Topic: Can we make politics, honest and transparent? (Read 174 times)
Most politicians are not honest in their works because they are only thinking about themselves and their own benefits.. We cant make it because first of all it is their choice we cant pursue somebody to do what we want it will start with them... Corruption happen because peole let it to happen but if we act now possibly it will end...
You don't need a blockchain or a platform to make politics honest and transparent? You just need to elect honest and transparent people. Your inability to do so is the cause of the problem. Which won't go away with any blockchain or technological-magical trick.
Only if we put politics on blockchain 
Yes we can make it honest and transparent with the help of our leaders, but i don't think it will be possible for now but until they our leaders allow God sent politicians.
I found a very interesting essay on a very similar concept. http://byrd.im/idea-decentralized-veritas/
Yes, All politicians should have a lifestyle check. The country Denmark is oNe of the nicest place to live in because it has free education, free hospital to all,it shows denmark is corruption free
Until we consider politics as profession, we can't make it honest and transparent.
Most politicians are able to enter politics because of one denominator. They are dishonest and obscure. They are just after the fame and power. That's the reason why in every elections, there is always politicians being killed or tortured to death. That's the reality, people are killing one another in exchange of power. Very limited are those who are dedicated to serve the people.
Can we make politics, honest and transparent?
No, politics and honest in the same breath is an oxymoron.
Switzerland is a good example of a good political system. Power is split. They even don't have a classical president. The president in Switzerland has a term of 4 months if I am not mistaken and then is switched. Even when they have the title of president they don't have more power then regular politicians.
4 months is a short term for a position. The President cannot make a changes in just a few months of his tenure. I don't think it is a good example of good governance but as far as I know, Switzerland is one of the most industrial country and developed country in Europe.
Switzerland is a good example of a good political system. Power is split. They even don't have a classical president. The president in Switzerland has a term of 4 months if I am not mistaken and then is switched. Even when they have the title of president they don't have more power then regular politicians.
It is not about blockchain technology, it is a matter of public accountability. No matter how transparent the blockchain technology you have made if the politicians are corrupt, they will make a way just to gain money by their own power.
It will lessen the graft and corruption if the people in position are accountable in their service.
It will lessen the graft and corruption if the people in position are accountable in their service.
We can make politics transparent if the people in the government are willing to disclose everything to the public concerning all their plans for the people.
Politicians, like the rest of us, need to be able to think out loud before they actually speak out loud.We can make politics transparent if the people in the government are willing to disclose everything to the public concerning all their plans for the people.
Politicians, like the rest of us, need to be able to think out loud before they actually speak out loud. 
We can make politics transparent if the people in the government are willing to disclose everything to the public concerning all their plans for the people.
This post is designed to brainstorm, inspire or archive a possible Blockchain solution that results in a uncensorable debate or public debate platform. This platform will assist in disinsentivising untruthful debate, news and untruthful politics. Whilst insentivising truth and integrity. The objective is to have a proof-of-validity of truthful information, or, to have a proof of invalidity of untruthful information.
For the purpose of discussion, the conjured idea will be refered to as ''Politicoin''. This is an idea and is not related to any current projects defining themselves by this name.
Politicoin
Decentralized publishing and debate platform. Open source peer reviewed politics.
Designation trust model. People don't trust open source because they understand it, they trust it because they designate trust to someone. Those people can be held to account.
Making sure content cannot be obscured from google searches.
Financial disincentive to spam.
Abstract
Knowledge and discussion on contentious and controversial matters currently takes place within a system not optimized/designed to provide neutrality, context, or evaluation to. Participation is polarized and contributors’ performance is largely unaccountable and influence is centralized and participation is unevaluated.
Social commentary centralized
GIVE THE PEOPLE WITH ACCESS THE RIGHT QUESTIONS TO BE ASKED. We on the platform don’t necessarily have the access to individuals that we would like to pose questions to. Give reporters the pertinent questions and reward them with positive coverage. No excuses for not asking hard questions, also recognize which reporters are honest. Create an army of interviewers who can ask reporters why they didn't think this was a pertinent question and if they will ask next time.
