Comment on An invitation to agree

ex_06@slrpnk.net ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

i kinda agree on everything and i also think about social networks with a positive outcome quite a lot myself so i’ve read it interested in the topic. The main issue is the old ‘‘the devil lies in the details’’.

sharing agreemement, easy; sharing them with technology, easy; creating communities around those agreements, kinda easy and so on. What’s the hardest bottleneck? actually recreating a whole legislation of agreements. All of this stuff doesn’t require a single platform, we already live deep down a form of this social network governed by game theory. Every platform we use every app every club we go to every group have implicit agreements.

So the question is: does making them explicit help or not?

My answer is… Not really. We have rules everywhere, also on this lemmy instance. I wrote them kinda carefully to be based on easily agreeable principles and to set a tone and, most of all, to be brief. Having agreements for everything goes against being brief and easily agreeable. The skii example is a good one: what if i don’t skii? i just don’t partecipate in the agreement and so weaken the power of those who do? What if all poor people agree on universal healthcare but rich people don’t? This brings us to the part of ‘‘convincing people to agree’’ and so we are just making politics from scratch again.

I think this comment is a bit chaotic but i’ll try to make a tldr: a platform like that would be overhead and in some cases also dangerous; we need to raise the common ground by talking to people, there are no tech tools to hack this (no, AI could just parrot an emphatic leader, can’t actually choose the words to connect to the person we have in front of). We can’t escape the political spade work :O

p.s. i also have on my mind to write a blog post about this, how people keep trying to solve the moderation problem with tech instead of just making it sustainable to resolve it socially

source
Sort:hotnewtop