If these don’t meet road safety requirements then it won’t get better

and that’s all that will fit in one comment but you get the idea, it’s not an idea I have an ability to follow through on

Lots of people with similar ideas so there is probably demand. When I was thinking of ways to bring people together I had considered a platform so to speak that lets you join different communities, and over time or once verified you gain voting weight. Like lemmy or other website have communities and you can join or watch without playing and they can hose meetups, except the system I had in mind doesn’t have the same style of ‘voting’ on things that sites your used to are. There are chains of trust to build voting weight or reputation.

I’ll post my rambling thoughts here:

The idea here is for a ‘consensus engine’ which results in many applications and a universal voting method. As the current repository of these posts is about to be deleted I am copying them here, separated by three dots such as … June 7th 2023 From small clubs to nations to solar systems, we can bring people together through similarities of feeling and thought. Share ideas and information how modern social media does, bounded by whatever group you chose, which can be rebuffed if needed. If you managed to read the sticky post on the universal voting system then it will help to see how this Consensus Engine can be used.

I think it could supplement a future social media if need be in the sense that you can connect with your friends, or anyone you know or don’t and place whoever in whatever groups you chose and then interact with just that group. From sharing 3D home videos to posts about their feelings it allows open communication. However the communication goes both ways. When anything is posted then every aspect of it can be judged by others. From how truthful it is, to how it stays on topic or does not, to how poetic it sounds, as well as how it might appear like a paid ad, and so on. Individual sections of posts can be judged separately.

part of the goal of this is to use it for scientific research and to establish a chain of trust. This is done by having experiments that are reproducible and thus increasing the weight of that users locally, in the related groups to that subject, a weight that diminishes over time but can increase as reproductions and positive judgements on their works are had. The goal is to allow experiments to documents every step of the process and to do so openly so that humans as a whole can learn. Also to allow others to chime in and offer their ideas.

The system could store parts of the comment or post, then the weights of those posts could be changed by others. When the OP goes offline their system saves a chunk of data regarding the last status of the thing, and when they come back they ask the network what that status was so the weight of their comment and themselves in that group can be updated. This is done by saving some data of other users when they save their own data, when they come back online they are now the network which can update the other data to the latest of their download. The bleeding edge of consensus will be fuzzy, but overtime it can emerge and even change when new data comes in.     It can allow for people to find things in common like ‘I’d like to have all my needs met,’ to ‘I don’t like it when people steal from me.’ and working up one common thing at a time we can find where some people are okay with pulling a gun on a 6 year old looking for a lost kitten and how some people can justify giving money to know grifters. We want to make the truth provable and connect it clearly to actions and ideas. If some people who are religious or very us right wing ‘wake up’ and see what they have done, maybe they can change and help everyone.

Another thing it can do it to lay out future plans and past history for tv show writers, town charters, and whole civilizations. People can decide they want to stop the growth of their city or increase housing density like normal voting, but they can plan for things father out like working together as one world to build colonies on Mars or something. They can do that by outlining all the steps needs to do something, each step broken down by other steps, and each step facing a many potential 0poor outcomes and the steps needed to provide against them.

Elections on things from single and specific issues to worldwide issues can be voted on by anyone, and those that have the most positive involvement based on what has consensus as fact have high weight to their own votes than others who, when asked questions about the subject they are voting on, disagree with the consensus.

When a comment is made others can vote on it, to vote on something you must vote on a second thing as well. You have the option of going deeper than the question you are asked. Things like, do you agree with this, are these two things similar/the same. All sorts of classifying questions and web of relation questions are asked. when someone answers they are asked if they think their answer is similar to another one posted, they can also contribute more like why it is, what parts are different, or anything, and then others can vote of how they feel about these answers. People are asked questions both within their subjectgroup collection as well as outside and they can adjust how the ratio to an extent.

By using the CE anyone can contribute to any subject, little heard of ideas can gain traction from locally recognized experts and false hoods can be more readily proven false by those with the most recognized experience. Repeat allegations of the same falsehoods can easily be debunked. Definitions of semantics, words and phrases can be decided upon so no one can try to change what a word means partway into a discussion.

I don’t know how to create this, I do think this might help in moving to a post-scarcity world if we could find a way to implement it. … Oct 24, 2022 the Consensus Engine - a universal ‘voting’ mechanism that can be used by anyone for everything. A protocol meant to bond people together.

A way to do things including:

• accelerate scientific progress
• reduce misinformation
• Plan & manage groups (company, city, society, book club, etc).
• share personal opinions
• post interesting things
• translate ancient text
• interpret art
• find specific variations (product development, preference discovery)
• document history
• clarifying definitions
• expose hypocrites
• A/B/etC alphabet testing between strategies

Through the system a user can rate things using a variety of ‘rating angles’ which are specific aspects. A user can judge a phrase as being things (or not being those things) such as:

*relevant to the discussion       *factually accurate       *interesting

using the system in small settings at first would enable it to show that it works which can help in adoption.       This would also allow each user to become verified in person.

If the system could be used for actual voting the the registration could be made by sending a code to the users registered voting address.

Users contribute their opinion or posts which can be judged by others.

Other users can judge: the entire comment, parts like specific phrases or sentences, even words or letters. By rating any comment or part of one with one or more of the multiple voting categories we can get an idea of why people like things.

As users use the system they are asked to vote on other people’s opinions and posts. Typically a person has to answer a consensus related question at least 1 out of 3 posts but they have the option to answer more questions.     They can get more in depth with specific topics but are every once in a while shown questions from outside their topic focus, in a sort of ‘more closely related- more often, less related topic - questions about these topic appear less often.’

