My crux around this is something like; conflict resolution is an iterated and adversarial game, where failure can cost a lot. “Creating an institution to work on [uncovering injustices and predators]” looks to me a lot like “Creating an institution to keep secrets on computers connected to the internet.” You don’t just have to outsmart the basic problem, you also need to outsmart everyone who has an incentive to subvert your system. I don’t think that’s an impossible challenge but it’s harder than it looks, and it’s harder than it looks in part because some people are actively trying to obscure the ways in which it’s hard. The system can even look like it’s working fine right up until it tries to tackle something important, in the same way that a substitution cypher will look like it’s working fine right up until I try to store a bunch of bank account information with it.
There’s also a dynamic of something like… this is one of those issues where being too interested in the problem is correlated with being bad at solving it. Obviously you have to compromise on this a little or these kinds of things never get done, but if someone’s only qualification is interest I think the EV is very negative.
That sounds really discouraging, so I want to tell @tailcalled: I think it’s great you care about people are want to prevent them from being hurt. I think the easiest, least risky way to do that is to create abundance so people have less dependence on any one entity and are thus less vulnerable. The more parties being thrown by people who aren’t creeps (or harboring creeps), the easier it is to avoid the parties that are. So I’d encourage you to start by building socially, rather than investigation.
Haven’t downvoted but was considering it.
My crux around this is something like; conflict resolution is an iterated and adversarial game, where failure can cost a lot. “Creating an institution to work on [uncovering injustices and predators]” looks to me a lot like “Creating an institution to keep secrets on computers connected to the internet.” You don’t just have to outsmart the basic problem, you also need to outsmart everyone who has an incentive to subvert your system. I don’t think that’s an impossible challenge but it’s harder than it looks, and it’s harder than it looks in part because some people are actively trying to obscure the ways in which it’s hard. The system can even look like it’s working fine right up until it tries to tackle something important, in the same way that a substitution cypher will look like it’s working fine right up until I try to store a bunch of bank account information with it.
It seems like you aren’t noticing some skulls.
There’s also a dynamic of something like… this is one of those issues where being too interested in the problem is correlated with being bad at solving it. Obviously you have to compromise on this a little or these kinds of things never get done, but if someone’s only qualification is interest I think the EV is very negative.
That sounds really discouraging, so I want to tell @tailcalled: I think it’s great you care about people are want to prevent them from being hurt. I think the easiest, least risky way to do that is to create abundance so people have less dependence on any one entity and are thus less vulnerable. The more parties being thrown by people who aren’t creeps (or harboring creeps), the easier it is to avoid the parties that are. So I’d encourage you to start by building socially, rather than investigation.