The Consumerium Exchange: Difference between revisions
(Are you now or have you ever been an employee or owner of an company of any country doing subversive measures to The Consumerium Exchange???!) |
m (reorganizing) |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
*A direct vote. This is perhaps a little unfair since people who don't have access to computer systems are likely unable to use their direct vote. Burden of proof on authentication is yet to be solved. A partial solution could be to divide the direct votes into three distinct groups and let the consumers decide on the amount of trust they place on each group of voters: | *A direct vote. This is perhaps a little unfair since people who don't have access to computer systems are likely unable to use their direct vote. Burden of proof on authentication is yet to be solved. A partial solution could be to divide the direct votes into three distinct groups and let the consumers decide on the amount of trust they place on each group of voters: | ||
#Voters authenticated with cryptographic methods, where the identity of the keyholder is known by an commercial or non-commercial certification authority. | #Voters authenticated with cryptographic methods, where the identity of the keyholder is known by an commercial or non-commercial certification authority. | ||
#Voters authenticated by an email address issued by an institutional issuer such as an university, school, company or a governmental organisation ie. where it is publicly known that the postmaster checks the identities of people before issuing an email address | #Voters authenticated by an email address issued by an institutional issuer such as an university, school, company or a governmental organisation ie. where it is publicly known that the postmaster checks the identities of people before issuing an email address | ||
#The rest ie. anonymous email services | #The rest ie. anonymous email services | ||
Whether the votes are anonymized or visible or whether decision on this is left up to the voter on each issue is yet unclear | |||
Where issue is a disputed article or a campaign on a [[company]], [[product group]] or [[product]] | |||
Whether the direct votes are anonymized or visible or whether decision on this is left up to the voter on each issue is yet unclear. | |||
Counter measures against multivoting and vote buying should be meticulously evaluated. | Counter measures against multivoting and vote buying should be meticulously evaluated. | ||
It is also unclear how to prevent abusive companies from acquiring multiple direct votes by creating many identities, or from creating their own nonprofit entities to do nothing but say the right things, and vote against their competitors, regardless of anyone's behaviour. | |||
:Isn't that just the thing they are doing right now? | |||
Revision as of 17:29, 1 October 2003
The Consumerium Exchange is where people can voice their opinion on which disputed article or campaign is closest to the truth at a certain period of time.
The purpose of The Consumerium Exchange is to provide an popularity measurement for different opinions, which determines the default opinion shown to the consumer on each issue.
The consumer can override the view of a given company, interest group or industry with her/his own preferences automatically or manually. One important preference is the slider to set how much weight direct and indirect votes get. Enabling automatic exclusion of votes based on preferences should also be possible.
Every person gets two votes on each issue:
- An indirect vote. This vote cannot be used directly, but can be assigned to an registered not-for-profit organsation, including potentially a political party, that uses the voting power as decided by the governance of the organisation, thus rendering the identity of the vote holder anonymous. For verification purposes it might be a reasonable requirement that you must be a member of, or a donor to, the organisation that you give your voting power to. You may give your vote to only one organisation at a time. You may transfer it to an another organisation or just revoke it. The Burden of proof on the right to use a vote is mostly on the organisation in question.
- A direct vote. This is perhaps a little unfair since people who don't have access to computer systems are likely unable to use their direct vote. Burden of proof on authentication is yet to be solved. A partial solution could be to divide the direct votes into three distinct groups and let the consumers decide on the amount of trust they place on each group of voters:
- Voters authenticated with cryptographic methods, where the identity of the keyholder is known by an commercial or non-commercial certification authority.
- Voters authenticated by an email address issued by an institutional issuer such as an university, school, company or a governmental organisation ie. where it is publicly known that the postmaster checks the identities of people before issuing an email address
- The rest ie. anonymous email services
Where issue is a disputed article or a campaign on a company, product group or product
Whether the direct votes are anonymized or visible or whether decision on this is left up to the voter on each issue is yet unclear.
Counter measures against multivoting and vote buying should be meticulously evaluated.
It is also unclear how to prevent abusive companies from acquiring multiple direct votes by creating many identities, or from creating their own nonprofit entities to do nothing but say the right things, and vote against their competitors, regardless of anyone's behaviour.
- Isn't that just the thing they are doing right now?