>>11994>I want a platform for society-wide political decision making that uses video conferencing as it's core for multi-person interaction.
You want to replace physical spaces with digital spaces. Ok that's reasonable it would lower the organization overhead. But to be honest we do need better computer security, at minimum all the technical components have to be open for inspection, and every part has to be publicly vetted so that we can rule out political manipulation via technical subversion.
>I'm thinking of unique hardware identity tokens.
Sure that sounds good if that means that you check for meat-space existence of a person when handing out the tokens.
>Voting in the Assembly should be open.>Integrity of the system could be ensured by the decentralized architecture with billions of nodes.
No that's not enough, if you want to funnel important political decision-making that could affect war and peace through this thing, you need to secure every layer of the technology, including the hardware and software stack. It's even reasonable to think about the construction of a dedicated microchip fab that ensures that interfaces devices don't have back-doors.
>How is it not a democracy when majority votes to mute or kick some person?
No there is no democratic which-hunt where we vote on whom to burn at the stake either.
Seriously what is wrong with you ?
Why are you trying to build-in a political mechanism to disenfranchise people, if you want democracy ?
I'm wondering if you are a bad faith actor, this is too obvious.
>ability to "wrangle" individuals by majority voting is empowering the collective decision-making.
No this is not about managing people, this is about society using democratic decision making about what to do with the surplus of society.
>The conference should be a public space and synchronized across all nodes. There is no place for personal preferences here.
That's not acceptable, i need the ability to tune out politicking by psychological torture for example: the Cultural-conflict brigades that want to argue for race-wars, radlib-terror, austerity and so on. I don't want these people expelled or silenced, because i don't want a ministry of political disenfranchisement, i just don't want to have to listen to their bullshit. Could you imagine what happened if the liberals or conservatives were to gain access to that, 90% of the population would get expelled from participating in politics.
Your insistence on tools for exclusion, gives me the impression that you don't want mass-politics by the demos, and you want politics by a privileged minority, which is the same thing we already have, except it's not digital.
My tune-out function is way better, the entire political stage will become more bearable if people can tune out overly hostile shit, because the incentive structure would shift away from the current configuration that rewards maximal antagonism.