The Consumerium Exchange: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 01:16, 25 June 2004

this page is old - most of its issues are covered more generally in edits, votes and bets; a more general name for this type of scheme is answer recommendation

Purpose

The Consumerium Exchange is where people can voice their opinion on which disputed article or campaign is closest to the truth at or over a certain period of time. All such opinions can change, so there is a need for ex-change, to help them evolve. This must happen quickly so that those who improve their practices are quickly rewarded, and to make it difficult to exploit a good reputation to do hidden harm - which is a common problem.

Thus, the purpose of The Consumerium Exchange is to provide a weighting or combined measurement for different opinions, which determines the default opinion shown to the consumer on each issue.

Current Approach on Development

There is ongoing research work into fulfilling this need as a Wiki under the working title Opinion Wiki.

Voting

Every person gets two votes on each issue:

An Indirect Vote.
A Direct Vote.

Where issue is a disputed article or a campaign.

The dual voting (direct+indirect) system provides improved reliability and flexibility for The Consumerium Exchange at the same time. Due to the dual voting system the exchange is less susceptible to distortion. It is propably better left unknown how people value these different votes on each issue or in general because it provides the intrigue and safety of not-knowing

Counter measures against multivoting and vote buying should be meticulously evaluated. "The stock market" does this with bets - multiple votes and vote buying are easy, but expensive. A better solution may be out there, but if so, no one seems to have found it yet.

Evaluation of Results

Subjective Preferences

The consumers opinion may be of various types, each with their own rules. For instance, an opinion of the use of a resource (like mahogany trees or mangrove trees) or a commodity (like cocoa) is different than an opinion of the process by which a product or service comes to the market, e.g. via a sweatshop or prison labour. An opinion of a company or country will also have its own rules. Each of these can be stated in a Consumerium Contract by which users accept obligations to meet the specific terms of the social contract that they expect all suppliers (to them) to follow.

Each consumer can override the view of a given interest group 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.

Peer review

Registered members are able to set scores (with comments) on each other extended-FOAF style (Friend Of A Friend/Foe). For instance one may track only foes, using only negative scores. This would be by far the best way to proceed - since groupthink sets in when any group confuses social capital with instruction.

Such direct social network support would provide more strongly differentiated views on the issues if FOAF-aggregation is enabled in the preferences of the consumer.

Of course the consumer has to decide on a few organisations (minimum being one) s/he chooses to trust the most and the value of other participants is then relative to what organisations are saying about each other.

One could ask well why not full campaigns on other campaigners?

The anwser being no, not campaigns, because it would lead to all sorts of conceptual unclarities, problems with infinite recursion and besides if party A has an view on party B that view is a private matter of Party A, not party C

See also:

