Re: [Ag Meinungsfindungstool] Tailored Intervention in case of Violation of Human Dignity and Human Rights

[Thomas <entropy AT heterarchy.net>]

On 23.08.14 22:21, Scott Raney wrote:
>> You wrote: "But what this *looks* like to me is a system by which a small
>> number
>> of individuals (the "jury") can sanction or possibly even silence an
>> individual that is being disruptive."
>>
>> Perhaps, you have a little insight into measurement techniques or
>> psychometric properties of questionaires, assessment batteries or processes
>> of judgement?
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_test_theory
> Sure, my PhD is in Cognitive (Experimental) Psychology (CU Boulder
> '97).  But, again, the problem is your *method*: You propose some sort
> of "objective" standard to distinguish disruptive behavior from normal
> dissent.  I say that is a recipe for abuse by authoritarians who will
> be the ones making up the standards and serving as the jury (again,
> because that's just what they're into).  The only fair and safe way to
> do this kind of thing is to distribute the decisionmaking so that the
> minority of the population that is authoritarian (my rule of thumb is
> 25%) will not be able to have an undo influence on the operation of
> the system.  Your proposal is for exactly the opposite and so is a
> design for a tool to suppress dissent rather than promote democracy.

I think it would be inappropriate to assume an "objective true score"
for certain behavior or statements in such highly subjective contexts as
politics. The ratings depend too much on individual values, priorities,
knowledge and sympathies.
Furthermore there would be no need have a collective decision on
disruptive behavior if every participant can fine tune her filters
individually (online).

I recommend to consider modern collaborative filtering approaches
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaborative_filtering
for such ratings.
Every participant would rate sets of both self-selected and
randomly-assigned items (statements etc) based on which the system could
* predict how other items would be rated by the individual based on
similar (in terms of rating behavior) participants
* find more "objectively" good or bad items which are rated similarly
even by very dissimilar participants ...

There would be no binary global sanction mechanism but every participant
could set a threshold for item display based on his predicted ratings.
No jury would need to be explicitly elected and trusted.
This way trolls would quickly be ignored (i.e. have nearly no influence)
by other participants but would still have a chance to
improve their reputation by changing their behavior.

IMHO it doesn't make sense to use the term "democratic" in this context.
In democracy every voter has (ideally) the same influence on the decision.
But in individual decision making the influence of other people on you
varies considerably.

> authoritarianism, I highly recommend Bob Altemeyer's book on the
> subject:
> http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

+1

best regards,

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature