When it’s harder to influence someone, it’s harder to scam them.

Increasing the cost of influence means making participants informationally aware and unique.

Plurality pushes information out.

The point is to prevent human farms, not enable them. Check out enforcement section

How do you reconcile this post with Brian funding SuperPacs that willfully mischaracterized the position of political candidates who (checks notes) did not even have a position on crypto?

This was a disinformation campaign and mafia tactic (pigs head on a stick) to terrify candidates.

There is a corollary mistake people make in thinking about privacy as all or nothing. All privacy means no coordination. We want partial privacy, with less privacy the more power you have.

Community posts!

The plural/quadratic research agenda (of which I'm familiar through collaboration with @pujaohlhaver.bsky.social) has some resonance with this challenge imho: youtu.be/guLDNMAOn24

Agree on a theory of power. And more fundamentally a failure to think about what makes power (information and control).

You think so?

He’s crossed the line so many times, and people seem to forget.

Interesting, you can also nudge adversarial collaboration with polarity subsets—from my piece on common knowledge. It’s a different way to think about alignment assemblies.

Btw, would add campaign finance reform to list of must-needed changes.

Cc: @himself.bsky.social @wlknsn.xyz @jay.bsky.team