
The Purpose of Persuasion - apsec112
https://www.persuasion.community/p/the-purpose-of-persuasion
======
zuhayeer
I think pseudonymity will be important for the future of ideas (expanded
beyond HN but into actual journalistic practice). You don't have to put up
your real name, aka your full reputation behind interesting ideas that could
risk damage to you as a person (being cancelled, character assassination, or
otherwise)

I also believe that this kind of work will invite better discussion and
critique around different topics since the focus can only be on the merit of
the content. Of course, anonymity also has its downsides, but good work
usually finds a way into circles while bad work gets nipped at the bud fairly
quickly

~~~
alextheparrot
The Rolodex re-purposed, keeping track of all of our own identities instead of
other's

I do think this is interesting as an adaption, though to have any coherence of
identity then that identity will need to re-used. That makes an interesting
game, where people effectively wager different amounts of reputation, while
understanding that some or total loss of that reputation could also occur.

The natural advantage to having reputation is that you are better discovery
status, more exposure. Imagine debating if the "top" tier identity or the
"low" tier identity should be used to promote a new idea, as it is riskier.

Overall, I think this expansion of pseudonymity as a society would just lead
to additional fragmentation of personality. The "coherence" of a person as
one, consistent individual is an interesting breakdown of self. We see this
already with "online" vs "real-life" personalities can be highly divergent
(Insta-self vs actual-self).

~~~
bobbiechen
> Imagine debating if the "top" tier identity or the "low" tier identity
> should be used to promote a new idea, as it is riskier.

This sentence reminds me a lot of Ender's Game, in which the characters of
Locke and Demosthenes are created to contrast views.

> _They used throwaway names with their early efforts, not the identities that
> Peter planned to make famous and influential... When Peter was satisfied
> that they knew how to sound adult, he killed the old identities and they
> began to prepare to attract real attention._

~~~
neilv
I think xkcd's take on how that would play out is more typical:
[https://xkcd.com/635/](https://xkcd.com/635/)

------
shoes_for_thee
Somewhat tangential...

I've been thinking lately that there is a need for a space in which political
discussions can be had where people are as committed to the values of civility
and good-faith argument as we are at news.yc.com

I have not a clue how such a space could be moderated. It's obvious to me that
a person violating guidelines would quickly claim suppression if their posts
were moderated, and the space itself would quickly devolve into the things it
tries to avoid. Eg, echo-chamberiness, sophists, trolls.

It seems like a paradigm shift is required, or that the medium just isn't
appropriate. It also seems widely-accepted by nearly everyone that our current
medium is destructive and no longer serves constructive use. Reputation,
ranking, and moderation based on the 'wisdom of crowds' is no longer viable in
its current form, but I'm utterly unwilling to cede control to an authority...

How does one establish trustless good-faith?

~~~
uniqueid
A lot of approaches to moderation seem destined to fail, afaic.

I think first principles should be:

1\. There is no such thing as objective moderation. The universe gives us no
way to conclusively prove something is good, fair or true.

2\. You cannot moderate a forum at internet-scale using exclusively paid
employees.

3\. A tech company is not the government. There is no shame in a company
looking out to protect its own good name.

Some takeaways: (1) and (3) suggest a social network should admit its point of
view, and moderate according to its tastes from the top-down. (2) suggests the
bulk of moderation should either be AI-based, or delegated down via a
hierarchy of its users. Since AI won't be capable of competent moderation for
at least a decade, the primary method should be the community. (3) means that
the the positioning on moderation should be heavy-handed. Eg: "If we dislike
your contributions or feel you make us look bad, we will ban you. We offer no
'court of appeals', because it's an esthetic judgment."

This ideology of my model is rather depressing, but the current state of the
internet (compare HN or Tildes with 8chan or Gab) hints that it's better than
the status quo.

~~~
rodgerd
> 2\. You cannot moderate a forum at internet-scale using exclusively paid
> employees.

Sure you can. You just may not be able to print money Facebook style while
doing so.

~~~
uniqueid
I agree that these companies could _afford_ to hire tens of thousands of
people, and have them follow a flowchart. I don't see that environment ever
delivering competent moderation. Not to mention, it's unethical to subject
employees to several hours a day of troll vomit.

------
teddyh
If you’re trying to start another venue with a stated specific bias, there is
every reason to believe that it will (eventually, if not immediately) become
exactly as limiting and echo-chambery like the rest of them.

