Quote from: Rhedyn on May 01, 2021, 11:35:16 AMDiscourse would be dominated by polite moderates because radicals would make themselves poor.

You have such confidence in such a system with nearly no backing behind it whatsoever. The ease with which you feel that everybody would function 'The way they should' is honestly very disturbing.

I would debate the practical implications further, but this isn't really founded on any sort of practical level because whenever challenged you to resort to effectively magic science. This seems to be a philosophical desire to QUASH all those that you deem unworthy of voice or resources. And not by you of course, by a magic sorting algorithm that of course functions the way it should as decided by the right people that just happen to agree with you. Or 'The moderates'. Moderates curated by the right information because freedom is a threat to democracy.
This is in essence about creating a puppet democracy while a shadowy council decides what's good, or true and then curates the system to only allow the answers they want to hear.

Just so you know, you're not advocating for anything really different than the socialist dictatorships of the now and the past. Your just too blinded by your own self-righteousness to realize that.

Edit: Also a freaking Rick & Morty Reference? It very much checks out.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on May 01, 2021, 12:19:24 PMYou have such confidence in such a system...

Do I?

I keep saying it is dystopian. I personally think it would work better than the current dystopia.

Quote from: Rhedyn on May 01, 2021, 12:30:06 PMI keep saying it is dystopian. I personally think it would work better than the current dystopia.

And now we enter the semantics game, combined with intellectual cowardice. Again also checks out.
"I'm not saying I wanna plunge the world into a dictatorship as ruled by me, and of course it wouldn't be perfect, but I'm just saying its better than what we have now."
At this point your entering arguments in bad faith. Either be honest with others about your desire for technocratic dictatorial subjection or don't.

Don't pussyfoot around it with semantic games.

Our present day would be rightfully viewed as horrific by people in the past.

Historical yeoman (c. 12-16th century) would have

* More Leisure Time (2-3 months/yr)
* Much Easier ability to Marry & Raise Family
* Greater Community Belonging
* More Independence in Labor (Can pursue what he finds meaningful, rather than just what earns money)

On these metrics historical serfs had greatly improved quality of life over modern people, and especially over likely future people.

Technological advancements in many areas have been wonderful, but it is possible to have a high-technology society without the negative social changes American (and Western Europe) have suffered. We can't conflate these two.

I'd also observe that better medical technology is wonderful, but this actually hasn't resulted in a healthier population. People are physically and especially psychologically less healthy than several decades ago, in a way that is easy to see simply by looking at readily available photos & videos from that time frame.

Quote from: Zelen on May 01, 2021, 12:46:24 PM
Our present day would be rightfully viewed as horrific by people in the past.

Yup.
That's why I try to never moralize about the past. It was a different dimension.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on May 01, 2021, 12:36:09 PM...At this point your entering arguments in bad faith...

At a bare minimum I am having arguments. Which is more than I can say for your barely coherent buzzword filled rants.

Quote from: Rhedyn on May 01, 2021, 12:52:21 PMAt a bare minimum I am having arguments.

Apologies for losing my cool but I can't stand semantics games. I will spell it out:

You were engaging in semantics games by calling our current reality a dystopia and then saying that your dystopia would be better as a way to avoid the accusation that you have a lot of confidence in a totalitarian system that you advocate for.

A dystopia is a fictional place. Our world isn't fictional. If you are willing to advocate for such a system over our current reality, then of course you have confidence in it. It becomes backhanded and disingenuous to present your ideas instead of being forthright.

Doc Sammy advocates for a return to a Roman Empire. I find it ridiculous, but he is 100% forthright about it, which makes discussing the idea with him not feel disengenous.

Quote from: Rhedyn on April 30, 2021, 02:10:02 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 30, 2021, 01:44:56 PMWho sets the reputation? China's social score system IS a reputation economy. I wouldn't want to live in a place with that.

The idea is that you have access to a certain quality of resources based on your reputation. So if you were highly valued, you could have that beach front property, while a someone will no contributions to society could only have a house.

