
How a social network could save democracy from deadlock - eddyparkinson
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-50127713
======
humanrebar
> And rather than showing the messages that divided each of the four groups,
> Pol.is simply made them invisible.

This seems like a good way to find _some_ initiatives through consensus. The
main mechanism seems to be giving a "conversational veto" to everyone in the
discussion. A "let's move on" button, basically.

I find that very interesting. It would certainly help with concerns that "my
legislature does _nothing_ ". It might actually be an interesting mechanism
for legislatures themselves to deploy internally to set agendas, though it
would necessarily weaken the power of the factions that actually set
legislative agendas (the majority party, the majority leader, etc.).

On the other hand, giving a strong and hidden minority veto also doesn't seem
to help with the issues that actually divide citizens.

\- Would not talking about Brexit anymore actually help the U.K.?

\- Should the U.S. Congress not pass a budget anymore, to avoid balancing it?

\- Maybe all legislatures agree to broadly humane treatment for refugees, but
how would they agree on healthy _levels_ and _categories_ of immigration?

\- The biggest divisive issue in the U.S might actually be abortion, which
generally isn't debated so much as such. It's also clear that not addressing
the issue isn't making the underlying problems go away.

\- More broadly, would the U.S. have _ever_ done anything significant about
civil rights if consensus was required first?

EDIT: Maybe I'm a bit too pessimistic about civil rights... the constitutional
amendment process _does_ require two kinds of consensus for ratification. And
many amendments did deal with civil rights.

~~~
Retric
Politics is complex and deadlock preserves the current situation which some
group considers preferable to change.

Consider, (53+25) = 78% of the US population believes Abortion should be legal
in some or all situations. That’s why a total ban is rarely debated it’s a
campaign issue, but making it illegal would quickly cost elections.

Restrictions on the other hand also have popular support (53 + 21) = 74%. Thus
rather than a ban one party pushing for more restrictions. This is not a
failure to achieve a ban, but rather a middle ground with significant popular
support.

[https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx](https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx)

~~~
humanrebar
My points were more that:

\- Sometimes the controversy is about the process, such as historical efforts
for suffrage for women.

\- Sometimes 90% vote benefits for themselves at the expense of 10%. Most
unbalanced budgets fall in this category.

\- Sometimes 10% people preserve benefits for themselves at the expense of
everyone else.

Especially concerning about automatically hiding debates without consensus is
that it hides things that are important or urgent but haven't reached
consensus (yet).

Maybe there are other mechanisms to provide transparency there, but the
article did not seem to describe any.

~~~
Retric
> Sometimes 90% vote benefits for themselves at the expense of 10%. Most
> unbalanced budgets fall in this category.

In isolation you can find many examples of this. But, political alliances mean
that group may be trading financial support for support of another issue. Farm
subsidies and net neutrality could be traded with people voting for both even
if they only care for one or the other.

It smells like corruption, but political horse trading does represent people
caring more or less about different issues.

Consider three friends going out, one cares a lot about the movie they watch,
another cares about what they eat for dinner, and the third really wants to go
out to a specific club afterwards. If everyone votes on each activity
separately then people may be less happy than a compromise.

~~~
arethuza
A lot of political compromise always seems to me of the form: we have a cake
to share, I want the whole cake and you, being reasonable, want the 'fair'
portion of half a cake. So we compromise and I get three quarters of the cake
and you get a quarter.

~~~
K0SM0S
This is as painfully true as it is down to earth.

Zooming out a bit, a less cynical take (merely observation) is that we seek
what we think are the right means for our goals (and these too diverge a lot).

Maybe I want money, maybe you'd rather have love of the people; maybe we just
both wanna make this world better, maybe we're mostly in it for ourselves.

The point is, industrious types seek the means to industry, romantic ones seek
an emotional path to/of success, technical minds seek the knowledge or
practice of their puzzle, etc.; and in the end everything is just as it
should/cloud/would have been. There's a reason you asked 100%, got 75 and I
let you walk away with it. However I'd want to spin it, it just had not
mattered to me as much as it had to you.

------
refset
For more context on the Polis platform, watch "Clojure on the cyberpunk
frontier of democracy"
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tBVMAm0-00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tBVMAm0-00)

------
lbj
Democracy in its current form is bound to fail - The greek inventors
specifically warned of exactly our brand of democracy.