However, if you’re trying to _not_ do that, and create a truly open
environment, you run into the problem which was perhaps best described like
this:

“If you’re against witch-hunts, and you promise to found your own little
utopian community where witch-hunts will never happen, your new society will
end up consisting of approximately three principled civil libertarians and
seven zillion witches. It will be a terrible place to live _even if witch-
hunts are genuinely wrong_.” (Emphasis in original.)

—
[https://web.archive.org/web/20200618093842/https://slatestar...](https://web.archive.org/web/20200618093842/https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/05/01/neutral-
vs-conservative-the-eternal-struggle/)

~~~
afarrell
> echo-chambery

What is the distinction you draw between an echo chamber and a community which
mostly shares certain baseline assumptions and values?

~~~
teddyh
Since you ask:

A community which _just happens_ to mostly share common values is merely that
and nothing more. An “echo chamber”, on the other hand, is when such a
community does not get any significant input from any outside sources, and as
a result keep reinforcing their own internal beliefs, even though those
beliefs may be erroneous. This extreme homogeneity, thus created, in turn
gives rise to a culture in which any persistent dissenters are viewed as
anomalous and therefore dangerous. And this is limiting for those who
sometimes wishes they could express dissent. It is also restricting the
community itself from ever developing any further.

To contrast, a normal community with mostly shared values would occasionally
be affected by outside influences. This would create a constant level of
turbulence in the system; there would always be some base level of variation
between individuals, and over time, the median belief would slowly change this
way and that, somewhat like fashions, and this would be normal.

------
anonms-coward
I think the rise of a well headed, free speech space is extremely important.
The US has reached a point where certain topics are not even up for debate, as
ruled by the court of twitter mob.

~~~
keenmaster
I can't wait for VR-style chat[1] to become a dominant mode of online
discourse. It is much more likely to emulate the civility of in-person
discussions.

[1] Chatting with avatars that can navigate in a 3D digital environment, with
or without an actual VR headset. That's just like the eponymous VRChat which
allows 2D users to interact with 3D users and vice-versa. I highly recommend
trying it. It's free and the worlds are beautiful.
[https://vrchat.com/](https://vrchat.com/)

~~~
chongli
I doubt VR will become the dominant mode of anything for the simple reason
that it's synchronous. Asynchronous communication in text form has become the
dominant mode for good reason: it demands way less time and attention from
users. People find synchronous voice/video communication exhausting (it's
called "Zoom Fatigue" [1]).

[1] [https://hbr.org/2020/04/how-to-combat-zoom-
fatigue](https://hbr.org/2020/04/how-to-combat-zoom-fatigue)

~~~
keenmaster
Asynchronous communication is possible in VR/AR. However, if a material amount
of deep conversation moves from asynchronous to synchronous format, that can
have a big impact. There's also no reason that synchronous and asynchronous
discussion can't be combined. A phrase like "Let's take this IRT" (in real
time) can become the new "let's take this offline."

Think about the really controversial tweets that garner thousands of
responses. What if there was a link next to the tweet that launched you into a
virtual lounge where you can interact with other people looking to discuss the
tweet? If someone who joins one of those groups wants to summarize their
thoughts and conclusions from the discussion afterwards, in an async format,
their response would indicate which discussion group that they were in. It
would also be bundled with posts from other users in the same discussion
group. It would be like "Twitter meets Reddit meets VRChat."

~~~
chongli
It's a nice thought, for sure. I think people would generally use it only to
hang out and relax with their friends though. People, for the most part, don't
want to sit down and get into an intense discussion/debate over controversial
topics with someone from "the other side". They'd much rather be around people
with whom they agree.

I could see it being useful as something of an intermediate between
traditional online video games and offline gatherings involving food &
boardgames. I don't see it being used as a primary mode of communication
though, for the simple reason that it demands too much time and attention.
Text messages and email occupy that space because it's so convenient to pick
up and drop them at any time, even with a half-read message or a half-written
reply. With VR that means putting on your gear every time, and resuming the
"VR video" or whatever.

Heck, tons of people complain when video talks are posted without
slides/transcripts. They want the information. They don't care about any other
aspects of the presentation. VR in that case just seems to be more distracting
stuff that gets in the way of the information.

~~~
keenmaster
Members of the cultural vanguard have a disproportionate impact on our
zeitgeist. They don’t deserve their status in the vanguard unless they’re
willing to engage in synchronous discussion at near-zero marginal cost using
the most human digital communication medium in history. They don’t even need
to dawn VR headsets. They can log on in 2D or, in the future, use lightweight
AR glasses (hence "VR-style" chat).

------
steffandroid
There's hardly a shortage of liberal media outlets, does the world really need
another one?

