1. There is a moral element to this, but a lot of my motivation here is figuring out “how do we improve coordination in a low-trust world?”. People can disagree on what is morally commendable, but improve their ability to coordinate on net-improvements, even with people they disapprove of.
This is really interesting way of looking at things. I personally have noticed that a lot of moral commendation and condemnation was dependent on in-group/out-group dynamics which themselves, ultimately, were dependent on levels of trust, both ambient and explicit.
In real life the issue can be partly sidestepped because we can usually tell if someone is trustworthy to a rough order of magnitude, i.e. filtering out maniacs and so on, via a lot of non-verbal cues, which are not possible online.
This is really interesting way of looking at things. I personally have noticed that a lot of moral commendation and condemnation was dependent on in-group/out-group dynamics which themselves, ultimately, were dependent on levels of trust, both ambient and explicit.
In real life the issue can be partly sidestepped because we can usually tell if someone is trustworthy to a rough order of magnitude, i.e. filtering out maniacs and so on, via a lot of non-verbal cues, which are not possible online.