~~~
johnisgood
[http://www.anthonyflood.com/rothbarddemocracy.htm](http://www.anthonyflood.com/rothbarddemocracy.htm)
might be worth a read.

~~~
chmod775
The author does a lot of fun thought experiments that don't hold up long under
critical scrutiny.

Take for example: "On the other hand, if, as it is now fashionable to
maintain, the majority of voters in a democracy are prohibited from doing one
thing—ending the democratic elective process itself—then this is no longer
democracy, because the majority of voters can no longer rule."

It is still a democracy, because the majority of voters did not the surrender
the power to make that decision to anyone, but in fact nobody is able to make
that decision at all. There's no non-democratic entity who could decide so in
place of the majority, because it is something that simply can't be changed.
Every decision made is still made in a democratic process.

Just because you can't decide that the sun should drop out of the sky, does
not mean you are not a democracy. It's simply another decision nobody can
make. It's completely outside the scope of your democratic decision making.

Edit:

Another example would be a company in which all decisions are made in a
democratic process. Well why can't its workers decide that murder should be
legal? The obvious answer is that it is simply not a decision they can make,
but is instead at the discretion of the country they operate in.

~~~
johnisgood
Can the majority of people decide to end democracy if they, the majority,
_wanted_ or not? If not, why not, and how is it a democracy then? If yes, then
I do not understand the relevance of your comment.

> Just because you can't decide that the sun should drop out of the sky, does
> not mean you are not a democracy.

I think this one is pretty obvious and I am not sure of its significance here.
You cannot decide to do a lot of things, but that does not mean that you
cannot decide to do some other things. Allow me to say this: just because you
cannot decide that the sun should drop out of the sky, does not mean that you
are a democracy (just as it does not mean you are not a democracy). See the
problem here?

> Another example would be a company in which all decisions are made in a
> democratic process. Well why can't its workers decide that murder should be
> legal? The obvious answer is that it is simply not a decision they can make,
> but is instead at the discretion of the country they operate in.

This makes no sense within the context. You have mixed the scopes yourself. It
is at discretion of the country, yes, and the company most likely is not the
majority that makes up the country, is it? Otherwise if there was democracy,
and whoever was part of the democratic process are indeed the majority of the
country they operate in, then they are either allowed to decide that, or they
are not allowed to decide that. If the majority of people cannot decide that,
then it is simply not democratic. At first I thought you would talk within the
scope of the company, then that would have made more sense in the way that
workers are not necessarily part of the democratic process, or their votes can
be simply ignored, which may happen in the context of a country, too, in which
case I would not call that democratic either.

For anyone who is reading my comment but have not read the article posted
above: please do not dismiss the article because of my comments! There is much
more to it than what is mentioned in my comments, and the author has
articulated his arguments better than I did! I do not accurately reflect the
author's views.

~~~
chmod775
> Can the majority of people decide to end democracy if they, the majority,
> wanted or not? If not, why not, and how is it a democracy then? If yes, then
> I do not understand the relevance of your comment.

You just simply restated what the article's author said and to which I
responded at length already. But I'll rephrase from a different angle further
below for your benefit.

> This makes no sense within the context. It is at discretion of the country,
> yes, and the company most likely is not the majority that makes up the
> country, is it? Otherwise if there was democracy, and whoever was part of
> the democratic process are indeed the majority of the country they operate
> in, then they are either allowed to decide that, or they are not allowed to
> decide that. If the majority of people cannot, then it is simply not
> democratic.

And on company grounds? What if just worker's of said company decided it's
okay to murder each other there?

If you believe that spheres of influence (both physically and in the abstract
sense) should have no bearing on what decisions your democracy can make, then
you can't ever have a democracy because something will _always_ be out of your
influence (unless maybe you're the only country on earth). The decision of
whether murder should be legal on company grounds will always be outside of
what workers can decide. However if your definition of democracy essentially
makes having a democracy impossible, may I suggest you use one that is
actually useful.

If you believe that yes, your decisions should be scoped to physical borders
and other limitations that arise, then your constitution (or whatever document
dictates you can't end democracy), is simply another factor that narrows down
what decisions can be made.

Your constitution is very much like your country's border in that sense. It
limits the scope of your decisions.

