Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I'm not sure I understand your point about bribery. Are you talking about bribing groups of people to vote a particular way, or about bribing coercing powerful individuals not to express their opinions?

I disagree in practice that all ideas should have equal consideration. If an economist or other professional has a proposal, I think its practical to recognize that that person has extra credibility on a topic, and I don't see why we shouldn't let the public see that person's reputation. Professionals have an incentive not to state false claims--if the do so, especially in an internet forum board, they would be called out and their reputations would suffer.

On the other hand, there needs to be some anonymity to protect people from real life abuse. Do you see any problem with the option of anonymity?




You have some interesting ideas, and it would be rather helpful if you would add them to the wiki.

Your question poses an interesting problem. How do you give accreditation while still retaining anonymity? At some point you have to associate an account with a person.

I think optional anonymity would allow corruption into the system. (Televangelists, for example, would opt-out from anonymity so that their proposals might pass through randomized moderation by votes from their fan base.)

Much of this is putting the cart before the horse, though, as the system is probably best tested, at first, with politicians. See also: http://openparliament.ca/




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: