Re: The Party Question Cont'd (Was Marxism and War)

Hi Tony and Steven,

First--thanks to both of you for your encouraging words and suggestions regarding next steps.  That means a lot to me.

-- 1 --

I will work on a follow-up article (concise, and covering key principles) and post it here for feedback before submitting to potential outlets.  It is quite helpful for me to get feedback.  Some of what I write strikes a chord with a segment of readers, but other things I write are more difficult to understand.  There is no substitute for feedback from experienced activists.  I will make an effort to have something before the end of this month.  The challenge (for me) is to keep things concise: to say what needs to be said--and not too much more.

-- 2 --

The "information crisis" is steadily growing--resulting (for example) in the popularity of "Count Binface" in Britain (a political candidate who wears a garbage can on his head) who ridicules the institutions of the ruling class there.  Just a few minutes ago I ran into a YouTube video explaining that the British government is attempting to control the algorithms that recommend YouTube videos in order to direct viewers to "trustworthy news" (and away from Count Binface).  Eventually (over the long term) the popular demand for algorithms that are liberated from all forms of corporate or government control will be irresistible.

-- 3 --

Tony commented:

>  The main question is, who sets the standards
>  for judging reputation, and how can those standards
>  be challenged? If every user has their own system,
>  there's no shared judgment. If the platform sets
>  a common system, it's still using political power,
>  even if it calls that power democratic.

Tony's question is excellent.  This question may be the most important for me to answer--if I can do so in a way that is both concise and understandable.  I may have answered the question here: http://communism.org/node/4058/4058.pdf -- but I would like to write an answer that is shorter and easier to understand.

Standards will be set by users (individually or in self-organized groups).  All users will have the right to pass judgement on anything they like--by means of replying to a post with a post of their own that contains #tags.  For example: if John Smith makes a post that denies the ongoing genocide in Palestine--then Alice, Brian, Chris and David would have the ability to reply to John's post with a post of their own that contains the tag: #contains_genocide_denial.

Other users (such as you or me) could then instruct our algorithms (which are obedient to us) to filter out posts which have been labeled as containing genocide denial.

Some people, of course, will post misleading tags.  One possible solution to this would be for you to instruct your algorithm to only count tags from people on your "trust list" (ie: activists whose judgement you trust).  There are many ways to do things like this.  The key point is that, once such a platform reaches maturity--there will be no "higher authority" that stands between John Smith and yourself--other than the algorithm (which is obedient only to you).

So there will certainly be shared judgement.  But the political power involved is in *your* hands.

-- 4 --

>  How can these standards be challenged?

There would be many ways to challenge wrong decisions.  It would feel awkward for me to attempt to invent or list them all.  One way or another--a platform would enable collective action by communities--and ultimately you will need to make your case to other people.

For example, if Jane puts you on her list of jerks to filter out, and a lot of potential readers subscribe to Jane's filter--then you may need to change your ways if you want your voice to be heard.  You may need to contact Jane and ask her to remove you from her list.  Jane may reply that you must first make a public apology, etc.

So there will be a multitude of "common systems" competing for popularity in an evolving ecosystem.  There will be a lot of discussion, debates, mistakes and corrections.  And people will learn and change their behavior.  The "intelligence" that gives you a stream of useful info with a high signal-to-noise ratio will not be in the algorithm--it will be in the consciousness of the activists on your trust list.  Hence--your algorithm is not a substitute for consciousness--but a way to extract and harness the consciousness of others.

And your trust list will evolve and you gain experience.  For example, if Jane does a poor job at maintaining her filter--you may unsub from her list and subscribe to someone else's.

The platform will be a tool to lubricate and accelerate the interaction, competition and cooperation of political trends.

-- 5 --

Also: The groups.io software truncates email addresses in order to defeat automated bots that collect email addresses as spam targets.  You can reach me directly at: Box401(at)WeaponOfTransparency.com (just substitute "@" for "(at)" )

All the best,
Ben


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#42484): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/42484
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/120158195/6024700
-=-=-
POSTING RULES & NOTES
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
#4 Do not exceed five posts a day.
-=-=-
Group Owner: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/10173629/6024700/1441833971/xyzzy [[email protected]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-