Essays from the Second IWORD

The Ash Center has posted a series of twelve essays stemming from the Second Interdisciplinary Workshop on Reimagining Democracy (IWORD 2023).

Aviv Ovadya, Democracy as Approximation: A Primer for “AI for Democracy” Innovators
Kathryn Peters, Permission and Participation
Claudia Chwalisz, Moving Beyond the Paradigm of “Democracy”: 12 Questions
Riley Wong, Privacy-Preserving Data Governance
Christine Tran, Recommendations for Implementing Jail Voting: Identifying Common Themes
Niclas Boehmer, The Double-Edged Sword of Algorithmic Governance: Transparency at Stake
Manon Revel, Can We Talk? An Argument for More Dialogues in Academia
Aditi Juneja, Ensuring We Have A Democracy in 2076
Nick Couldry, Resonance, Not Scalability
Jon Evans, Experimentocracy
Nathan Schneider, Democracy On, Not Just Around, the Internet
Eugene Fischer, The Enrichment and Decay of Ionia

We are starting to think about IWORD 2024 this December.

Posted on March 8, 2024 at 1:38 PM • 18 Comments

Comments

echo • March 8, 2024 2:27 PM

I sampled four items: “Democracy as approximation”, “Moving Beyond the Paradigm of Democracy”, and “Can We Talk?”, and “Experimentocracy”. I can’t endorse any one of them. All of them have too many problems. I didn’t look at the rest.

Zeroing on to “Can We Talk?” it simply doesn’t pass safeguarding or ethics considerations. It’s an argument for tenured egos to throw their weight around with license. It’s just neo-liberal “free speech” wriggling its way into institutions under the shield of “academic freedom” to hide the “War on woke” and the “Deep state”. In other words codified and indemnified institutional capture. It’s worse than this which a number of women can attest to. Too many UK universities have too many problems and are refusing to engage with the underlying causes both academically and professionally. Just because a woman wrote the essay doesn’t mean I’m going to accept it because “thumbs on the scale” have become adept at co-opting as a shield to disguise the agenda. That makes me start asking questions about the management and funding sources and what we are not being told.

The rest look equally dodgy and are not many steps removed from why I say NIST is useless.

Harvard has been suffering from some dark money thumbs on the scale recently one of which corrupted their law department.

I would tread very carefully with this lot and make sure the safety rope is secured firmly.

Clive Robinson • March 8, 2024 11:51 PM

The Joe Evans, “Experimentocracy” paper is worth a quick read.

The first few paragraphs will explain to a lot of people the scattergun nature of tech “startups” and similar and some reasons why they fail.

Take that with the observation in the final paragraph about why groups of people rather than individuals can forecast better and you can get the feeling that there may be more to geometric voting than at first it appears.

More on geometric voting can be found at,

https://geometric-voting.org.uk/

Would it correct Churchill’s maxim on democracy or not?

Well as Shakespeare noted “there’s the rub”.

Clive Robinson • March 9, 2024 8:25 PM

@ Bruce,

A question,

Is it “Jon Evans” or “Joe Evans”

The Ash page you link to says Jon at the top but in the citation field “Joe”…

If I’ve got it wrong my apologies.

echo • March 9, 2024 9:04 PM

@Clive

It is abundantly clear that you are carrying out an attack on me and trying to hide it with more of your “I say I am the expert bow down before me” nonsense.

My position is stated in the top post before you arrived in the topic. I disagree with you because we have different starting points. That’s it.

I can even post an article by a professor in related domains (see my first post in the current Friday topic before you arrived in the topic) and not a ripple off anyone. If you don’t want to listen to a qualified expert who is paid to do the job by a university there’s not much else I can say.

I explicitly named “Experimentocracy” in my top post as being a waste of space then when you commented later after I had posted that you though it was a good idea I went on to give a rough top level view of why I thought the “Experimentocracy” essay was a load of cack. It’s not easy as although simple on the surface it crosses multiple fields and can get quite complex so not a bad effort by someone who isn’t, like, an actual university professor in the subject. The author isn’t an expert. They’re a sci-fi author and could have done with reading Ursula Le Guinn’s essays. They’re available for free online. She actually wrote some relevant posts on the topic albeit more handwavy and poetic, and yes she’s coming at it from a more feminist theory point of view. I know because I went looking for them later to compare the two.