What makes up politics
People, events, statements, policies, reports by reporters, news articles, claims,
For most people, the accumulation of knowledge on contentious matters of political, scientific, and social importance generally comes from the consumption of partisan media owned by corrupt corporations and censored media, broadcast without the right of reproach or public scrutiny. Even news-by-social media where public discussion is possible presents minefields of staged content (fake news) within echo chambers of manipulated and censored information. Disagreements rarely proceed objectively or end amicably, and the most insightful content can be buried whilst anecdotal evidence can be presented as conclusive. Those disseminating information can do so without any accountability or greater context, giving false indications to all but the most dedicated of investigators. This has the effect of polarizing opinions, creating tensions where it might not exist and inhibiting the natural pursuit of peaceful cooperation that stands as one of humanity's greatest characteristics.
In short, political discourse is disorganized and unscientific, corrupted and without any accountability. A blockchain based system with the right design and incentives could potentially address these issues by providing a fully transparent, non-partisan platform to discuss and reflect.
How would a platform aiming to provide meaningful discussion, accountability and equal access be designed?
These are the faults with free to access platforms where sock-puppeting and astroturfing are only inhibited by the ability to register an email address.
The confusion, lack of impartiality and cherry picked information enables the corruption in politic to continue with no solution in sight, as both sides of any debate succumb to very psychologically confirmation bias. That is not to say that in any disagreement there is a universally correct answer, but through the design of a decentralized platform all information is uncensorable.
Politicoin aims to contextualize, quantify, and qualify ===== equalize the unfair ability of those with the most resources to have the loudest voices and sort between the controversial but unpopular and also baseless claims.
It is more important than ever that the process of political discussion must be fair and provably fair. Politcoin will not provide oracle style answers to questions, but a framework and environment whereby all participants take part and form their own conclusion in full knowledge knowing the *rules/set up/algorithms/weaknesses* of the platform. No bias and an understanding of the transparent weaknesses and limitations of politicoin.
Definitions of terms
Open source investigation
Describing the platform
Best described as a censor free publishing platform like Steemit or Twitter, with an integrated blockchain secured discussion system for publishers and users and researchers to comment, rebuff, link to, and debate information presented by other users. The platform aims to provide context, accountability and Network tokens will be used to incentivize behaviors, pay for visibility and pay for advertisements in a manner that remains equitable for those with minimal resources, yet still thwarts the risks of spam
,
Platform communities like reddit have shown the incredible ability to provide valuable and insightful investigate matters, mine for information with users performing arduous amounts of research and tenacity for no reward. Harnessing this hive mind with the accountability and transparency of the blockchain could provide a valuable resource tool for journalists using the platform and a timestamped proof of *heritage**posterity**ownership* for contributors to the platform.
A place where anecdotes can be fully discussed in detail
Politicoin aims to be the most optimized possible place to discuss and research politics.
Navigation of the platform/Layout
The platform is about the discussion of ideas, and ideas come from people. Rather than subject the user to an unfiltered not necessarily relevant bulk of information, user experience will be decided by a subscription to topics and users. Users arrive with existing opinions and bias’s and the platform will aim to show them opposing opinions and arguments. Users will build upon their own platform as they dig deeper into topics of discussion.
As an investigation platform Information in, like documentaries, claims, ideologies, then to be deconstructed and debated about by users
How would we like the platform to be used?
As an accountable environment to conduct open source investigations
Acknowledgement of limitations, potential for abuse, and mitigation
With a public pay-to-play platform like politicoin there exists multiple potential avenues which participants could use to try and corrupt or distort the meritocratic exchange of information.
Vote rigging
Spam - The client would allow censorship and sorting based upon the users pre-selected ‘likes’ and ‘subscriptions’. This provides a new user an entry point without having to dig through masses of content. Content from the users’ preferences would still be subject to uncensored relies and rebuttals, giving opposing viewpoints to their initial network of trust. Layer 1 censorship.
