Just launching - CIVIL will hopefully bring quality journalism back. A new model which will move away from corporate, Ad driven click journalism https://joincivil.com/about/
@doryandgeoff its not quite that simple, the is a backlash against blockchain coins at the moment. CIVIL is based on this technology.
@jim @doryandgeoff one of the problems is that the people who start the coin end up with a huge pile's of them so then they have the motivation to push the coin out to increase/keep the value of this private pile of coins. That's one of the resions why we have so many of different "coins" being pushed hard the last few years.
Low energy paths are not tested so hot air for now to keep the whole thing expanding #bubble
@strypey @jim @doryandgeoff all interesting but "it is still rather unclear what the point of choosing blockchain over conventional databases might be." is a question that need to be asked for these projects. If the answer is just #fashernista #encryptionist then they are taking up space that needs to be filled by #KISS #openweb projects.
More important (and difficult to ascertain at a glance) is what the values and social (market) model is in each case.
Coin-based systems are presumably a way for individuals to vote / micro-pay for certain activities. That's OK but presumably needs some care and will have some limitations. For instance, the likely market outcomes and social needs have to be closely aligned.
@strypey @Hamishcampbell @doryandgeoff … at which point I start getting quite worried. Even if tech can solve some of the issues around online voting, there are significant social problems with online voting. It seems impossible right now to ensure that a vote cast on a computer is actually done in secret.
The other social issue is trust in the verification. This is very hard to achieve when non-technical people who are inclined to distrust the election process are asked to believe what engineers claim.
Remember #pencilgate in the UK? Or think about the claims of fraud around many recent elections.
@strypey @Hamishcampbell @doryandgeoff On the social confusion issue, think how this Russian “hack” of US voting systems was intended to play out: http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/highland-park/news/ct-hpn-election-integrity-forum-tl-1102-20171031-story.html
@strypey I don't see how you arrive at that conclusion. Surely it depends on the nature of the vote? If the referendum is for a community centre to be built, or a massive bridge, then certain actors have definite reasons to manipulate the outcome.
@strypey The USA right now is debating making paper trails a requirement for all electronic elections, on the grounds of security,
If they succeed, then online voting will be hard in the US context. Yet the USA does a lot of the referenda you talk about. Which was the driver for voting booth machines in the first place.
So various things may be possible, but in summary online voting seems especially hard to do safely.
@strypey I would tackle that at the other end: finding ways to create participatory democracy from the ground up. Including through local government.
Open code does not eliminate the whole set of verification issues, at each level.
Yes some elections are more worth hacking than others. But any vuln anywhere calls any election into doubt. CF Netherlands evoting machines being withdrawn for local elections.
@strypey On the local election fraud, see: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-32428648 for instance.
Postal ballots are also open to small scale intimidation, from family members etc.
Postal and online voting are not secret ballots. This is a problem.
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!