Great talks so far at #Zcon0 about governance. One thing I think is missing - the venue for "signaling" opinions is a decision in and of itself.
If the signaling mechanism isn't predetermined before the voting issue arises, you can game the system - "this vote didn't count because x, y, z"
The choice of venue needs to happen before the vote even arises, and the outcome needs to be binding.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Kate Sills (Bluesky: @katelynsills.com)

Kate Sills (Bluesky: @katelynsills.com) Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @kate_sills

Aug 10, 2022
I've been thinking about this more.

When someone critiques an otherwise good thing because it "doesn't scale," what exactly are they saying? 🧵 1/
The foster care example is interesting, because:

1) Being a foster parent to even just one child is a worthwhile act
2) If you are concerned that there are other children who also need foster parents, you can encourage/persuade/help more people to become foster parents
So when someone says they don't want to do it because it "doesn't scale", what are they saying?

They can't be saying that foster care isn't a solution for all the kids who need temporary parents, because, obviously, it is if you have enough parents (see 1 and 2 above). 3/
Read 10 tweets
Jul 15, 2022
.@Aella_Girl makes a really interesting distinction here: aella.substack.com/p/learning-the…
I've noticed this difference too, but from the other side. It seems like what @Aella_Girl identifies as "good thinking" is what people would call executive dysfunction.

E.g. the brilliant Fields Medalist who could not/would not buy a blanket.

quantamagazine.org/june-huh-high-…
@Aella_Girl It's a spectrum though, and the extremes are probably both bad.

The actual high-powered executives are so "functional" that they can't stop and smell the roses because that's not "productive".

And the people who find everything equally interesting can't finish anything.
Read 7 tweets
Jan 26, 2022
There have been a number of good responses to this thread, but far too many responses were knee-jerk critiques of critique. I think there's an interesting point here. Let's dig in:
First thing, Chaum's DigiCash was heavily patented. There was a version called MagicMoney that got around the patents but only for experimental use. I have no idea what the current state of the patents is, but it's definitely something to look into if this is a serious suggestion
Second, DigiCash required that users rely on a single authority (I'm not going to use the words "central" or "decentralized", because I think people are very confused regarding those terms). The authority is the single source of truth of whether a "coin" has been spent.
Read 12 tweets
Nov 30, 2021
Are we too fond of governance? Do we confuse group decision-making with justice and fairness?

Here's why that's the wrong approach, and we should consider the entire spectrum of possible solutions instead:
I'll use two examples of great organizations that I actively participate in. As a participant, I have ZERO participation in group decision-making for these organizations. This is a really important distinction!
The first is an organization called Lasagna Love: home chefs bake lasagnas and give them to people in their local community for free. lasagnalove.org
Read 18 tweets
Sep 26, 2020
It's really disappointing to realize that hardly anyone can distinguish Trump from Amy Coney Barrett. The political machinery moves on, regardless, even though they could not be more different. By all accounts, Barrett is a brilliant person of character.
Take a look at this letter, written a few years ago, in which all of the Supreme Court clerks who worked with her when she was also a clerk, unanimously said she would be an excellent justice to a high court. law.nd.edu/assets/253073/…
Or this piece by Noah Feldman, who is a Harvard Law Professor:

bloomberg.com/opinion/articl…
Read 7 tweets
Aug 15, 2020
The state, money, and private property are all social technologies which have made life much better than before. Arguments against them (and I include my own here, especially against the state) should not only touch on the morality of them, but also consider the tech.
I was talking to someone about a utopian community in which people would earn community points for doing certain tasks. The question came up: who decides what tasks are worthy of doing? A committee? Is it voted upon?

This is what the social technology of money solves.
If someone consents to pay for something (caveats such as addiction and lack of alternatives aside) you know they find the task worthy of doing to that extent. It doesn't take a committee; it doesn't take some complicated political structure. It's incredible technology.
Read 8 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(