I’m posting a view or linking to a view by people with the required bells and whistles before you even arrive. Maybe just maybe I know things you don’t? You know things I don’t. We express ourselves differently and have lived different lives and have wildly diverging senses of humour and life priorities. Like, what’s the problem? You certainly pinch my material when it suits you. I know because I’ve caught you at it multiple times. The only biggest reason I reply to you is most people have not a lot to say about anything, tbh.

This comment is aimed at your first criticism before reading the other 90% wall of whatever. And people wonder why women might find working in legacy male dominated environment’s stressy. Now after posting this to have fun reading whatever it is you wrote up in the other 90% of your post.

Clive Robinson • March 9, 2024 11:41 PM

@ echo,

Another wall of what? from you.

Oh with regards,

“I can even post an article by a professor in related domains (see my first post in the current Friday topic before you arrived in the topic) and not a ripple off anyone.”

Actually I count at least three ripples reflected off of your wall of whatever. I stopped reading it when you started linking to

“Rupert ‘the bare faced lier’ Murdoch and his organs of disrepute.”

Even “The Daily Fail” on-line is more reputable… Oh and never had “The Murdoch paywalls” for those who once had more money than sense…

As for,

“You know things I don’t”

I think you might find you have made one of those statements often referred to as “stating the obvious”.

However you still don’t appear to learn sufficiently, which gets a “par for the course”.

Oh do you know what a “blue stocking” is?

From Britanica.com,

“Bluestocking, any of a group of women who in mid-18th-century England held “conversations” to which they invited men of letters and members of the aristocracy with literary interests. The word has come to be applied derisively to a woman who affects literary or learned interests.”

The ironic thing is “Bluestockings” were part of male attire at the time. It’s funny what little things a knowledge of industrial archaeological history can teach you.

qwerty • March 11, 2024 11:27 AM

Academics thinking they know what’s best for everyone and unilaterally trying to force change is an actual threat to democracy.

Clive Robinson • March 11, 2024 11:57 AM

Hmm, held for moderation… So time to split it.

Part 1,

@ echo,

Re : Rupert’s Organs.

“I can’t remember posting a Murdoch link but it says nothing about me. (Maybe you were seeing things?)”

Oh dear either you are extremely not connected to the modern world or you are hoping others will believe you just because comments have been deleted.

Clive Robinson • March 11, 2024 12:02 PM

Hmm, held for moderation… So time to split it.

Part 2,

@ ALL,

Rupert “the bare faced lier” Murdoch owns or has controlling and/or interests and editorial control in some fairly well known newspapers and broadcast organisations.

Including “the pinkun” and “pie in the sky”.

As some will have noticed @echo goes on about the BBC and “Tory / right wing” bias, which is exactly what Murdoch does but because he is “on the make”… By law Murdoch should not have editorial or financial control over both newspapers and broadcast organisations, but a certain “political party” in the UK turned not just a blind eye but actively put the thumb on the scale to let him get away with it…

Because the party leaders thought they would get short term gain and to hell with the rest of society and the near perpetual damnation it has cursed it to. Something “Scotty from Marketing” in Auz discovered failed to work even short term for him.

Clive Robinson • March 11, 2024 12:05 PM

Hmm, held for moderation… So time to split it.

Part 3,

The truth about Murdoch and his moronic brood is despite his efforts otherwise, slowly coming into the public view. For instance how he pretended senility in front of a parliamentary court and then had a miracle cure on crossing back into US Space for “investors” being a clear indicator of his behaviour as well.

But I guess having one of his organs taken for just under a billion dollars for deformation has opened up a few eyes. With apparently more now queuing up for a slice of his a$$

But we are supposed to believe apparently not for @echo’s self proclaimed expert eyes, or knowledge.

Winter • March 11, 2024 12:24 PM

@querty

Academics thinking they know what’s best for everyone and unilaterally trying to force change is an actual threat to democracy.

Academics have no power and every right to express their findings and opinions to the world.

However, there are politicians who object to academics using their freedom of speech, or anybody at all expressing thoughts and opinions they find uncomfortable. These politicians use the same words as you do.

So, maybe, you should target them with your strive for democracy, and not academics who simply do what you do, exercising their right to freedom of speech.

Clive Robinson • March 11, 2024 12:25 PM

Hmm, held for moderation… So time to split it.

Part 5a,

Those carrying out such behaviours, do them not for good reasons but for bad…

Clive Robinson • March 11, 2024 12:25 PM

Hmm, held for moderation… So time to split it.

