That’s where Assange comes into play. He wants to empower that single individual that thinks the group is injust. Assange also made the observation that if a group spends a large amount of resources on keeping certain information secret that corresponds to the harm that the group will suffer should the information become public
The problem with it is unilaterists curse and the idealism involved in believing that everything shouldbe public.
We however have seen that Wikipedia managed to outcompete the Encyclopedia Britanica. There in principle nothing that stops a smart programmer from building a platform that provides for model bills that change society for the better.
Hmm… I’d be surprised if this worked. In most cases there would be way too much disagreement.
The presumption with conspiracies is that they are engaged in for some local benefit by the conspiracy at the detriment of the broader society. Hence, the “unilateralist’s curse” is a blessing in this case, as the overestimation by one member of a conspiracy of their own utility in having the secret exposed, brings their estimation more in line with the estimation of the broader society, whose interests differ from those of the conspirators.
If differences between the interests of different groups were not a problem, then there would be no motive to form a conspiracy.
In general, I am quite annoyed at the idea of the unilateralist’s curse being used as a general argument against the revelation of the truth, without careful checking of the correspondence between the decision theoretic model of the unilateralist’s curse and the actual situation, which includes crime and conflict.
Disagreement doesn’t prevent Wikipedia from having one website on every topic. You just need some process of finding consensus. Plenty of people don’t like the consensus that Wikipedia finds, but that doesn’t mean that there isn’t useful output.
If we have an important topic like Supervulcano defense, few people have any idea about what to do about it and disagree. However if we had the draft legislation, it would be quite useful to pull it out in a time like this where we suddenly have the public more concerned with the risk of catastrophes.
There are plenty of different ways to create “consensus”. You could have a process that looks like github where every project has a maintainer and if someone disagrees with the maintainer, they can fork.
The problem with it is unilaterists curse and the idealism involved in believing that everything should be public.
Hmm… I’d be surprised if this worked. In most cases there would be way too much disagreement.
The presumption with conspiracies is that they are engaged in for some local benefit by the conspiracy at the detriment of the broader society. Hence, the “unilateralist’s curse” is a blessing in this case, as the overestimation by one member of a conspiracy of their own utility in having the secret exposed, brings their estimation more in line with the estimation of the broader society, whose interests differ from those of the conspirators.
If differences between the interests of different groups were not a problem, then there would be no motive to form a conspiracy.
In general, I am quite annoyed at the idea of the unilateralist’s curse being used as a general argument against the revelation of the truth, without careful checking of the correspondence between the decision theoretic model of the unilateralist’s curse and the actual situation, which includes crime and conflict.
Disagreement doesn’t prevent Wikipedia from having one website on every topic. You just need some process of finding consensus. Plenty of people don’t like the consensus that Wikipedia finds, but that doesn’t mean that there isn’t useful output.
If we have an important topic like Supervulcano defense, few people have any idea about what to do about it and disagree. However if we had the draft legislation, it would be quite useful to pull it out in a time like this where we suddenly have the public more concerned with the risk of catastrophes.
There are plenty of different ways to create “consensus”. You could have a process that looks like github where every project has a maintainer and if someone disagrees with the maintainer, they can fork.