It seems you think that people weighting how much to believe something based on whether the author is a Big Name is a bad thing. I get that. But I don’t understand why you think weighted voting in particular makes this problem worse?
Fair point. The short version is that it expands the scope of ‘what is endorsed by the respected’ from just the things they say themselves to the things they indicate they endorse, and this expands the scope of what social proof is affecting.
It seems obvious in my head, but I should have elaborated (and may edit it in, actually, once I have a long version).
It seems you think that people weighting how much to believe something based on whether the author is a Big Name is a bad thing. I get that. But I don’t understand why you think weighted voting in particular makes this problem worse?
Fair point. The short version is that it expands the scope of ‘what is endorsed by the respected’ from just the things they say themselves to the things they indicate they endorse, and this expands the scope of what social proof is affecting.
It seems obvious in my head, but I should have elaborated (and may edit it in, actually, once I have a long version).