People would be hesitant to break from the hive mind
that's their fault. We need to overcome fear. I'd rather people be aware of the mass consensus and consciously resist it, then to obfuscate the mass consensus and allow it to be secretly manipulated.
and it would reward those who stick to the popular consensus.
It would allow us to know what the "popular" consensus is
popular: meaning of the people.
Can we really be sure a consensus is of the people if it's anonymous?
Public voting quite simply immediately makes it transparent who is lying by saying one thing and voting another way, in addition to making it extremely obvious to aggregate the usernames who vote nearly identically all the time and ask them why their voting habits don't match what they post.
And that is the only reason someone would have to dislike voting transparency. They don't want others to see they are saying one thing and doing another. Transparency is only scary to those who abuse the voting systerm in the first place.
Are you saying you would hold it against me if I upvoted you for making a good argument that I also attempted to negate?
I wouldn't hold it against you at all. If you downvote me and you're someone who I think can either teach me something or who I can bring up to speed, I'd try to change your mind to an upvote.
If you're someone who downvotes based on a set of observable subversive behavior, then I don't give a shit how you vote but I want to see who else you're downvoting so I can figure out why.
view the rest of the comments →
NOMOCHOMO ago
that's their fault. We need to overcome fear. I'd rather people be aware of the mass consensus and consciously resist it, then to obfuscate the mass consensus and allow it to be secretly manipulated.
It would allow us to know what the "popular" consensus is
popular: meaning of the people.
Can we really be sure a consensus is of the people if it's anonymous?
virge ago
Public voting quite simply immediately makes it transparent who is lying by saying one thing and voting another way, in addition to making it extremely obvious to aggregate the usernames who vote nearly identically all the time and ask them why their voting habits don't match what they post.
And that is the only reason someone would have to dislike voting transparency. They don't want others to see they are saying one thing and doing another. Transparency is only scary to those who abuse the voting systerm in the first place.
fuchs_davis ago
Are you saying you would hold it against me if I upvoted you for making a good argument that I also attempted to negate?
virge ago
I wouldn't hold it against you at all. If you downvote me and you're someone who I think can either teach me something or who I can bring up to speed, I'd try to change your mind to an upvote.
If you're someone who downvotes based on a set of observable subversive behavior, then I don't give a shit how you vote but I want to see who else you're downvoting so I can figure out why.
Just to illustrate a low-hanging fruit example.