Friam

Digital Courts (Was: Yay!)

Classic

List

Threaded

10 messages Options

thompnickson2

Digital Courts (Was: Yay!)

On 1/11/21 11:28 AM, [hidden email] wrote:

> 1. A society cannot survive without an idea of truth, at least as a goal.

> 2. We have numerous mechanisms for determining truth, notably the courts. Every day Juries and courts decide matters of fact. Fallibly, inconsistently, probabilistically.

> 3. We cannot have platforms deciding matters of truth.

> 4. Therefore, we are going to have to institute digital courts.

> 5. It is up to people like FRIAM members to cogitate on what a digital court will look like.

And Glen replied, in part:

But your assumption #1 is laughable at first blush. What even is a "society"? What does it mean for it/they to have a goal? Etc. But you could sidestep that by talking of a "Constitution" for the internet, a foundation for some sort of "rule of law". Then it would be possible to build something like a court system for texts/artifacts you might find there.

I can see how my #1, with its knee-jerk pragmatism, might be a flag to a bull. I am really trying to get to #5 on my list above, and I don’t much care how I get there. I want us to cogitate. For instance, what is the jury pool for the digital court. For starters, “Every user of the internet, verified as an inididual person, is a member of the jury pool. Jury pool members agree, when “summoned”, to participate in a digital jury. Digital jurors shall serve as finders of fact in digital trials

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2021 2:02 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] yay!

MGD -- Sorry for being unclear. I think at least some of the COVID-19 deaths are due to premature convergence. E.g. I got into a discussion at the (outdoor) pub about a month ago with 2 friends who've known each other since grade school. They both lean coservative, but one seemed much more data driven (and willing to call out his friend for saying stupid stuff he learned from Fox News). When they *both* expressed their irritation that gyms, bowling alleys, etc. were locked down even though most of our evidence points to social gatherings, I tried to make the point that our evidence is simply not fine-grained enough. So, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

The more reasonable guy got it. The other guy didn't. So, in the meantime, we *could* control how the convergence happens, the violence of any necessary heat baths to back out of premature convergence *if* we have the language to use with our prematurely converged peers. Without that language, we're just shrill tribalists. But I agree completely on the tech front. Witness libgen and sci-hub and their multi-platform paths through tech like IPFS, torrent, etc. Such separates the profiteers from those truly devoted to their mission.

NST -- As for digital courts, I don't think that's a bad idea at all, for the same reason I don't think we should accuse sitting congress people of things like "sedition" just for voting aye on the objections to electoral votes. The disinformation peddlers, sure. But not the rank and file who simply voted. But your assumption #1 is laughable at first blush. What even is a "society"? What does it mean for it/they to have a goal? Etc. But you could sidestep that by talking of a "Constitution" for the internet, a foundation for some sort of "rule of law". Then it would be possible to build something like a court system for texts/artifacts you might find there.

On 1/11/21 11:28 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

> I think we should not get so hung up on the dying and going crazy. The numbers aren't like COVID-19. There's nothing the wackos could really do to get to numbers like that, other them to kill themselves by eating too many jerky sticks. There's the national embarrassment aspect that could bleed over into national security, and of course there is the lunatic with the nuke codes.

> If a site intends to do something distasteful but not quite illegal, why would they ever tie themselves to platform where it is so trivial to be turned off? They deserve it just for their lack of foresight.

On 1/11/21 11:28 AM, [hidden email] wrote:

> 1. A society cannot survive without an idea of truth, at least as a goal.

> 2. We have numerous mechanisms for determining truth, notably the courts. Every day Juries and courts decide matters of fact. Fallibly, inconsistently, probabilistically.

> 3. We cannot have platforms deciding matters of truth.

> 4. Therefore, we are going to have to institute digital courts.

> 5. It is up to people like FRIAM members to cogitate on what a digital court will look like.

↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

gepr

Re: Digital Courts (Was: Yay!)

You need a foundation for the courts, a value system, a constitution, a set of laws. Your "for starters" is way downstream ... i.e. it's not a starter at all.

