
Post by James Hancock
the US you vote 1 time ever 4 years and how much time do they actually
research and post opinions about it? Not very much.
Maybe my FB "friends" are different, but although I'd agree that stuff
like cat videos and pictures of food are still the main fare, bitching
about governments, corporations, etc. make up a significant percentage
of the posts. Imagine what it would be like if they actually believed
that posting would *change* things...
Post by James Hancock
How much do they hang
out and talk with their friends? A lot lot more. They even watch cat
videos
Post by James Hancock
more. I think a good measure of this is day to day how much does the
average
Post by James Hancock
person talk politics? If you can answer that, I think you would get a
good
--001a11c219ea98351004f82ab4d3
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

The reason you use python is because the development cycle can be so much faster. Not because it doesn&#39;t have it&#39;s weaknesses.?Where with rails, you sort of have to do it their way or it becomes very painful.<div><br> </div><div>Normally the logic part of web apps is pretty straightforward the hard part is making everything talk together over the web that is difficult(database, templating, user authentication, etc), and then there is?JavaScript(which I agree is?horrible) if you want to do anything client side.?Django makes that part very easy, and flask would be more bare bones if you wanted to do it more hands on. I would say at least read the django tutorial before you write it off. It sounds<span></span> like you understand code pretty well so I think you could build what you are saying pretty quick there.</div> <div><br></div><div>Then there is deploying it on some envoirnment to use it. Webfaction is good for this or you good go platform as a service. But you should decide where you are going to deploy before you build it so you can make sure of their?constraints or best practices they provide.<br> <div><br></div><div>@max platform as a service is awesome which is why I mentioned GAE, but there are many others, like heroku.?But, you have to build something to go on the platform first.</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers,</div> <div>James<br><div><span></span><div> <br>On Tuesday, April 29, 2014, max stalnaker &lt;<a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,&#39;cvml&#39;,&#39;***@gmail.com&#39;);" target="_blank">***@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> <p dir="ltr">I suppose i might get into a tech religion argument instead but I instead will say the obvious:</p> <p dir="ltr">You need to make a guess about future tech to build your world domination app upon.</p> <p dir="ltr">You are not yet a cool kid.� Take a look at platform as a service�� There is a fine chance that an operation like Hereko? Would handle all your versioning issues and take care of the scaling from a few users to a few billion with you just writing checks. Cost will run from zero at one end to the GDP of several small countries at the other end.� I rather like them in particular because of ancient walk bys.� This is all cloud stuff of course and i am sort of puzzled about people talking about scaling to 10**9 users and not starting with choices that imply that capability.� </p> <p dir="ltr">Try this:� is there something in the non-existent� mission vision that implies a need to scale smoothly over 9 orders of magnitude with 5� 9&#39;s reliability?� Is a vote error of 10 million votes on all world referendii acceptable?</p> <p dir="ltr">Max</p> <div>On Apr 28, 2014 7:47 PM, &quot;Scott Raney&quot; &lt;<a>***@metacard.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 5:26 PM, James Hancock &lt;<a>***@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt; Sorry I am on my mobile and hit send on accident.<br>
<br>
Yeah, those little buttons are a pain ;-)<br>
<br>
&gt; Your technological ignorance is showing a little in your last post. Is what<br>
&gt; I ment to say.  You really wish we would have stayed with software<br>
&gt; applications instead of moving to the serverside applications?<br>
<br>
Definitely.  Going a little off topic here, but the browser-based<br>
architecture is incredibly limited, complicated, and brittle (meaning<br>
it breaks with every little change, like version upgrades).<br>
iPhone/Android is a little better because most things are apps and so<br>
the developer has more control, but *ideally* versioning and<br>
extensions would have been built into the OSs a long time ago so, for<br>
example, instead of JavaScript which is a complete POS (and everyone<br>
knows it which is why there are so many extensions and workarounds for<br>
it), apps could have been built in any scripting language and the<br>
necessary engines and libraries downloaded on the fly.  This problem<br>
could have been solved at several different junctures (e.g., when<br>
Microsoft added automatically downloaded OS updates for Windows 95,<br>
when HTML was originally defined to purposely exclude interactive<br>
elements, or when Netscape chose to build in a weekend-hack scripting<br>
language instead of defining an open architecture, etc.) but due to<br>
shortsightedness and proprietary-think never has been.  Like I said,<br>
if it the web had been *designed* instead of evolving with the bizarre<br>
set of constraints it has, I&#39;d have a working voting system up and<br>
running in days or weeks whereas now it&#39;s going to take me months.<br>
<br>
As for &quot;ignorance&quot;, I&#39;ll cop to that as, like I think I said, I burned<br>
out and retired from software development about 10 years ago and so am<br>
having to learn a lot about the current environment (and not liking it<br>
much at all).  But I&#39;ve been developing software from microcode and<br>
assembly languages through 3GLs and 4GLs up to AI languages since I<br>
was a kid (40 years ago) so I think I have a pretty good awareness of<br>
what works and what doesn&#39;t.  And as for django/pyramid/flask or<br>
anything based on Tcl or Python, talk about &quot;old school&quot;!  I wouldn&#39;t<br>
touch either of those languages with a 10 foot pole.  Of course, it<br>
doesn&#39;t help that the product I burned out developing was a major<br>
competitor of those languages and yet still exists as a commercial<br>
product (after enabling me to retire, unlike the the developers of<br>
those other languages, who got the fame instead ;-)<br>
<br>
Now that I&#39;ve finished the main Rails tutorial I&#39;m considerably less<br>
enamored of it.  The main concept that comes to my mind is &quot;bag on the<br>
side&quot;.  The whole development environment is really just a collection<br>
of hacks, kluges, preprocessors, and workarounds instead of a unified<br>
architecture (which is why I had to spend the first few hours in the<br>
tutorial *fixing* version incompatibilities in it!).  It&#39;s really<br>
designed for professional full-time developers who must deal with a<br>
lot of different projects for different clients and where a project<br>
may get passed around among several developers not all of whom will be<br>
familiar with the overall design.  Which unfortunately doesn&#39;t really<br>
describe this project.   I&#39;ve written to my old crew to see if maybe<br>
it might be faster and easier to customize the old product (which is<br>
now open source) than punish myself by doing it the Rails way, but<br>
using Rails is still the backup plan.<br>
<br>
&gt; Also, I have a hard time believing this would eclipse Facebook someday. In<br>
&gt; the US you vote 1 time ever 4 years and how much time do they actually<br>
&gt; research and post opinions about it? Not very much.<br>
<br>
Maybe my FB &quot;friends&quot; are different, but although I&#39;d agree that stuff<br>
like cat videos and pictures of food are still the main fare, bitching<br>
about governments, corporations, etc. make up a significant percentage<br>
of the posts.  Imagine what it would be like if they actually believed<br>
that posting would *change* things...<br>
<br>
&gt;  How much do they hang<br>
&gt; out and talk with their friends? A lot lot more. They even watch cat videos<br>
&gt; more. I think a good measure of this is day to day how much does the average<br>
&gt; person talk politics? If you can answer that, I think you would get a good<br>
&gt;</blockquote></div></blockquote></div>
</div></div></div>

--001a11c219ea98351004f82ab4d3--
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...