<div dir="ltr"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">Wait, what?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">Dave Sill said:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">“No large, complex system is ever perfect. And
even if we had a perfect voting system, we'd still be subject to bogus
conspiracy theories.”</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">Which is exactly the point. Making a system so bullet proof, it can’t
fail, faces the problem of diminishing returns for increased expense, never achieving
perfection without infinite cost. The solution
is redundancy – lots of cheap systems, so if any one or two fail, the rest of
the system keeps on working. The internet
works the same bottom-up way. Censoring
is just viewed as failure, and routes around it.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">Just like diversity of opinion (anti group
think) is a good thing, Conspiracy theories are also good. The easy path is to go along with the ‘group
think’, it takes real effort to pursue highly unlikely, yet still real possibilities. And revolutions always start with that one
brilliant first person to recognize a new way.
So, you must provide a system with lots of tools (like the sledgehammer
tool in Spike’s Apple Video) to encourage things like this.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">Censoring anyone is only addressing the symptoms,
which has the opposite effect of giving power to the underlying issue. If you censor anyone, that just cause people
to switch to (or build if necessary) a different system to rout around that
failure. That is a good thing. All censoring is a hierarchical /
authoritarian action. Playing the game
of warring hierarchies is always a win lose game. We need to flip this upside down, to the win/win
bottom-up system. Instead of a win/lose, bottom-up
system, have the goal of finding out, and getting everyone all that they want.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">Wherever there is a will, someone will find a
way. This is the core of the issue we
face today. And censoring conspiracy theories just polarizes
everyone into warring hierarchies. You
need a bottom-up system that values all voices, with no censoring, like
Canonizer.com, which can address the core issue (giving everyone a voice) and
bringing everyone back together to play a win / win game.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">In addition to redundancy, lots of cheap, replaceable
systems, you simply want to give everyone a voice. Instead of the establishment dictating what
is and isn‘t censored (what the guy at the top wants), you give all individuals the choice to decide that,
personally. If someone is willing to pursue
a conspiracy theory, anyone willing to pay that price should be highly valued. You give them the ability to create their
own, anti establishment competing camp.
It is up to them to describe their claims, which should be falsifiable,
for them. Then you support them, performing
the experiments they are suggesting, and only when they are convinced that the
group consensus is right, and they communicate this to everyone by jumping from
their then falsified, for them camp, to the group consensus theory, problem solved. Again, that is how canonizer is designed to
work.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">Here is a table from that MIT paper posted by
Stuart:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><br></span></p><img src="cid:ii_kju8avip0" alt="image.png" width="563" height="111"><br><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><br></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">This table is completely backwards. The paper ballots are the ones that are not "Voter-verifiable",
simply because that is too inefficient.
No one voter can count all the paper ballots. And anyone claiming that blockchain voting isn’t
verifiable doesn’t understand blockchain.
Anyone, and their dog, can get a copy of the blockchain ledger of all votes. Anyone and their dog can pick their preferred
open-source verification code to verify their copy of the ledger. Blockchain voting is the only one that should
be green, in such a table.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><br></p></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 6:22 AM Dave Sill via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 9:31 PM Stuart LaForge via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">As such, the only clear remedy to prevent this sort of debacle in the <br>
future, is to design our elections to be so secure as to be above <br>
reproach.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>No large, complex system is ever perfect. And even if we had a perfect voting system, we'd still be subject to bogus conspiracy theories.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Which brings up another point. If voting machines are universally <br>
distrusted and despised,</blockquote><div><br></div><div>They're not. They're not perfect, but they generally get the job done. </div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> then why do we still use them? Why do <br>
companies still make them? If distrust of voting machines are causing <br>
massive protests that lead to injury, loss of life, and destruction of <br>
property and historic artifacts,</blockquote><div><br></div><div>The cause of riot wasn't distrust in voting machines, it was an unhinged, egomaniacal scam artist pushing unbacked claims of voting fraud. That could still happen without voting machines.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> then should not the manufacturers of <br>
voting machines be held liable for the damages?</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Based on unproven allegations? Of course not.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> Putting these <br>
companies on the hook for the damage done seems a great deterrent to <br>
keep companies from trying to sell governments voting machines that <br>
nobody trusts.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>If "nobody" trusts the machines, they should take that up with the people buying them with their money.</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">It would make it so that any kind of voting software would have to be <br>
developed open source</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Imagine what could be accomplished by an open source hardware/software voting platform with a few million dollars of public funding.</div><div><br></div><div>-Dave</div></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
extropy-chat mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a><br>
</blockquote></div>