I agree with your general point (“protecting group epistemics from corrupting social incentives is the Hamming problem of group rationality”). I am not sure whether I agree with your specific point (that the upcoming moderation changes are long-term catastrophic). Could you clarify which implementation of the new moderation tools you consider to be catastrophic, and which not (or am I misunderstanding what aspect of the changes you mean)?
(That is, which of these would be catastrophic, if enabled: (a) totally traceless deletion; (b) deletion, but with a moderation log that shows the deletion event but not the deleted content; (c) deletion, but with a moderation log that shows the deletion event and the deleted content; (d) in-place hiding?)
Edit: By the way, I assume you actually meant to say “protecting social incentives from corrupting group epistemics is the Hamming problem of group rationality”, and not the other way around (like you currently have it)?
I agree with your general point (“protecting group epistemics from corrupting social incentives is the Hamming problem of group rationality”). I am not sure whether I agree with your specific point (that the upcoming moderation changes are long-term catastrophic). Could you clarify which implementation of the new moderation tools you consider to be catastrophic, and which not (or am I misunderstanding what aspect of the changes you mean)?
(That is, which of these would be catastrophic, if enabled: (a) totally traceless deletion; (b) deletion, but with a moderation log that shows the deletion event but not the deleted content; (c) deletion, but with a moderation log that shows the deletion event and the deleted content; (d) in-place hiding?)
Edit: By the way, I assume you actually meant to say “protecting social incentives from corrupting group epistemics is the Hamming problem of group rationality”, and not the other way around (like you currently have it)?