MakoYass's Shortform

mako yass

This is a special post for quick takes by mako yass. Only they can create top-level comments. Comments here also appear on the Quick Takes page and All Posts page.

Argument for a clear need for money in online discourse ecosystems: The people who have the most to say about a thing are rarely the people who would want to see and engage with that thing. EG, the people who write introductory textbooks aren't the people who use and learn from them. The people who can totally refute a post are the people who think the post is bad and resent having to read it, and would only do so if they knew that by writing a refutation they would be rewarded in some way.

And yeah I think the reason there is so much By Us For Us media today is that the economics of media are fucked up enough that it can only produce or market trivial cult artefacts.

Systems that would help:

A subscription model with fees being distributed to artists depending on post-watch user evaluations, allowing outsized rewards for media that's initially hard for the consumer to appreciate the value of, but turns out to have immense value after they've fully understood it. (media economics by default are terminally punishing to works like that)
Prediction markets in forums and systems that support them, naturally giving rise to/being refutation bounties.

2Viliam1y

A wonderful vision of a world where you don't need a job because you can make money by full-time arguing with people online! However, any objections to various karma systems (e.g. you can get upvotes by posting clickbait) would apply the same here, only more strongly, because there would be a financial incentive now. I think Reddit tried something like that; you could award people "Reddit gold", not sure how it worked. [...] You need to have a way to evaluate the outcome. For example, you couldn't use a prediction market to ask whether people have a free will, or what is the meaning of life. Probably not even whether Trump won the 2020 election, unless you specify how exactly the answer will be determined -- because simply asking people won't work. [...] The details matter, because they determine how people will try to game this. I could imagine a system where you e.g. upvote the articles you liked, and then one year later it shows you the articles you liked, and you can now specify whether you like them on reflection. An, uhm, maybe 10% of your subscription is distributed to the articles you liked immediately, and 90% to those you liked on reflection? -- I just made this up, not sure what is the weakness, other than the authors having to wait for 1 year until the rewards for meaningful content start coming.

I think Reddit tried something like that; you could award people "Reddit gold", not sure how it worked.

It didn't do anything systemically, just made the comment look different.

You need to have a way to evaluate the outcome

What I plan on doing is evaluating comments partly based on expected eventual findings of deeper discussion of those comments. You can't resolve a prediction market about whether free will is real, you can make a prediction market about what kind of consensus or common ground might be reached if you had Keith Frankish and Michael Edward J... (read more)

MakoYass's Shortform

5

MakoYass's Shortform

5