The general thought behind rep economies is that your rep goes up as individual people rate you. Where the opinion of highly reputable people is worth more than someone with less rep. The balancing of that algorithm and making sure less public works are weight appropriately would be an endless job requiring constant improvement. The assumption I have seen is that virtual intelligences would have a full-time job keeping everything straight and making sure people don't over-pull a resource they qualify for without a reputation loss.

For example, a Game store owner that let people play games in his store would receive rep increases from everyone that approved of that practices and probably has a higher reputation score than a Game store which did not allow anyone to play in it. In our current society, the latter Game store owner has the advantage if he sells more product, while the other one has to hope that letting a group play D&D in his backroom for years translates to sales at some point or he just loses money even though his contribution to the community is higher than the former Game store owner.

JESUS CHRIST how horrifying, the Facebookization of humanity.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on May 01, 2021, 01:08:32 PMApologies for losing my cool but I can't stand semantics games. I will spell it out:

You were engaging in semantics games by calling our current reality a dystopia and then saying that your dystopia would be better as a way to avoid the accusation that you have a lot of confidence in a totalitarian system that you advocate for.

A dystopia is a fictional place. Our world isn't fictional. If you are willing to advocate for such a system over our current reality, then of course you have confidence in it. It becomes backhanded and disingenuous to present your ideas instead of being forthright.

Doc Sammy advocates for a return to a Roman Empire. I find it ridiculous, but he is 100% forthright about it, which makes discussing the idea with him not feel disengenous.

I've personally argued with many real socialist that feel like if people just listened to them, the world would be perfect. I am not such a person. While I think a reputation economy is the next most logical evolution on the economic system, I am not going to claim that it is flawless.

There is no reason to assume the whole process immediately jumps to a totalitarian dictatorship. That would be the easiest way to set up such a system and force people to live by it, but once it is running, you would only trust high reputation people in critical positions to manage the algorithms. If set up correctly, no one person could do enough damage before their reputation is in shambles and they were replace and then such damage could be fixed. The central force against corruption is that the system should keep assholes out of power. Important positions would be thrust upon those with the highest reputation and if people found power seeking behavior as distasteful as they do now-a-days, then your standard modern day politician (with few expectations) would never attain high office.

But how do we get to point B without an autocrat making it so? My theory is gradually. Let's take a modern day problem and solve it with rep. With the advent of Red Flag laws, allowed to be implemented by a Republican President to his own verbal support of them, the right to bare arms in the US has been revoked. In many areas the Government can decide you have less rights due to arbitrary reasons and no crime committed. That's the baseline situation, so any solution should compare its freedom allowed to that. So what if instead, a reputation system is set up and people can vote whether or not you are a violent unstable asshole. First, you set up the system and encourage people to participate in the day-to-day voting. You see the score of people who commit mass shootings and the voting history behind them. You adjust the algorithms (training) so that most-to-all of the mass shooters end up with X score or lower. Then you have the Red-flag law activated when someone's reputation falls below X. Compared to the current situation, freedom has increased because the unfair law is triggered due to data backed reasoning not because someone told the Government you were creepy. If mass shootings fall significantly or disappear, you have built confidence in the system. If people's reputation were then visible to the public, then free market forces would steadily latch onto the system and it would expand. The government could then slowly expand the system overtime until at some point it replaced the current economic system.

Like any implementation plan, it would have to be adjusted as reality mixed with it. That's just how planning works.

 I'm at my phone right now so I can't type out a complicated response. But just to be clear what you are advocating for is a totalitarian dictatorship.
Totalitarian because the state would have total control over everyone's lives, and a dictatorship because only a few would have absolute control over what everyone else would be able to do.
While you envision the totalitarian dictator ship to be benign or even good, it would still ultimately be a totalitarian dictatorship.
And that's fine if you want to advocate for that everyone's entitled to their own opinion ( but not in your system )  but some people fundamentally do not want to live in a totalitarian dictatorship even a nice one .