Part 5b,

That is in their minds, in order to collect scalps to wave around as though they are “great heros of the movement” or some other nonsense of self aggrandisement that they can chant from on high to adulation of the masses…

In reality the others are just the foolishly led sheep to the slaughter, as we see all to frequently in with authoritarian followers inventing / believing fake stories etc. It often does not end at all well for the followers that were in reality not even “cannon fodder” just bodies to pile up to climb upon.

Invariably once these types have claimed a scalp and wave it around like a totem, others realise what they actually are and shun them. So they actually become even more embittered and anti-social against society and others oft in the movement they faux-profess they believe in but are actually with a little knowledge seen by their phoniness for what they actually are which is at best “amoral attention seekers”.

The “evidence is out there” or at least it was “till it got deleted”… Thereby not just leaving but, actively giving the enemy the ammunition with which they will not just attack you but have you publicly executed, whilst they crow.

Clive Robinson • March 11, 2024 12:34 PM

Hmm, held for moderation… So time to split it.

Part 5c,

Invariably once these types have claimed a scalp and wave it around like a totem, others realise what they actually are and thus shun them as an embarrassment or to avoid being tarred with the same brush.

So the amoral sociopath actually becomes even more embittered and anti-social against society, and others oft in the movement they faux-profess they believe in.

Usually they are actually with a little knowledge seen by their phoniness for what they actually are which is at best “amoral attention seekers”.

Clive Robinson • March 11, 2024 12:37 PM

Hmm, held for moderation… So time to split it.

Part 6,

Yes we give it the fancy name of “cancel culture” but make no mistake it’s a “blood sport, very red in tooth and claw” practiced by amoral individuals for their own “self entitled benefit” as can be seen in @echo’s own words above.

But what is the prize such people desire, that they want above all others?

Is it money or power?

Not really those are to the amoral just throw away tools, like most other people are.

Some desire control, but those that are less smart crave “adulation of the faithful”. And they will try to use their sociopathic and sadistic traits to get it.

Hold them up to the light so people can see them for what they really are –rather sad but vainglorious bullies without morals– is what they hate, often violently so (see @echo’s reference to violence above, it’s a mirrored desire so they can then act the victim).

So folks don’t say you’ve not been warned.

qwerty • March 11, 2024 6:19 PM

Winter championing freedom of speech? Is it April 1st already?

The ideas don’t make me uncomfortable, the geriatrics in power make me uncomfortable. They can’t be expected to understand any of this and as such will defer to someone in academia who will get to implement whatever they want. Judging by how hard Bruce has been pulling for a public AI option and rewriting his ideas surrounding regulating AI, I’m guessing he’s trying to be one of the “someone’s”

Winter • March 12, 2024 2:31 AM

@querty

Winter championing freedom of speech?

Please, show us where I did not championed free speech.

The ideas don’t make me uncomfortable, the geriatrics in power make me uncomfortable.

Who votes for all these Senior Citizens?

These voters are responsible for voting in ignoramuses. And these ignoramuses are like you, they actively and violently fight anyone who has real knowledge and experience in matters of engineering and health. They only listen to other ignoramuses with an opinion.

Mopani • March 13, 2024 3:33 PM

I have always found it curious when academics and politicians talk about “defending democracy” without defining what they mean by “democracy”. In most cases that I know of, there are almost zero actual democracies in the world (meaning, governance by direct vote of citizens). Most are representative republics. Is there another definition for “democracy” that I am not aware of, or is it just short-hand for “a government voted by the citizens”?

Discussions and debates using undefined terms have uncertain outcomes.

How that has bearing on the papers above representing “democracy” I have not yet had time to evaluate, but would welcome discussion.

Winter • March 13, 2024 5:10 PM

@Mopani

In most cases that I know of, there are almost zero actual democracies in the world (meaning, governance by direct vote of citizens).

That is because you make up your own definition to define away Democracies.[1]

Reduced to their essence, a Democracy is a political system where the citizens can send the government home when a majority wants them gone.

There is a functioning Democracy when governments are sent home regularly to be replaced by different people and parties. (But only when the parties are democratically governed by the same definition).

According to this principle, there are many Democracies in the world.

Most are representative republics.

That is not a thing. There are a Representative Democracy and a parliamentary Republic. A Representative Republic is a bastard phrase.

[1] This definition to define away Democracies is a feature of the extreme right and left in politics.

Essays from the Second IWORD

Comments

Leave a comment Cancel reply