~~~
johnisgood
> You just simply restated what the article's author said and to which I
> responded at length already. But I'll rephrase from a different angle
> further below for your benefit.

Only some parts (there were more objections besides this), yes, to emphasize
the word "wanted" because your comment seemed to have omitted that crucial
part and operated under the assumption that people do not want to do that,
which misses the point. You said: "because the majority of voters did not the
surrender the power to make that decision to anyone", which means that the
majority of voters did not want to do that to begin with. If it is democracy
(direct democracy, in this case), and they wanted to, they should have been
able to.

> And on company grounds? What if just worker's of said company decided it's
> okay to murder each other there?

No, because the company is within the scope of the country and its legal
framework, and "there" is within the borders of a country. If the company
(read: group of individuals) is large enough to make up the majority of the
country, then they should be able to decide so democratically if there indeed
is democracy.

> If you believe that spheres of influence (both physically and in the
> abstract sense) should have no bearing on what decisions your democracy can
> make, then there can't ever have a democracy because something will always
> be out of your influence (unless maybe you're the only country on earth).

I am not sure I understand your point. How is there direct democracy if the
majority cannot decide to do X or Y (and here I am not talking about the
majority of people wishing the sun to drop out of the sky or anything similar,
of course)? You cannot just add exceptions and then call it democratic (or
direct democracy), which is what is happening here. Are you sure that this is
not a redefinition of democracy?

~~~
chmod775
> How is there democracy if the majority cannot decide to do X or Y.

The majority can't decide that gravity should cease to exist or the sun
shouldn't shine within their borders. Some limitations on democracy are
natural, others are imposed by those who established it. That doesn't mean
it's not a democracy.

You could do the same thought experiment with dictatorships or any form of
government really. If a dictator can decide that he'd rather have a democracy,
then he can end his own existence (fine?), unless he operates in some
constitutional framework that enshrines him as the one and only power within
the country. If that's the case, is he still a dictator? Short answer:
clearly. Long answer: We can have a long debate about this and essentially
come to the conclusion that either whatever definition of
democracy/dictatorships you're using needs to be revised, or you need to come
up with new names for most political systems on earth, because we need to
names for things at the end of the day.

In any case don't use the article author's definition:

> Democracy is a system of majority rule in which each citizen has one vote
> either in deciding the policies of the government or in electing the rulers,
> who will in turn decide policy.

According to his definition the majority is allowed to just decide _policy_. I
don't think he realizes there's actually no contradiction if you define it
like that, because ending democracy would be a matter of _polity_ and probably
_politics_ in general, but not really a matter of just _policy_.

Edit: Fair warning, I edited quite a bit above roughly 10 minutes after
posting.

~~~
UncleEntity
> The majority can't decide that gravity should cease to exist or the sun
> shouldn't shine within their borders. Some limitations on democracy are
> natural, others are imposed by those who established it. That doesn't mean
> it's not a democracy.

I don't think anyone is arguing that not being able to impose the voters' will
over the laws of nature is any indication of whether a system is democratic.
Nor should not being able to vote away natural rights (like the right not to
be murdered) have any bearing because they're basically the same thing. Red
herring, really.

If someone who is long gone (and no longer has voting rights) imposed
limitations on a democratic system then how is it even a democracy? More like
a dictatorship ruled over by dead people with the illusion that people have
"self rule".

~~~
chmod775
> If someone who is long gone (and no longer has voting rights) imposed
> limitations on a democratic system then how is it even a democracy?

You are always asking for "how" X can still be a democracy, which is a weird
question I don't even know how to answer, since I really don't even know what
you understand under a democracy.

What do you mean _how_? Can you throw me a rope and explain this to me then:

> Nor should not being able to vote away natural rights (like the right not to
> be murdered) have any bearing

If I can't vote to legalize murder, _how_ is it still a democracy?

------
foobar_
[https://github.com/g0v/vue.vtaiwan.tw](https://github.com/g0v/vue.vtaiwan.tw)

English translation anyone?

------
heisenbit
I found it quite interesting that they removed the reply button. Afaik HN also
has a limited reply button - there is no notification attached to it. This
discourages talk/debate like discussion (lack of personal reaction) and
encourages more a discourse style interaction around the facts.