By the very definition of the words what you are advocating for is a totalitarian dictator ship. If you can come to terms with that, then We can have a conversation further about why totalitarian dictatorships inexorably become corrupt more so than less centralized states, and why I would pose a totalitarian dictator ship even a nice one

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on May 01, 2021, 01:44:19 PM
I'm at my phone right now so I can't type out a complicated response. But just to be clear what you are advocating for is a totalitarian dictatorship.
Totalitarian because the state would have total control over everyone's lives, and a dictatorship because only a few would have absolute control over what everyone else would be able to do.
While you envision the totalitarian dictator ship to be benign or even good, it would still ultimately be a totalitarian dictatorship.
And that's fine if you want to advocate for that everyone's entitled to their own opinion ( but not in your system )  but some people fundamentally do not want to live in a totalitarian dictatorship even a nice one .

By the very definition of the words what you are advocating for is a totalitarian dictator ship. If you can come to terms with that, then We can have a conversation further about why totalitarian dictatorships inexorably become corrupt more so than less centralized states, and why I would pose a totalitarian dictator ship even a nice one

I think we understand our current reality differently. I am aware that many view Government Control = Loss of freedom. I view the Government like a Corporation I can't quit but who I vote for the boss. There is some level of control and buy in. Meanwhile actual corporations are miniature feudal kingdoms whose rulers I never voted for. I may be able to quit one, but I have to work either for one or with one if I am not working for/with the government. They rule not by consent of the governed, but by their ability to own and wield capital just like the nobility of old.

You are right in that I do advocate that the state should have more control over our lives because I prefer the state to corporations controlling my life. I interpret demands for "smaller government" as "pro feudalism".

Our disconnect and the disconnect I have many on this forum, is I do not see "licking the boots of the wealthy" as freedom or a kind of freedom better than freedom from the Government. 

I also feel like arguments about word definitions are inherently meaningless. If you define eating ice-cream as racist, I am not going to conclude that eating ice-cream is evil or tell you that your definition of eating ice-cream is wrong. I am not going to use your terms either.

Quote from: Rhedyn on May 01, 2021, 02:10:07 PM

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on May 01, 2021, 01:44:19 PM
I'm at my phone right now so I can't type out a complicated response. But just to be clear what you are advocating for is a totalitarian dictatorship.
Totalitarian because the state would have total control over everyone's lives, and a dictatorship because only a few would have absolute control over what everyone else would be able to do.
While you envision the totalitarian dictator ship to be benign or even good, it would still ultimately be a totalitarian dictatorship.
And that's fine if you want to advocate for that everyone's entitled to their own opinion ( but not in your system )  but some people fundamentally do not want to live in a totalitarian dictatorship even a nice one .

By the very definition of the words what you are advocating for is a totalitarian dictator ship. If you can come to terms with that, then We can have a conversation further about why totalitarian dictatorships inexorably become corrupt more so than less centralized states, and why I would pose a totalitarian dictator ship even a nice one

I think we understand our current reality differently. I am aware that many view Government Control = Loss of freedom. I view the Government like a Corporation I can't quit but who I vote for the boss. There is some level of control and buy in. Meanwhile actual corporations are miniature feudal kingdoms whose rulers I never voted for. I may be able to quit one, but I have to work either for one or with one if I am not working for/with the government. They rule not by consent of the governed, but by their ability to own and wield capital just like the nobility of old.

You are right in that I do advocate that the state should have more control over our lives because I prefer the state to corporations controlling my life. I interpret demands for "smaller government" as "pro feudalism".

Our disconnect and the disconnect I have many on this forum, is I do not see "licking the boots of the wealthy" as freedom or a kind of freedom better than freedom from the Government. 

I also feel like arguments about word definitions are inherently meaningless. If you define eating ice-cream as racist, I am not going to conclude that eating ice-cream is evil or tell you that your definition of eating ice-cream is wrong. I am not going to use your terms either.

So your setting is a fascist dystopia.. Tell us more.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 01, 2021, 02:12:15 PMSo your setting is a fascist dystopia.. Tell us more.

