Talk:The Consumerium Exchange: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
m (moved) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
mmm. as you might have guessed the system for direct voting relies on the vote-challenge-confirmation scheme used by many web based services ie. You get an email that says that "somebody (propably you) voted on these and these issues with your account and to confirm this you have to reply something to this message". As to the question of if this an adequate level of security will propably remain an disputable issue always, but will not propably crash the whole system due to the fact that people who feel that direct voting is not reliable can choose to view only the indirect votes, which are authenticated by cryptographically strong methods such as GnuPG. | mmm. as you might have guessed the system for direct voting relies on the vote-challenge-confirmation scheme used by many web based services ie. You get an email that says that "somebody (propably you) voted on these and these issues with your account and to confirm this you have to reply something to this message". As to the question of if this an adequate level of security will propably remain an disputable issue always, but will not propably crash the whole system due to the fact that people who feel that direct voting is not reliable can choose to view only the indirect votes, which are authenticated by cryptographically strong methods such as GnuPG. | ||
:Never rely on cryptography exclusively. The April 2000 rebuild of the PGP key tree at the Computers Freedom and Privacy conference, in Toronto, was actually signed by Terence and Philip - the two fictional Canadian comedians from South Park... | |||
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 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 | ||
:Yes, very important. | |||
---- | ---- | ||
| Line 11: | Line 16: | ||
The Consumerium Exchange 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. --[[142.177.X.X]] | The Consumerium Exchange 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. --[[142.177.X.X]] | ||
:Actually i think that The Consumerium Exchange _is_ what turns on and off the lights if you desire such a simple interface. Let me explain. Suppose there are three different levels of [[Boycott]] (avoid, strong avoid, boycott) and three levels of [[Endorsement]] (support, strong support, endorse) that the [[Campaign]] management chooses from. Then the algo for figuring which light out of the spectrum appears would roughly be the following: | :Actually i think that The Consumerium Exchange _is_ what turns on and off the lights if you desire such a simple interface. | ||
::Realistically, this simple interface is what almost all consumers will really use, and more important, what retailers will use to decide what to stock on their shelves. I can think of retailers who would have nothing less than a "strong support" on their shelves, others that would only respond to a global boycott: | |||
:Let me explain. Suppose there are three different levels of [[Boycott]] (avoid, strong avoid, boycott) and three levels of [[Endorsement]] (support, strong support, endorse) that the [[Campaign]] management chooses from. Then the algo for figuring which light out of the spectrum appears would roughly be the following: | |||
#Give "weights" to each level. say -1,-2,-3 and 1,2,3 | #Give "weights" to each level. say -1,-2,-3 and 1,2,3 | ||
| Line 19: | Line 28: | ||
:This process will of course get a lot more complicated in practice due to that one has to take a stand on how to trust direct and indirect votes and further on how to trust different classes of direct votes and then there is of course the selective exclusion of votes that also affects the algo, not to forget the fact that an [[industry]], [[company]] and/or [[product group]] may be targeted by campaigns that could [[Cascading Campaign|cascade]] to the [[product]] itself and one would have to figure out how to value these cascading votes ... -[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 17:14 Oct 1, 2003 (EEST) | :This process will of course get a lot more complicated in practice due to that one has to take a stand on how to trust direct and indirect votes and further on how to trust different classes of direct votes and then there is of course the selective exclusion of votes that also affects the algo, not to forget the fact that an [[industry]], [[company]] and/or [[product group]] may be targeted by campaigns that could [[Cascading Campaign|cascade]] to the [[product]] itself and one would have to figure out how to value these cascading votes ... -[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 17:14 Oct 1, 2003 (EEST) | ||
:The trust algorithms can be quite individual, or specific to a region (especially an ecoregion) of origin (if the issue is how it is produced) or consumption (if the issue is how it is disposed). | |||
---- | ---- | ||
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. | 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? | :Isn't that just the thing they are doing right now? | ||
::Yes, but not right here right now. ;-) They will eventually try it here, too, and we have to anticipate all their [[exploits]], [[worst cases]], [[threats]]. | |||
---- | ---- | ||
===Strange idea on turning the exchange into a casino:=== | ===Strange idea on turning the exchange into a casino:=== | ||
::It is not strange. The entire global economy runs on this principle. And this is the only way to make the project pay for itself. | |||
*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. | *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. | ||
| Line 32: | Line 48: | ||
**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. | **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. | ||
Hey, it was YOU who called it an "exchange". If what is going on is voting, it is a "forum". So pick the correct name. | |||