I agree that if you have two people who mutually already respect each other then such an alliance would be a null-operation, but like, why then make such alliances in the first place? Can it really be said that the alliance is therefore fine to make? Doesn’t such an alliance bind you to not say something if your opinion changes?
I agree this dynamic seems fishy, and I’m suspicious that on a detailed analysis, it will turn out that an agreement like this is useful at all to exactly the extent that it involves misleading others.
That said...
There might be lots of people who you respect, but you’ll make a special point to promote the reputation of people who you expect will reciprocate the favor to you.
Small business owners (in different industries) sometimes form associations in which they explicitly direct clients to each other. eg The therapist directs customers to the mechanic (if it seems like they need a mechanic) and vis versa. This can be beneficial to the customer, because if they have a profesional that they like in one domain, they might trust that person’s recommendations in other domains, and prefer that to trying to evaluate marketing and third-party reviews (which are out to get them).
If the profesional association has some basic standards for who they let in, such that their recommendations are good (or at least good enough to outweigh the cost of needing to identify skilled/trustworthy professionals for yourself) there’s a mutually beneficial trade to be had.
Yeah, I agree. Thinking more about this, you can think about it a bit as a mechanism for splitting the surplus of spreading accurate information fairly. Like, you are creating positive externalities by telling people that this person you respect is someone they should work with, which they get to capture. The person you respect thinks the same about you, but they are not putting in the effort to share that with others. This seems a bit unfair! It seems reasonable to be like “hey mate, I am investing in the commons in this way, and you are not, can we please both do our part?”.
It still seems a bit dicey, but like, in-principle this seems good and like it improves the world.
I agree that if you have two people who mutually already respect each other then such an alliance would be a null-operation, but like, why then make such alliances in the first place? Can it really be said that the alliance is therefore fine to make? Doesn’t such an alliance bind you to not say something if your opinion changes?
I agree this dynamic seems fishy, and I’m suspicious that on a detailed analysis, it will turn out that an agreement like this is useful at all to exactly the extent that it involves misleading others.
That said...
There might be lots of people who you respect, but you’ll make a special point to promote the reputation of people who you expect will reciprocate the favor to you.
Small business owners (in different industries) sometimes form associations in which they explicitly direct clients to each other. eg The therapist directs customers to the mechanic (if it seems like they need a mechanic) and vis versa. This can be beneficial to the customer, because if they have a profesional that they like in one domain, they might trust that person’s recommendations in other domains, and prefer that to trying to evaluate marketing and third-party reviews (which are out to get them).
If the profesional association has some basic standards for who they let in, such that their recommendations are good (or at least good enough to outweigh the cost of needing to identify skilled/trustworthy professionals for yourself) there’s a mutually beneficial trade to be had.
Yeah, I agree. Thinking more about this, you can think about it a bit as a mechanism for splitting the surplus of spreading accurate information fairly. Like, you are creating positive externalities by telling people that this person you respect is someone they should work with, which they get to capture. The person you respect thinks the same about you, but they are not putting in the effort to share that with others. This seems a bit unfair! It seems reasonable to be like “hey mate, I am investing in the commons in this way, and you are not, can we please both do our part?”.
It still seems a bit dicey, but like, in-principle this seems good and like it improves the world.