“Now let’s say that the system is already full of bad actors (as it probably is). They have considered what and who might stop them, and what they might do about it. The system will, of course, be corrupt, and the people running that system will be horrible or incompetent. It is an obvious, straightforward move to promote memes that prevent this from being rectified.”
I think that happens sometimes, and higher pressure scenarios are more likely to be targets for this. Most of my disagreement is that I think most people are trying to do the right thing; dealing with occasional bad actors who are outnumbered is easier than dealing with lots of bad actors who outnumber everyone else. A system that works for the latter I’d expect to work for the former though.
But in fact this should read more like this:
“Okay, but why should you trust me? Good question; the answer is that you definitely shouldn’t trust me—especially since complaint handling is part of my role, so I have a professional interest, which makes me exceptionally likely to be a bad actor. Do not trust! Verify! If you can’t verify, assume treachery until proven otherwise!”
Hrm. I don’t agree with that much emphasis and I’m not sure how much of that is interpretation. I do feel a little bit of refreshment at encountering someone with even more CONSTANT VIGILANCE than I have, it’s a nice change of pace. Do you happen to work in computer security by any chance?
More seriously, I don’t think the systems around me work well if they need to verify every step, so there’s some spot checking and trust extended instead. Paying more attention to this over the last couple years has made me more aware of all the gaps where someone could cause problems if they had a mind to.
My comments are aimed precisely at this goal also. You can read them as saying “your setup does not and cannot succeed at this, so long as you take the approach described in the OP”.
Hrm. I have a small objection here, which is that I don’t view the main post as laying out an approach for dealing with this. I said I don’t have a solution. To use a chess analogy, I’m not saying “use the Italian Game opening, then look to control the centre.” I’m saying “don’t move f3 as a starter, and if you feel compelled to do it anyway really don’t move g4, it’s an embarrassing way to lose.” If someone showed up in the comments and said hey, I do think there’s a solution, here it is- well, I’d read their solution carefully and be happy if it turned out to be correct.
I… didn’t claim that any police force criminalizes everyone who makes any move towards trying to change the system, so… no bet!
Ah, I may have misinterpreted you. I read
The logic in the OP is easily recognizable as the logic of every police force, every security service, and every authoritarian enforcement organization. It’s the logic that says “if you’re not one of us, then you’re either a clueless normie who will unthinkingly submit to our authority, or else you’re probably a criminal—unless you can, with great effort and in the face of considerable skepticism, prove to us (and yes, the burden of proof is entirely on you) that you’re one of the rare harmless weirdoes (emphasis on the ‘harmless’; if you give any hint that you’re challenging our authority, or make any move toward trying to change the system, then the ‘harmless’ qualifier is immediately stripped from you, and you move right back into the ‘criminal’ category)”.
and the bolded parts (bolding mine) seemed to say every police force does criminalized everyone who makes any move towards trying to change the system. I. . . do see a distinction between “moved into the criminal category” and “criminalized according to the written legal code” but that does seem a thin distinction. Still, my misinterpretation.
> Would you please clarify this? As you might imagine, if it’s the second I’m going to say that’s not what I’m trying to do.
First one.
I appreciate the clarification, including the edit!
(I am happy to assume perfectly good intentions on the part of actual-you, the actual person I am talking to, for the purposes of this and similar discussions. It’s just that we have to keep in mind the possibility of a hypothetical-you who is in the same situation and is writing the same things but who does not have good intentions.)
Yep, noted and agreed. And likewise the possibility of a hypothetical-you who is trying to make sure whatever process gets used isn’t going to catch them. Neither of you might go to meetups much but LessWrong moderation decisions are probably relevant. (To be clear I don’t make those, I’m not a mod here and I don’t even make moderation decisions on ACX comments, I can just see the same line.)
Most of my disagreement is that I think most people are trying to do the right thing; dealing with occasional bad actors who are outnumbered is easier than dealing with lots of bad actors who outnumber everyone else.
Yes, perhaps most people are trying to do the right thing, but (a) they are mostly not trying very hard, and (b) trying to do the right thing is just not anywhere close to sufficient for actually doing the right thing.
It is extremely easy to just find yourself doing the wrong thing, if you are not systematically and effectively avoiding all the things that nudge you toward doing the wrong thing. This is why I have emphasized, throughout this discussion, that I am not accusing anyone in particular of bad faith or bad character, and that not only should you trust no one, you should not even trust yourself, because “trying to do the right thing” is not sufficient even from your own perspective.
Do you happen to work in computer security by any chance?
I do not, but I will take the question as a compliment.
More seriously, I don’t think the systems around me work well if they need to verify every step, so there’s some spot checking and trust extended instead.
Yes. But there is a difference between making a considered judgment not to verify every step of some process, or not to check every instance, etc., and simply not having thought about it. (At the very least, the former decision can be revisited, re-evaluated, updated—the latter decision cannot even be acknowledged or accounted for, because it was never made in the first place!)
