Has this shown to be effective at stopping bots? It seems like you’d just be a few bad actors to ruin the system

I don’t think so. The main reason Facebook is so bad is it’s engagement algorithm. It is designed to maximize user engagement to sell adds, and it does that by putting outrage inspiring posts in front of users so that they have an emotional response and stay engaged. Using a human voting system instead of an outrage algorithm to determine what content people is exactly why I enjoy this platform over the other social media platforms.

Is there still rage bait here? Of course! Is it systematically shoved down your throat? No.

I was assuming you’d make an account with the ID for the govt instance and use anonymous accounts for all other browsing. At least that’s what I would do.

I’m not familiar with web of trust. What does that mean?

I believe there is existing precedent from SCOTUS that official government Twitter accounts were not allowed to block citizens accounts due to it being a ‘public square’. So that was a govt official taking the action of silencing someone’s ability to respond to them on social media protected by 1A. If the PLATFORM had blocked that user it would have been perfectly valid, since the GOVT did not silence a citizen’s speech.

I believe having the govt run the instance would make the entire forum subject to 1A in a way current social media is not. Would love a constitutional scholar to chime in, but that’s my argument.

I also don’t get the impression there is a large bot presence here today. I do think if the platform was used as a normal communication network between constituient and representative it would probably become a target for foreign and domestic bots.

Thank you for the write up. That distinction makes a lot of sense.

Ahh fantastic point. There isn’t really an incentive for the individuals to maintain/perpetuate the institution.

I understand the sentiment. I’m wondering about the efficacy of the strategies to achieve those end goals.

I don’t agree with this. Shareholders extracting value from a company is arguably more of an ‘inefficency’ than treating employees fairly. Well treated employees provide a benefit to the company while shareholders purely remove resources.

I have no data to back up my claim, just logic, so I could very well be wrong.

That you very much for writing this up. It is super interesting, and I feel bad for dismissing her. Unfortunately, I will probably continue people whom are the vague they.

I understand your frustration, but unless the voting system is modified to approval or ranked choice you are probably not acting in your best interest voting for a third party. I hate that fact as much as you and I want to see it changed, but that’s the reality of the system we’re in.