On 1/11/21 12:39 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
> I can see how my #1, with its knee-jerk pragmatism, might be a flag to a bull. I am really trying to get to #5 on my list above, and I don’t much care how I get there. I want us to cogitate. For instance, what is the jury pool for the digital court*/. For starters, “Every user of the internet, verified as an inididual person, is a member of the jury pool. Jury pool members agree, when “summoned”, to participate in a digital jury. Digital jurors shall serve as finders of fact in digital trials /*

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

thompnickson2

Re: Digital Courts (Was: Yay!)

OK. I started where I could; help me start where I should.

n

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2021 2:44 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Digital Courts (Was: Yay!)

You need a foundation for the courts, a value system, a constitution, a set of laws. Your "for starters" is way downstream ... i.e. it's not a starter at all.

On 1/11/21 12:39 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
> I can see how my #1, with its knee-jerk pragmatism, might be a flag to
> a bull. I am really trying to get to #5 on my list above, and I don’t
> much care how I get there. I want us to cogitate. For instance, what
> is the jury pool for the digital court*/. For starters, “Every user
> of the internet, verified as an inididual person, is a member of the
> jury pool. Jury pool members agree, when “summoned”, to participate
> in a digital jury. Digital jurors shall serve as finders of fact in
> digital trials /*

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

gepr

Re: Digital Courts (Was: Yay!)

There are many attempts. Here's a plausible one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_ethic

Ideally, you would gather a stakeholder and thought leader delegation and make an attempt to write down all the values ... a Declaration of Independence for the internet.

On 1/11/21 1:15 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
> OK. I started where I could; help me start where I should.

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

gepr

Re: Digital Courts (Was: Yay!)

Oh, and this:

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20210111-twitter-s-problematic-trump-ban-troubles-europe

"The EU intends to set up a procedure for implementing moderation decisions, a way to contest these decisions and the possibility of resolving disputes through a third party, she told AFP, stressing that legislation is needed on both sides of the Atlantic."

And this:

A Human-Centric Digital Manifesto for Europe
https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/publications/a-human-centric-digital-manifesto-for-europe

Naturally, I prefer the hacker ethic. Marcus' point about the obvious weaknesses of centralized hosting could be largely, organically, mitigated if decentralized open systems were built into the value system from the ground up. Tom has made a similar point in advocating subscriptions to local newspapers. But we just don't live in that world. So we get these crufty band-aids.

On 1/11/21 1:23 PM, uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ wrote:
> There are many attempts. Here's a plausible one:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_ethic
>
> Ideally, you would gather a stakeholder and thought leader delegation and make an attempt to write down all the values ... a Declaration of Independence for the internet.
>
> On 1/11/21 1:15 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
>> OK. I started where I could; help me start where I should.
>

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Steve Smith

Re: Digital Courts (Was: Yay!)

In reply to this post by gepr

I recommend using the Constitution of the Republic of Uzupis as a starting place:

Everyone has the right to live by the River Vilnelė, and the River Vilnelė has the right to flow by everyone.
Everyone has the right to hot water, heating in winter and a tiled roof.
Everyone has the right to die, but this is not an obligation.
Everyone has the right to make mistakes.
Everyone has the right to be unique.
Everyone has the right to love.
Everyone has the right not to be loved, but not necessarily.
Everyone has the right to be undistinguished and unknown.
Everyone has the right to be idle.
Everyone has the right to love and take care of a cat.
Everyone has the right to look after the dog until one of them dies.
A dog has the right to be a dog.
A cat is not obliged to love its owner, but must help in time of need.
Sometimes everyone has the right to be unaware of their duties.
Everyone has the right to be in doubt, but this is not an obligation.
Everyone has the right to be happy.
Everyone has the right to be unhappy.
Everyone has the right to be silent.
Everyone has the right to have faith.
No one has the right to violence.
Everyone has the right to appreciate their unimportance.
No one has the right to have a design on eternity.
Everyone has the right to understand.
Everyone has the right to understand nothing.
Everyone has the right to be of any nationality.
Everyone has the right to celebrate or not celebrate their birthday.
Everyone shall remember their name.
Everyone may share what they possess.
No one can share what they do not possess.
Everyone has the right to have brothers, sisters and parents.
Everyone may be independent.
Everyone is responsible for their freedom.
Everyone has the right to cry.
Everyone has the right to be misunderstood.
No one has the right to make another person guilty.
Everyone has the right to be individual.
Everyone has the right to have no rights.
Everyone has the right to not to be afraid.
Do not defeat
Do not fight back
Do not surrender

Though I suppose this might be a tangent to what NST and GEPR have in mind?

