The coordination website even kind of already exists—there’s a list of coordination tools/projects found here. None of them do what we need, though.
To me this sentence reads like you haven’t put in the work to analyse why those tools don’t do what’s needed and why you think a new tool would do what’s needed.
I began writing this before r/WallStreetBets happened. Think about how wonderfully this second idea would work for coordinating them, though!)
This again reads like not having seriously thought about the issue. Stock market manipulation is illegal. It’s a lot easier to argue that you aren’t really doing illegal coordination in the case of r/WallStreetBets where you have moderators that delete posts that look to much like illegal coordination then your system that wants to make it more explicit.
The idea of creating a website for possible illegal activity to attack billion dollar entities and expect to have access to credit card processing seems strange to me.
suppose you want to demand reform the FDA, but the lizards in office won’t do anything unless a critical mass of people demand it.
I think that’s a very poor theory of change. Real world change needs a lot of negotiating between stakeholders and finding reforms that actually acceptable to a variety of stakeholders and not just a certain amount of people who ask for reforms at a single moment in time.
It isn’t pleasant when a critical response garners more upvotes than the original post. I tell people that I’m not thin-skinned, but that’s only because I don’t respect most people. I respect LessWrongers, so this rather stung.
“To me this sentence reads like you haven’t put in the work to analyse why those tools don’t do what’s needed and why you think a new tool would do what’s needed.”
You’ll need to tell me how you do those block quotes, they are neat.
Thanks for the feedback; this is something I’ll keep in mind next time I write something. An earlier draft had disparaging things to say about Collaction and Actuator in particular (as they’re the only things I’m aware of which try to exist in the same space as the working tool)--I cut them because I wasn’t sure how to make them sound less mean spirited (and I hold no particular bad feeling towards those who made them); I thought that criticism was redundant when paired with a lengthy diatribe on what I thought a working product would need—apparently this was wrong.
“This again reads like not having seriously thought about the issue. Stock market manipulation is illegal. It’s a lot easier to argue that you aren’t really doing illegal coordination in the case of r/WallStreetBets where you have moderators that delete posts that look to much like illegal coordination then your system that wants to make it more explicit.”
I am broadly ignorant of many things which strike other people as being too obvious to explain, on account of being as yet young and on account of my lumpenproletariat upbringing; I’m fixing this but it takes time. I wasn’t aware that redditors coordinating in this manner would be less legal than a singular firm doing so—chalk this one up to lacking basic knowledge of the shape of the finance system.
(Still, wouldn’t it be possible for redditors to create a firm of their own, if they needed to? I don’t see that this is an insurmountable problem.)
“The idea of creating a website for possible illegal activity to attack billion dollar entities and expect to have access to credit card processing seems strange to me.”
The iterated product would benefit from better anonymity, but I know nothing of cryptography or cryptocurrency and am trying to avoid premature optimization in that regard.
“I think that’s a very poor theory of change. Real world change needs a lot of negotiating between stakeholders and finding reforms that actually acceptable to a variety of stakeholders and not just a certain amount of people who ask for reforms at a single moment in time.”
I swear I’m not as stupid as betimes I come across in writing! Language isn’t my format.
I was trying to point at a class of problems without dwelling overlong on the specifics. Certainly I wasn’t detailing any theory of change; I don’t think we disagree on any factual thing, in this regard.
But, are these objections important to you? To me, they all seemed like trivial things to quibble over—except perhaps the first. What do you think about the general idea? I see that it’s not gaining traction quickly, is that because I’m bad at communication, or because the idea is a poor one? I’d appreciate having this spelled out to me.
I thought that criticism was redundant when paired with a lengthy diatribe on what I thought a working product would need—apparently this was wrong.
For your project to be successful (be promising to contribute to) that those other running the other projects didn’t understand.
If you have a thesis like: “The other projects lacked crucial thing X but my project will have X” then that’s an argument that’s possible to evaluate.
I wasn’t aware that redditors coordinating in this manner would be less legal than a singular firm doing so—chalk this one up to lacking basic knowledge of the shape of the finance system.
It’s illegal to artificially inflate or deflate of the price of a security. Generally when it comes to individual companies intent to artificially inflate the price of a security is relatively hard to prove. If you however make an explicit deal to artifically inflate the price of a security, it’s quite easy in court to argue that this is what happens.
However even if you win the court battle, the court of credit card companies is still there to judge companies.
The iterated product would benefit from better anonymity, but I know nothing of cryptography or cryptocurrency and am trying to avoid premature optimization in that regard.