~~~
johnday
The opportunity to reply is only invoked after an increasing amount of time,
which I think is dependent on the depth of the conversation. In other words,
the further into a conversation you are, the more time you are forced to take
to think on the other person's response.

~~~
anoncake
Can you draft a reply before that times has passed? I wonder how that would
influence the conversation.

~~~
johnday
No, you cannot. I think the intention is to deprive you of the opportunity to
start writing at all. There are studies that show the longer you take thinking
before acting, the better your outcomes are.

~~~
anoncake
That's what I thought is the intention. But writing can be part of thinking so
if people don't write immediately and send when they can letting them draft
might improve outcomes.

------
tus88
While a nice idea, the problem is convincing people that compromise is a
better alternative to winning.

------
known
Unlike social media, traditional media "generates" opinion
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Decline_of_the_West#Democr...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Decline_of_the_West#Democracy,_media,_and_money)

------
th-th-throwaway
Gamified Nuance. What a brilliant idea.

I don't know if this particular design will work but I expect to see a lot
more attempts now that the idea has entered the public consciousness.

Current social networks are gamified for virality which implicitly rewards the
lack of nuance. So statements that are as short, simple, and wrong as possible
will spread faster within the supporters while encouraging flaming from the
opposition. This is such an inherent property of every social network in
existence that I didn't even realize fixing it was an option.

------
K0SM0S
I am very much convinced —have been for about a decade— that this is the
general way to go. To fundamentally give democracy to people in a much more
direct fashion, a peer-to-peer design true to what democracy actually is.
Starting with the local / small issues (if resistance is met at the top,
unlike the Taiwainese example it seems).

------
emsign
It's funny I just thought about this yesterday. "What if my smartphone loses
network connectivity. How many apps on it will stop working? 95%? I miss the
old days when storing and processing my personal data was done 100% on my own
devices. Sharing that data with others wasn't really a problem and people had
websites as always accessible billboards where they presented themselves as
well." Sure the social media "network" aspect wasn't there, but it wouldn't be
impossible to achieve that today while the bulk of the data resides on
people's own devices.

Ever since the shift of storing the user's data not on their devices but in
the cloud and ever since rendering ad blockers useless by tailoring not just
the ads but the actual content towards the user's behavior and biases, the
internet has gone down the drain. And more and more people are fed up with it.

Societies can be "hacked" via social media, that technology is out there and
it is being used not only by superpowers like the US or Russia, but also by
political actors in smaller countries like Myanmar or Ethiopia. People die.
Mobs incited by fake news campaigns on Facebook kill people. Elections get
hacked, not by manipulating voting machines but by manipulating people's minds
using the same technology advertisers use. That's some scary stuff. Social
Media manipulation is the nuclear bomb of the early 21st century, it's that
hot new weapon every sleazy political actor wants to get their hands on. And
so we are in a new Cold War, actually it's many cold wars. Unlike the one in
the 50s-80s these new ones are invisible and don't feel as scary, which makes
them... more scary?! Weapons of mass propaganda... we have to take action to
render them useless by abonding social networks and cloud services as we know
them today. But that can only happen with a better replacement that's harder
to manipulate and that has a higher incentive to be used by the masses.

Without an internet connection your smartphones and even your PC becomes
either almost completely or at least partially useless. That is not scary
because we have to fear network issues or censorship but it's scary because it
means so much of the information acquisitioning and processing is out of our
control. Modern devices are perfectly capable of handling all the user's data
and then some, they have the storage capacity and they have the processing
power, the only reason the cloud still exists for end user's is because
analyzing everyone's data makes them money.

And you can't even blame developers and companies jumping on this bandwaggon.
Everyone else does it, the tools are out there, ready to be used, and that
sweet ad money pays the bills or the investor's demand it because they think
that sweet ad money will reimburse their investment.

But is it ethical? Hell no!

It seems like nobody is thinking about putting that processing power and that
storage capacity that people own in their pockets to use. I welcome the
initiatives that do exist, but I feel like that only something massive,
something disruptive can change that.