- SSSsss

There are many attempts. Here's a plausible one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_ethic

Ideally, you would gather a stakeholder and thought leader delegation and make an attempt to write down all the values ... a Declaration of Independence for the internet.

On 1/11/21 1:15 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

OK.  I started where I could; help me start where I should.

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: Digital Courts (Was: Yay!)

In reply to this post by gepr

With certain philosophical divergences..

https://www.dreamsongs.com/RiseOfWorseIsBetter.html

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2021 1:23 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Digital Courts (Was: Yay!)

There are many attempts. Here's a plausible one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_ethic

Ideally, you would gather a stakeholder and thought leader delegation and make an attempt to write down all the values ... a Declaration of Independence for the internet.

On 1/11/21 1:15 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
> OK. I started where I could; help me start where I should.

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

thompnickson2

Re: Digital Courts (Was: Yay!)

In reply to this post by Steve Smith

Steve,

Why do only dogs have the right to be a dog. I want to be a dog.

Seriously, how do we get out of this internet Mess. Do you really feature Zucky and Beezy as censors? On the other hand, do you really think the I-net should be the wild west? There is, after all, some reason they tamed the wild west, right? All them darned school-marms came with their darned petticoats. All them barrooms and hoorhouses replaced by them blasted churches and – worst of all – state universities! Given the problem, what is the least worst thing that can be done?

Be interested to see if what unfolds in the next few days is an internet lynch mob.

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Steve Smith
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2021 5:28 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Digital Courts (Was: Yay!)

I recommend using the Constitution of the Republic of Uzupis as a starting place:

1. Everyone has the right to live by the River Vilnelė, and the River Vilnelė has the right to flow by everyone.

2. Everyone has the right to hot water, heating in winter and a tiled roof.

3. Everyone has the right to die, but this is not an obligation.

4. Everyone has the right to make mistakes.

5. Everyone has the right to be unique.

6. Everyone has the right to love.

7. Everyone has the right not to be loved, but not necessarily.

8. Everyone has the right to be undistinguished and unknown.

9. Everyone has the right to be idle.

10. Everyone has the right to love and take care of a cat.

11. Everyone has the right to look after the dog until one of them dies.

12. A dog has the right to be a dog.

13. A cat is not obliged to love its owner, but must help in time of need.

14. Sometimes everyone has the right to be unaware of their duties.

15. Everyone has the right to be in doubt, but this is not an obligation.

16. Everyone has the right to be happy.

17. Everyone has the right to be unhappy.

18. Everyone has the right to be silent.

19. Everyone has the right to have faith.

20. No one has the right to violence.

21. Everyone has the right to appreciate their unimportance.

22. No one has the right to have a design on eternity.

23. Everyone has the right to understand.

24. Everyone has the right to understand nothing.

25. Everyone has the right to be of any nationality.

26. Everyone has the right to celebrate or not celebrate their birthday.

27. Everyone shall remember their name.

28. Everyone may share what they possess.

29. No one can share what they do not possess.

30. Everyone has the right to have brothers, sisters and parents.

31. Everyone may be independent.

32. Everyone is responsible for their freedom.

33. Everyone has the right to cry.

34. Everyone has the right to be misunderstood.

35. No one has the right to make another person guilty.

36. Everyone has the right to be individual.

37. Everyone has the right to have no rights.

38. Everyone has the right to not to be afraid.

39. Do not defeat

40. Do not fight back

41. Do not surrender

Though I suppose this might be a tangent to what NST and GEPR have in mind?

- SSSsss

There are many attempts. Here's a plausible one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_ethic

Ideally, you would gather a stakeholder and thought leader delegation and make an attempt to write down all the values ... a Declaration of Independence for the internet.

On 1/11/21 1:15 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

OK.  I started where I could; help me start where I should.

gepr

Re: Digital Courts (Was: Yay!)

