End note: this was really well argued. While practical details*, and how to ensure it pursing such a course wouldn’t lead to a Panopticon state instead of a Transparent state, remain open, this was a great piece, and really persuasive. (The rest of this comment was written as I read it.)
There have been some posts on votes as “Yays/Boos”. I upvoted this because I appreciated this discussion/the way these arguments were made, although I am against the idea being argued for.
preventing crime
This would be amazing. I’m worried about it preventing thoughtcrime.
It would be possible, for the first time, to enforce a sentence/treatment “do not speak with or listen to bad influences through any channel”
Our world still has dictatorships.
that it would allow us to get closer to figuring out what our real values are, so that we can develop truly humane systems of accountability to pursue those instead.
Sounds good. I’m worried about it enabling truly inhumane systems.
Forcing people to accept and contend with the weirdness of other people, and their own weirdness.
Good tools for aggregating information would be key.*
Enabling trade.
My first complaint here was that it would enable stealing. But if everything was observed, then maybe people wouldn’t get away with it. Now I’m wondering how this degree of transparency could be achieved.
Transparency makes it possible to enforce against even the tiniest transgression against a dominant power, which may make the dominant power incontestable.
I’m not sure how this trades off against the reverse being available—the question is if people are able to coordinate against powers (which are probably already internally coordinated) which transgress. How would things would play out when both sides can see everything the other is doing?
Crossing the gap between “all is seen” and “all is known” seems to be key overall.*
It’s tempting to me to propose doing a thing where black has to deal with some uncertainty about the position of its own pieces, to reflect the awkward realities of not being a transparent society, but I don’t think that would be charitable.
Chess isn’t a perfect analogy because it’s about two players versus each other. Also keep in mind surveillance is still possible—imagine the transparent side versus the panopticon side (those in power see all).
A transparent state could be far more able to prove nonaggression.
But it’s harder to bluff. (“Our nukes are set to automatically fire on you if they fire on us.” “No, they’re not.”)
I’m not sure whether “not being able to keep technological secrets” counts as a significant weakness. The scarce asset is generally not theory, theory is hard to protect, the scarce asset is usually practitioners.
An interesting viewpoint.
The problems a transparent society has with protecting registered intellectual property are no different that the problems of a closed society.
Didn’t follow this.
Figure out what a good legal system would look like in a transparent society. It is likely to be harder, considering that every law would be consistently enforced.
Not sure about harder. This seems like a benefit.
that votes in politicians on the basis of who they really are rather than how good they are at acting.
Not actually the biggest fan of this—I want a better world, but I have to ask ‘why don’t we have a better one already?’ (First past the post is a terrible voting system.)
Figure out whether
A piece which proposes a radical change, and seeing if it won’t go bad, before trying it. Phenomenal.
End note: this was really well argued. While practical details*, and how to ensure it pursing such a course wouldn’t lead to a Panopticon state instead of a Transparent state, remain open, this was a great piece, and really persuasive. (The rest of this comment was written as I read it.)
There have been some posts on votes as “Yays/Boos”. I upvoted this because I appreciated this discussion/the way these arguments were made, although I am against the idea being argued for.
This would be amazing. I’m worried about it preventing thoughtcrime.
Our world still has dictatorships.
Sounds good. I’m worried about it enabling truly inhumane systems.
Good tools for aggregating information would be key.*
My first complaint here was that it would enable stealing. But if everything was observed, then maybe people wouldn’t get away with it. Now I’m wondering how this degree of transparency could be achieved.
I’m not sure how this trades off against the reverse being available—the question is if people are able to coordinate against powers (which are probably already internally coordinated) which transgress. How would things would play out when both sides can see everything the other is doing?
Crossing the gap between “all is seen” and “all is known” seems to be key overall.*
Chess isn’t a perfect analogy because it’s about two players versus each other. Also keep in mind surveillance is still possible—imagine the transparent side versus the panopticon side (those in power see all).
But it’s harder to bluff. (“Our nukes are set to automatically fire on you if they fire on us.” “No, they’re not.”)
An interesting viewpoint.
Didn’t follow this.
Not sure about harder. This seems like a benefit.
Not actually the biggest fan of this—I want a better world, but I have to ask ‘why don’t we have a better one already?’ (First past the post is a terrible voting system.)
A piece which proposes a radical change, and seeing if it won’t go bad, before trying it. Phenomenal.
*These are tied together.