As a user you can make posts or comment on topics. The users can determine the topic and subtopics if the post is open to all.

When you make a comment about a subject you are shown a similar comment, The system might say your post and the shown post are the same intent. You can dispute this and highlight why your post is different. As always, other people will see the two posts and asked to judge or explain the similarities or differences.       We want this to be a way to find intricate but existing differences as well as find the motivation for each decision to see how the same motivations end up differently in other circumstances.

We can’t put the small pieces at the end back together but we can discover through analysis what the commonalities are and find what the building blocks are before they crumble into actions.

Topics that are deemed more important by the group can carry more weight to be given more visibility.

Viewing random or less connected topics can help expand the sphere of knowledge for users. They have the chance learn more about a subject they find interested but have not encountered before. As a user is exposed to more about a subject and gives more input or opinions then they have more chances to gain weight to their opinions in that subject.

A topic is defined as different from another similar topic by the users so that the thresholds of things can be found and if there is a difference in threshold values from one grouping of people or another we can better understand it

The web of connections can be used to view common traits and similar interests. If users who consent decide to they can use the platform to find people who like similar things, like matching people who have similar taste in music or weird movies to be friends or whatever the people are looking for.       This can help create friendships and alleviate loneliness if users want to find other users with similar tastes.

users can chose to give their info out or not, and by info I mean everything. Privacy should be paramount. Th

all these ‘generation’ labels are such hogwaash

We’d like to bring all those and their existing versions together with the A-Better-World Consensus-Engine idea.

Tell me more about some of these other projects though please.

I think this is relevant for anyone that has not read it,

A Cypherpunk’s Manifesto Eric Hughes March 9, 1993

Privacy is necessary for an open society in the electronic age. Privacy is not secrecy. A private matter is something one doesn’t want the whole world to know, but a secret matter is something one doesn’t want anybody to know. Privacy is the power to selectively reveal oneself to the world.

If two parties have some sort of dealings, then each has a memory of their interaction. Each party can speak about their own memory of this; how could anyone prevent it? One could pass laws against it, but the freedom of speech, even more than privacy, is fundamental to an open society; we seek not to restrict any speech at all. If many parties speak together in the same forum, each can speak to all the others and aggregate together knowledge about individuals and other parties. The power of electronic communications has enabled such group speech, and it will not go away merely because we might want it to.

Since we desire privacy, we must ensure that each party to a transaction have knowledge only of that which is directly necessary for that transaction. Since any information can be spoken of, we must ensure that we reveal as little as possible. In most cases personal identity is not salient. When I purchase a magazine at a store and hand cash to the clerk, there is no need to know who I am. When I ask my electronic mail provider to send and receive messages, my provider need not know to whom I am speaking or what I am saying or what others are saying to me; my provider only need know how to get the message there and how much I owe them in fees. When my identity is revealed by the underlying mechanism of the transaction, I have no privacy. I cannot here selectively reveal myself; I must always reveal myself.

Therefore, privacy in an open society requires anonymous transaction systems. Until now, cash has been the primary such system. An anonymous transaction system is not a secret transaction system. An anonymous system empowers individuals to reveal their identity when desired and only when desired; this is the essence of privacy.

Privacy in an open society also requires cryptography. If I say something, I want it heard only by those for whom I intend it. If the content of my speech is available to the world, I have no privacy. To encrypt is to indicate the desire for privacy, and to encrypt with weak cryptography is to indicate not too much desire for privacy. Furthermore, to reveal one’s identity with assurance when the default is anonymity requires the cryptographic signature.

We cannot expect governments, corporations, or other large, faceless organizations to grant us privacy out of their beneficence. It is to their advantage to speak of us, and we should expect that they will speak. To try to prevent their speech is to fight against the realities of information. Information does not just want to be free, it longs to be free. Information expands to fill the available storage space. Information is Rumor’s younger, stronger cousin; Information is fleeter of foot, has more eyes, knows more, and understands less than Rumor.

We must defend our own privacy if we expect to have any. We must come together and create systems which allow anonymous transactions to take place. People have been defending their own privacy for centuries with whispers, darkness, envelopes, closed doors, secret handshakes, and couriers. The technologies of the past did not allow for strong privacy, but electronic technologies do.

We the Cypherpunks are dedicated to building anonymous systems. We are defending our privacy with cryptography, with anonymous mail forwarding systems, with digital signatures, and with electronic money.

Cypherpunks write code. We know that someone has to write software to defend privacy, and since we can’t get privacy unless we all do, we’re going to write it. We publish our code so that our fellow Cypherpunks may practice and play with it. Our code is free for all to use, worldwide. We don’t much care if you don’t approve of the software we write. We know that software can’t be destroyed and that a widely dispersed system can’t be shut down.

Cypherpunks deplore regulations on cryptography, for encryption is fundamentally a private act. The act of encryption, in fact, removes information from the public realm. Even laws against cryptography reach only so far as a nation’s border and the arm of its violence. Cryptography will ineluctably spread over the whole globe, and with it the anonymous transactions systems that it makes possible.

For privacy to be widespread it must be part of a social contract. People must come and together deploy these systems for the common good. Privacy only extends so far as the cooperation of one’s fellows in society. We the Cypherpunks seek your questions and your concerns and hope we may engage you so that we do not deceive ourselves. We will not, however, be moved out of our course because some may disagree with our goals.

The Cypherpunks are actively engaged in making the networks safer for privacy. Let us proceed together apace.

Onward.

Eric Hughes