In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels

Yep. And the complex interface vs. implementation issue is nicely analogous to oft-argued data privacy issues. I recently decided to hire a professional bookkeeper for my company. And it requires storing lots of our personal data into a web accessible database ... just begging to be hacked by some motivated criminal. But I'm so tired. I'm old and tired. So I find myself on the same ideological side as Renee's grand-daughter, who doesn't seem to care at all that Instagram, Google, Netflix, et al know more about her than anyone in her family does.

A lasting foundation for digital rights/courts would require significant foresight ... something I think most of us doubt given our approach to a "phase transition" or Singularity.

On 1/12/21 5:48 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

> With certain philosophical divergences..
>
> https://www.dreamsongs.com/RiseOfWorseIsBetter.html
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
> Sent: Monday, January 11, 2021 1:23 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Digital Courts (Was: Yay!)
>
> There are many attempts. Here's a plausible one:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_ethic

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: Digital Courts (Was: Yay!)

In reply to this post by thompnickson2

Nick writes:

> Do you really feature Zucky and Beezy as censors?

Maybe this isn’t the only way to think about it. Consider..

https://www.businessinsider.com/twitter-employees-dorsey-suspend-trump-2021-1

These big companies are like countries with their own governance and competition for citizens.

Marcus

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of [hidden email]
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2021 8:21 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Digital Courts (Was: Yay!)

Steve,

Why do only dogs have the right to be a dog. I want to be a dog.

Seriously, how do we get out of this internet MessOn the other hand, do you really think the I-net should be the wild west? There is, after all, some reason they tamed the wild west, right? All them darned school-marms came with their darned petticoats. All them barrooms and hoorhouses replaced by them blasted churches and – worst of all – state universities! Given the problem, what is the least worst thing that can be done?

Be interested to see if what unfolds in the next few days is an internet lynch mob.

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Steve Smith
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2021 5:28 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Digital Courts (Was: Yay!)

I recommend using the Constitution of the Republic of Uzupis as a starting place:

1. Everyone has the right to live by the River Vilnelė, and the River Vilnelė has the right to flow by everyone.

2. Everyone has the right to hot water, heating in winter and a tiled roof.

3. Everyone has the right to die, but this is not an obligation.

4. Everyone has the right to make mistakes.

5. Everyone has the right to be unique.

6. Everyone has the right to love.

7. Everyone has the right not to be loved, but not necessarily.

8. Everyone has the right to be undistinguished and unknown.

9. Everyone has the right to be idle.

10. Everyone has the right to love and take care of a cat.

11. Everyone has the right to look after the dog until one of them dies.

12. A dog has the right to be a dog.

13. A cat is not obliged to love its owner, but must help in time of need.

14. Sometimes everyone has the right to be unaware of their duties.

15. Everyone has the right to be in doubt, but this is not an obligation.

16. Everyone has the right to be happy.

17. Everyone has the right to be unhappy.

18. Everyone has the right to be silent.

19. Everyone has the right to have faith.

20. No one has the right to violence.

21. Everyone has the right to appreciate their unimportance.

22. No one has the right to have a design on eternity.

23. Everyone has the right to understand.

24. Everyone has the right to understand nothing.

25. Everyone has the right to be of any nationality.

26. Everyone has the right to celebrate or not celebrate their birthday.

27. Everyone shall remember their name.

28. Everyone may share what they possess.

29. No one can share what they do not possess.

30. Everyone has the right to have brothers, sisters and parents.

31. Everyone may be independent.

32. Everyone is responsible for their freedom.

33. Everyone has the right to cry.

34. Everyone has the right to be misunderstood.

35. No one has the right to make another person guilty.

36. Everyone has the right to be individual.

37. Everyone has the right to have no rights.

38. Everyone has the right to not to be afraid.

39. Do not defeat

40. Do not fight back

41. Do not surrender

Though I suppose this might be a tangent to what NST and GEPR have in mind?

- SSSsss

There are many attempts. Here's a plausible one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_ethic

Ideally, you would gather a stakeholder and thought leader delegation and make an attempt to write down all the values ... a Declaration of Independence for the internet.

On 1/11/21 1:15 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

OK.  I started where I could; help me start where I should.