Arguing about word definitions is meaningless, but you still need to understand what people are saying.

Please describe in detail how you don't live in a fascist dystopia. What are your actual freedoms?

Quote from: Rhedyn on May 01, 2021, 01:28:36 PM
There is no reason to assume the whole process immediately jumps to a totalitarian dictatorship...

How do you feel about sites such as YouTube, Twitter, and Reddit that implement similar algorithmic reputation systems? Do you feel that these systems consistently surface the best & most useful content and reward the best people? How would what you're proposing differ in a meaningful way from other existing algorithmic rating systems?

If someone kills someone else and gets -10,000 reputation, is that just as bad as littering 10,000 times? What if someone is falsely convicted of a crime, do prosecutors get negative reputation for a prosecution that's later overturned? If you're mentally ill and behave erratically sometimes, is that your fault or...? What if you own a business but your wife cheats on you and then spreads a bunch of lies about you that hurts your reputation?

This type of pie-in-the-sky thinking seems very much driven by people who either don't work with technology or haven't meaningfully grappled with the consequences of it. The world is a lot more complex than it's possible to boil down into our models, and the more we try to force the world to align with the model the more negative effects this will have.

I think there's a solid case to be made that centralization in technology inevitably leads to totalitarianism. Given enough time, the people who are willing to act unethically for their own advantage will be able to use these mechanisms to their own advantage.

Quote from: Rhedyn on May 01, 2021, 02:10:07 PM

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on May 01, 2021, 01:44:19 PM
I'm at my phone right now so I can't type out a complicated response. But just to be clear what you are advocating for is a totalitarian dictatorship.
Totalitarian because the state would have total control over everyone's lives, and a dictatorship because only a few would have absolute control over what everyone else would be able to do.
While you envision the totalitarian dictator ship to be benign or even good, it would still ultimately be a totalitarian dictatorship.
And that's fine if you want to advocate for that everyone's entitled to their own opinion ( but not in your system )  but some people fundamentally do not want to live in a totalitarian dictatorship even a nice one .

By the very definition of the words what you are advocating for is a totalitarian dictator ship. If you can come to terms with that, then We can have a conversation further about why totalitarian dictatorships inexorably become corrupt more so than less centralized states, and why I would pose a totalitarian dictator ship even a nice one

I think we understand our current reality differently. I am aware that many view Government Control = Loss of freedom. I view the Government like a Corporation I can't quit but who I vote for the boss. There is some level of control and buy in. Meanwhile actual corporations are miniature feudal kingdoms whose rulers I never voted for. I may be able to quit one, but I have to work either for one or with one if I am not working for/with the government. They rule not by consent of the governed, but by their ability to own and wield capital just like the nobility of old.

You are right in that I do advocate that the state should have more control over our lives because I prefer the state to corporations controlling my life. I interpret demands for "smaller government" as "pro feudalism".

Our disconnect and the disconnect I have many on this forum, is I do not see "licking the boots of the wealthy" as freedom or a kind of freedom better than freedom from the Government. 

I also feel like arguments about word definitions are inherently meaningless. If you define eating ice-cream as racist, I am not going to conclude that eating ice-cream is evil or tell you that your definition of eating ice-cream is wrong. I am not going to use your terms either.

"Government control is good because Corporate control is bad...and anyone who thinks otherwise wants to lick the boots of the corporations.

Because false dichotomy between telling both of these types of entities to go FUCK themselves or something."

And who do you think is going to implement this algorithmic digital credit score system you're clamoring for? Who do you think is already taking steps to implement this type of system right NOW*?

THE FUCKING CORPORATIONS, who're in bed the the government. They're BOTH fucking us over Chinese finger-cuffs style already as we speak. And any attempts to continue to push this type of tech forward are going to inevitably end in tech-corp backed FASCIM.

There is NO dichotomy between corporations and the government in the modern world. They both ARE the "government".

*with their control of news, search engines, social media and the digital space in general, And now with the idea of "Vaccine Passports".