i'm for:

- private individuals and organizations deciding how to moderate their sites.

- letting the marketplace decide

i'm not for:

- removal of section 230

- some kind of federal "purity test" regulation on what "fair" looks like (imagine anyone named trump with that legal tool)

- insisting that all points of view need to be heard

... yeah sure, let me take time out of my day to hear what the fucking neonazi has to say, just for the sake of fairness.

@elliptic I like the idea of moderation transparency, so sites don't have to be biased/unbiased in any particular way, but outsiders *can* see what they are doing

@sjb it would be nice.

people are focusing on the discourse perhaps too much. what i mean is, how people directly engage with govt shapes the discourse more than social media.

let's say primary ballots were done differently. take all party affiliation labels off the candidates, no mention of party affiliation anywhere, just names. give the voter the ability to rank the names they want, 1,2,3 in order of preference or not at all.

99% sure trump would not have won that type of ballot.


sidenote: i am passionately opposed to political parties, that's my bias, i think political parties are fucking cancer, and i'd like to see a more direct democracy model and a focus on the issues, and cut the bureaucracy out.

the tools people have to engage on the issues are much better today than they've ever been in history. we shouldn't need to put our hopes in other people who cast votes on our behalf.

@elliptic Yes, mainly agree. I want 3-5 choices, not two; preferential ballots and proportional representation to avoid districting effects. Also apparently the Swiss have a system where the various functions of government are voted on separately in turn, so each election focusses on a particular topic more.

@sjb yep. and just think, no more shitty omnibus bills packed with random stuff to get rep's vote.

no, i do not want to fund west virginia's annual "hee haw" festival or whatever to get passage on a bill for relief related to pandemic effects.

it's a nice dream, anyway.

@elliptic US has a laundry list of other problems though, including lobbying (i.e. corruption), and not learning from solutions successfully used in other countries.

I'm hoping last week's stupidity will help more politicians realise their friends are the moderates across the aisle and not the extremists in their own party. Apart from anything else, extremists aren't usually swing voters

@sjb yep. but that's what i'm saying, you eliminate party politics from the ballots entirely, give voters the ability to vote on national issues directly as they might with state and local propositions, and that money (if it exists) will have to go to the people directly, not officials who get elected to cast votes on behalf of people. it changes the game entirely, including the legislative process from the start.

pros and cons but after last week, it seems more palatable.

@elliptic I don't know of a country that doesn't have a "house" of a few hundred representatives, though.

Another thing I suspect is that politican salaries are too *low*, which leads to weak candidates with an incentive to take bribes. I believe Singapore tried much higher salaries and is reportedly run quite efficiently.

@sjb that's a strategy if you wanted to attract a skilled, younger workforce which probably would be good. i think the main upside to reps and senators is that they get pensions/etc plus the bounce it gives them in the private sector for cushy consulting roles, speaking fees, publishing opportunities, so on.

base pay is probably more relevant for a city-state like singapore than it is for a big country like usa.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!