The Talk Page for Discussion on this facility which outlines the bet issue in some great depth.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-'''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.
+''this page is old - most of its issues are covered more generally in [[edits, votes and bets]];  a more general name for this type of scheme is [[answer recommendation]]''
-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.  This does not necessarily determine whether the "red light" or "green light" goes off.  In fact only those cases where a "yellow light" (caution) goes off, should really require anyone to read anything.
+==Purpose==
-The consumer can override the view of a given company, product 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.  This would require some tagging of opinions as per faction - probably by third parties here.
+'''The [[Consumerium]] Exchange''' is where people can voice their opinion on which [[disputed article]] or [[campaign]] is closest to the [[truth]] at or over a certain period of time.  All such opinions can change, so there is a need for ex-change, to help them evolve.  This must happen quickly so that those who improve their practices are quickly rewarded, and to make it difficult to exploit a good reputation to do hidden harm - which is a common problem.
-Consider a model with three kinds of commitments, or tokens, users can employ:
+Thus, the purpose of The Consumerium Exchange is to provide a weighting or combined measurement for different opinions, which determines the default opinion shown to the [[consumer]] on each issue.
+----
+==Current Approach on Development==
+There is ongoing research work into fulfilling this need as a Wiki under the working title '''[[Opinion Wiki]]'''.
+----
+==Voting==
+Every person gets two votes on each issue:
+*An [[Indirect Vote]].
+*A [[Direct Vote]].
-*A bet.  This is an actual monetary bet that over a certain period of time, a certain company, product, industry will not violate the norms, or will improve, or will never be red-lighted etc.  Unlike a stock, option or bond purchase, this is a direct bet on the company's good behaviour, like a bail bond.  If there is no problem with that product, company or industry, then the bet pays off with a modest return, similar to a bond - 5-10% above inflation perhaps.  If there IS a problem, the value of the bet drops very drastically, becoming worthless if the product, company or industry does something to get itself fully red-lighted for the entire span of time of the bet.
+Where issue is a disputed article or a [[campaign]].
-**By keeping the bets visible here, we make the conflicts of interest visible too, rather than hidden as people move money in the background (which they will anyway).  It's also clear who has the most to lose if a company is about to lose status, and, more of the debate will become visible, and more of it can thus be passed on to the company or stockholders, whose interests are exactly aligned with the bet-maker
+The dual voting (direct+indirect) system provides improved reliability and flexibility for The Consumerium Exchange at the same time. Due to the dual voting system the exchange is less susceptible to distortion. It is propably better left unknown how people value these different votes on each issue or in general because it provides the intrigue and safety of not-knowing
-**The money held in trust funds the whole Consumerium process and rollout, since it can be invested in various ways - ideally in ethical investing funds or sustainable forest product funds or something.  This may require a backer or insurer to cover catastropic losses.  No investment in any one company should be allowed for risk management purposes.
+Counter measures against multivoting and vote buying should be meticulously evaluated.  "The [[stock market]]" does this with [[bet]]s - multiple votes and vote buying are easy, but expensive.  A better solution may be out there, but if so, no one seems to have found it yet.
+----
+==Evaluation of Results==
+===Subjective Preferences===
+The consumers opinion may be of various types, each with their own rules.  For instance, an opinion of the use of a [[resource]] (like [[mahogany tree]]s or [[mangrove tree]]s) or a [[commodity]] (like [[cocoa]]) is different than an opinion of the [[process]] by which a [[product]] or [[service]] comes to the market, e.g. via a [[sweatshop]] or [[prison labour]].  An opinion of a [[company]] or [[country]] will also have its own rules.  Each of these can be stated in a [[Consumerium Contract]] by which users accept obligations to meet the specific terms of the [[social contract]] that they expect all suppliers (to them) to follow.
-*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.
+Each consumer can override the view of a given [[interest group]] 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.
-*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:
+===Peer review===
-#Voters authenticated with cryptographic methods, where the identity of the keyholder is known by an commercial or non-commercial certification authority.
+Registered members are able to set [[score]]s (with [[comment]]s) on each other extended-FOAF style (Friend Of A Friend/Foe).  For instance one may track only foes, using only negative scores.  This would be by far the best way to proceed - since [[groupthink]] sets in when any group confuses [[social capital]] with instruction.
-#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
-Whether the votes are anonymized or visible or whether decision on this is left up to the voter on each issue is yet unclear.  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.
+Such direct [[social network]] support would provide more strongly differentiated views on the issues if FOAF-aggregation is enabled in the preferences of the [[consumer]].
-Counter measures against multivoting and vote buying should be meticulously evaluated.  Among other measures, any product of any company found to be doing subversive measures might be "red lighted" for say a year.
+Of course the consumer has to decide on a few organisations (minimum being one) s/he chooses to trust the most and the value of other participants is then relative to what organisations are saying about each other.
-Where issue is a disputed article or a campaign on a [[company]], [[product group]] or [[product]]
+One could ask well why not full campaigns on other campaigners?
+:The anwser being no, not campaigns, because it would lead to all sorts of conceptual unclarities, problems with infinite recursion and besides if party A has an view on party B that view is a private matter of Party A, not party C
+----
+'''See also:'''
+*[[Talk:The Consumerium Exchange|The Talk Page for Discussion on this facility]] which outlines the [[bet]] issue in some great depth.