~~~
apsec112
Liberal here means classical liberalism, not just "left-wing":

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism)

~~~
steffandroid
Yes, an ideology which is already vastly overrepresented in the media. I'm
sure we'll soon find out exactly how necessary this particular venture is.

------
gattis
am i reading that we need to get militantly centrist?

------
prvc
A bit of a self-important way to start what appears to be a blog, imho.

------
tranchms
Rhetoric may well find its place as an esteemed study once again.

~~~
war1025
This guy is apparently "alt-right", though I don't know exactly what that
means these days, but someone mentioned him here on HN the other day which led
me down the rabbit hole.

I thought this video [1] was interesting and it introduced me to the
difference between rhetoric and dialectic. Rhetoric is using emotion to
convince people. Dialectic is using reason. He points out that you need to
know how to read your audience to choose the correct angle of argument. Some
people get hung up on, for example, always persuading through facts
(dialectic), when what they really need to do is reach for emotion (rhetoric).

Anyway, I thought it was an interesting intro to the topic.

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHpalC3WaXY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHpalC3WaXY)

~~~
tottenhm
> This guy is apparently "alt-right"...

Yeah, no. I mean, I don't know this guy from Bob, but the above has neither
citation nor argument, and everything I've seen disagrees with that
assessment.

Skim the list of the board of advisors...

[https://www.persuasion.community/p/our-
board](https://www.persuasion.community/p/our-board)

Several names pop out - and not because they're alt-right / reactionaries /
populist right-wingers. Some bios:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Applebaum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Applebaum)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Fukuyama](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Fukuyama)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garry_Kasparov](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garry_Kasparov)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheri_Berman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheri_Berman)

Again, I don't have any personal knowledge here, but it's interesting to
consider, eg, this bit from Wikipedia:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yascha_Mounk#Political_positio...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yascha_Mounk#Political_positions)

> Mounk stated that he had changed his position on nationalism. He initially
> considered it a relic of the past that must be overcome, but he now
> advocates an "inclusive nationalism" to head off the threat of aggressive
> nationalism. On the German television newscast Tagesthemen, he stated that
> Germany is on a "historically unique experiment, namely to transform a mono-
> ethnic and monocultural democracy into a multi-ethnic one."

I suppose words like "nationalism" and "mono-ethnic" might appear in an alt-
right missive, but IMHO the above doesn't sound anything like an alt-right
perspective.

~~~
war1025
Sorry bad wording on my part. The guy from the linked video. Reading it again
I really butchered the message.

~~~
tottenhm
Oooh, I see how I misinterpreted! Thank you for clarifying. Cheers.

------
marktani
> It is difficult to convey just how many amazing writers, journalists, and
> think-tankers—some young and some old, some relatively obscure and others
> very famous—have privately told me that they can no longer write in their
> own voices; that they are counting the days until they get fired; and that
> they don't know where to turn if they do.

Why? Name a number.

~~~
wizzwizz4
Humans are bad at counting. It'd be the _proportion_ of writers, journalists
and think-tankers that this person knows that should be communicated, and even
then you have to take into account selection bias effects… It's hard to
communicate a felt-sense of the magnitude of a quantity like that.

------
mensetmanusman
It was interesting to read the description of ‘fighting institutions’ that
focus on arguments about certain topics that are mostly based on fallacies.

The sad situation in the U.S. is also a result of it being the target of so
much psychological warfare from Russia. The internet is an excellent medium to
cause confusion. Fix that, and you might heal democracy.

~~~
fuoqi
If you really blame Russia for the current US situation, I have bad news for
you. Blaming an external power is a political manipulation 101. Focusing
public attention on them is almost always used to hide real structural
domestic problems. Soviet Union also loved to shift blame onto the US and
modern Russia does it as well. Did that help them to built a better society?

External powers can only do so much. Usually most that they can do is to give
a little push to processes already existing in society (and the US is a world
leading expert at giving such pushes). So my advice would be: look at domestic
roots of a problem first, not at foreign powers which try to exploit them.

~~~
wizzwizz4
> _So my advice would be: look at domestic roots of a problem first, not at
> foreign powers which try to exploit them._

External powers have done a _lot_ to manipulate US elections… via Facebook, a
US company.

This is good advice.

~~~
fuoqi
Do you seriously believe that the main reason that Trump got elected is a
bunch of Facebook ads?