And, of course—as per my other comment—it may well be that the answer to “if we had to do this the ‘proper’ way, then we couldn’t do it at all” is “then you shouldn’t do it at all”.
Re: the “every police force” commentary—the whole “make any move toward trying to change the system” was mostly intended to qualify the “harmless weirdoes” scenario, not to necessarily apply to all people of any sort. (But also, the “moved into the criminal category” distinction is pretty important. But this is a tangent at this point, so let’s table it for now…)
Yep, noted and agreed. And likewise the possibility of a hypothetical-you who is trying to make sure whatever process gets used isn’t going to catch them. Neither of you might go to meetups much but LessWrong moderation decisions are probably relevant. (To be clear I don’t make those, I’m not a mod here and I don’t even make moderation decisions on ACX comments, I can just see the same line.)
FWIW, I think that approaches to conflict resolution in in-person meetups and on online forums should differ considerably, for many reasons, but certainly in large part due to the different ways in which evaluation of bad actors / problems / etc. can/must happen in those two types of contexts. I would not give the same advice to operators of a web forum as to organizers of a meetup, and I would be suspicious of anyone who insisted on applying the same approach to both contexts.
I disagree your scenario is more realistic.
I think that happens sometimes, and higher pressure scenarios are more likely to be targets for this. Most of my disagreement is that I think most people are trying to do the right thing; dealing with occasional bad actors who are outnumbered is easier than dealing with lots of bad actors who outnumber everyone else. A system that works for the latter I’d expect to work for the former though.
Hrm. I don’t agree with that much emphasis and I’m not sure how much of that is interpretation. I do feel a little bit of refreshment at encountering someone with even more CONSTANT VIGILANCE than I have, it’s a nice change of pace. Do you happen to work in computer security by any chance?
More seriously, I don’t think the systems around me work well if they need to verify every step, so there’s some spot checking and trust extended instead. Paying more attention to this over the last couple years has made me more aware of all the gaps where someone could cause problems if they had a mind to.
Hrm. I have a small objection here, which is that I don’t view the main post as laying out an approach for dealing with this. I said I don’t have a solution. To use a chess analogy, I’m not saying “use the Italian Game opening, then look to control the centre.” I’m saying “don’t move f3 as a starter, and if you feel compelled to do it anyway really don’t move g4, it’s an embarrassing way to lose.” If someone showed up in the comments and said hey, I do think there’s a solution, here it is- well, I’d read their solution carefully and be happy if it turned out to be correct.
Ah, I may have misinterpreted you. I read
and the bolded parts (bolding mine) seemed to say every police force does criminalized everyone who makes any move towards trying to change the system. I. . . do see a distinction between “moved into the criminal category” and “criminalized according to the written legal code” but that does seem a thin distinction. Still, my misinterpretation.
I appreciate the clarification, including the edit!
Yep, noted and agreed. And likewise the possibility of a hypothetical-you who is trying to make sure whatever process gets used isn’t going to catch them. Neither of you might go to meetups much but LessWrong moderation decisions are probably relevant. (To be clear I don’t make those, I’m not a mod here and I don’t even make moderation decisions on ACX comments, I can just see the same line.)
Yes, perhaps most people are trying to do the right thing, but (a) they are mostly not trying very hard, and (b) trying to do the right thing is just not anywhere close to sufficient for actually doing the right thing.
It is extremely easy to just find yourself doing the wrong thing, if you are not systematically and effectively avoiding all the things that nudge you toward doing the wrong thing. This is why I have emphasized, throughout this discussion, that I am not accusing anyone in particular of bad faith or bad character, and that not only should you trust no one, you should not even trust yourself, because “trying to do the right thing” is not sufficient even from your own perspective.
I do not, but I will take the question as a compliment.
Yes. But there is a difference between making a considered judgment not to verify every step of some process, or not to check every instance, etc., and simply not having thought about it. (At the very least, the former decision can be revisited, re-evaluated, updated—the latter decision cannot even be acknowledged or accounted for, because it was never made in the first place!)
And, of course—as per my other comment—it may well be that the answer to “if we had to do this the ‘proper’ way, then we couldn’t do it at all” is “then you shouldn’t do it at all”.
Re: the “every police force” commentary—the whole “make any move toward trying to change the system” was mostly intended to qualify the “harmless weirdoes” scenario, not to necessarily apply to all people of any sort. (But also, the “moved into the criminal category” distinction is pretty important. But this is a tangent at this point, so let’s table it for now…)
FWIW, I think that approaches to conflict resolution in in-person meetups and on online forums should differ considerably, for many reasons, but certainly in large part due to the different ways in which evaluation of bad actors / problems / etc. can/must happen in those two types of contexts. I would not give the same advice to operators of a web forum as to organizers of a meetup, and I would be suspicious of anyone who insisted on applying the same approach to both contexts.