Cryptography doesn’t help you from being cut off from processing credit cards. If we would live in a world where people regularly pay with crypto that might be an alternative but we don’t live in that world currently.
But, are these objections important to you? To me, they all seemed like trivial things to quibble over—except perhaps the first.
Having good examples where the proposed framework would actually useful is important.
To me this sentence reads like you haven’t put in the work to analyse why those tools don’t do what’s needed and why you think a new tool would do what’s needed.
This again reads like not having seriously thought about the issue. Stock market manipulation is illegal. It’s a lot easier to argue that you aren’t really doing illegal coordination in the case of r/WallStreetBets where you have moderators that delete posts that look to much like illegal coordination then your system that wants to make it more explicit.
The idea of creating a website for possible illegal activity to attack billion dollar entities and expect to have access to credit card processing seems strange to me.
I think that’s a very poor theory of change. Real world change needs a lot of negotiating between stakeholders and finding reforms that actually acceptable to a variety of stakeholders and not just a certain amount of people who ask for reforms at a single moment in time.
It isn’t pleasant when a critical response garners more upvotes than the original post. I tell people that I’m not thin-skinned, but that’s only because I don’t respect most people. I respect LessWrongers, so this rather stung.
“To me this sentence reads like you haven’t put in the work to analyse why those tools don’t do what’s needed and why you think a new tool would do what’s needed.”
You’ll need to tell me how you do those block quotes, they are neat.
Thanks for the feedback; this is something I’ll keep in mind next time I write something. An earlier draft had disparaging things to say about Collaction and Actuator in particular (as they’re the only things I’m aware of which try to exist in the same space as the working tool)--I cut them because I wasn’t sure how to make them sound less mean spirited (and I hold no particular bad feeling towards those who made them); I thought that criticism was redundant when paired with a lengthy diatribe on what I thought a working product would need—apparently this was wrong.
“This again reads like not having seriously thought about the issue. Stock market manipulation is illegal. It’s a lot easier to argue that you aren’t really doing illegal coordination in the case of r/WallStreetBets where you have moderators that delete posts that look to much like illegal coordination then your system that wants to make it more explicit.”
I am broadly ignorant of many things which strike other people as being too obvious to explain, on account of being as yet young and on account of my lumpenproletariat upbringing; I’m fixing this but it takes time. I wasn’t aware that redditors coordinating in this manner would be less legal than a singular firm doing so—chalk this one up to lacking basic knowledge of the shape of the finance system.
(Still, wouldn’t it be possible for redditors to create a firm of their own, if they needed to? I don’t see that this is an insurmountable problem.)
“The idea of creating a website for possible illegal activity to attack billion dollar entities and expect to have access to credit card processing seems strange to me.”
The iterated product would benefit from better anonymity, but I know nothing of cryptography or cryptocurrency and am trying to avoid premature optimization in that regard.
“I think that’s a very poor theory of change. Real world change needs a lot of negotiating between stakeholders and finding reforms that actually acceptable to a variety of stakeholders and not just a certain amount of people who ask for reforms at a single moment in time.”
I swear I’m not as stupid as betimes I come across in writing! Language isn’t my format.
I was trying to point at a class of problems without dwelling overlong on the specifics. Certainly I wasn’t detailing any theory of change; I don’t think we disagree on any factual thing, in this regard.
But, are these objections important to you? To me, they all seemed like trivial things to quibble over—except perhaps the first. What do you think about the general idea? I see that it’s not gaining traction quickly, is that because I’m bad at communication, or because the idea is a poor one? I’d appreciate having this spelled out to me.
If you put a > at the start of a line, it will make the line into a quote
I didn’t know that! OP, you can also highlight the desired text and click the block quote button. You can also add links that way.
For your project to be successful (be promising to contribute to) that those other running the other projects didn’t understand.
If you have a thesis like: “The other projects lacked crucial thing X but my project will have X” then that’s an argument that’s possible to evaluate.
It’s illegal to artificially inflate or deflate of the price of a security. Generally when it comes to individual companies intent to artificially inflate the price of a security is relatively hard to prove. If you however make an explicit deal to artifically inflate the price of a security, it’s quite easy in court to argue that this is what happens.
However even if you win the court battle, the court of credit card companies is still there to judge companies.
Cryptography doesn’t help you from being cut off from processing credit cards. If we would live in a world where people regularly pay with crypto that might be an alternative but we don’t live in that world currently.
Having good examples where the proposed framework would actually useful is important.