Whales - Votes for visibility are weighted whereby the amount a vote/coin increases visibility by exponentially decreases when on the same content. For example, 1000 votes would only be 50% more visible than 20 votes. This reduces the effect that large bag holders and wealthy individuals have to monopolies visibility.
Burying comments - As well as the vote weighting system, users will be incentivized to dig through thread for insightful comments as their ‘find’ of a good comment would be rewarded with a share of future votes that comment receives. Reputation of users based on received votes would also be a possibility.
sock puppets/astroturfing - The ability to create anonymous accounts has to be integral to the system so the only countermeasure to this is the would be the overall design of the system. With all activity non-rescindable and permanently recorded, the use of running multiple accounts would be inherently risky as ‘failures to respond to challenge’ would be
Users would be encouraged to add credibility to their accounts by taking public ownership of aid accounts through other verified social media and publishing platforms. Users can tweet or post to verify they control an account.
Lobbyists
What would the ideal debate look like/contain?
- An environment where participants should be accountable for their positions. Debating on the record
- You profess to have opinion X, please tackle the opposing opinion Y. Pay to/bounty for answer means where normally a point could be avoided or ignored, there would be a negative perception of someone turning away funds to argue for a point they supposedly supported.
- Right of reply/challenge. Token bounties used to grab the attention of contributors requesting clarification or debate on their
- provably fair ranking of comments
- Historical reputation and reliability
Envisioned evolution of the project/where do we see it going
If the project was successful and debate and publishing on politician became of political utility we would like to see the tracking and discussion of the roles, actions and opinions of all public officials to the extent that initially it would be adopted by honest politicians wanting to prove a point, then onto something that would be compiled on existing politicians by the community. Tracking the decisions, statements, actions and contradictions of a politician could be done in an open source community powered way. Transgressions of public officials would be recorded and accessible to the electorate as a way to provide transparency.
Crowd funded politicians
Built in advertisements for political parties. Bounties for politicians answering questions paid in tokens used for advertising to users. Why would they not want visibility. The resources is people's attention. Possibly existing traditional publications would license over advertising space on their own platforms in return for tokens since journalists might have a use for tokens. Vice versa, the supporters of a politician may directly influence decision making by cutting funding of a politician that is not upholding his mandate.
==================================================================
Bulletpoints
Applications
- Decentralised hub of censor free information and news
- Covering news items from all angles (contributors over the world) / Obtaining all sides of the story
- Direct democracy
- Decentralized provably fair voting system (No more ‘Russian hackers’)
- Uncensored decentralized research and profiles of politicians and public figures (Reputation, integrity)
- Crowdfunding politicians
- Tracking donations to political candidates.
- Tracking integrity of political promises
- Independent decentralized community investigations with bounty program
Usp’s
Free of ‘vested interests’
Independent censor free source of information
Characteristics
Censor free
Community Consensus
'Miners' become editors
Aim
To assist in censor free hub of sharing information, serious debate and governance.
To take the politics out of facts and media. / Make information objective.
Take finance out of the information industry.
Why
The information market deserves an access to unbiased information, uncensored debate and objective facts.
As opposed the never-ending desire for the powers at be to monopolize information and control public opinion.
Opportunity
We believe such a platform will be robust enough to overcome censorship, finance and lobbyists.
'Market'
- Political debate
- Political contributions
- Resolution of geopolitical conflicts?
- Bridging east and west, overcoming language barriers, connecting people - not politicians.
- News, bridging language and bias
Area of effect
- Independent politicians ‘crowdfunding’
- Independent politicians as actual representatives of the people / direct democracy
- Honest politics (censor free candidate profiles).
Background
The idea speaks for itself. The code is law. The community governs. The philosophy is as decentral as the governance of the project.
The whitepaper serves as a brainstorm initiative to inspire the crypto community to rethink the possibilities of the bitcoin ecosystem and the potential of blockchain technology in information, news, politics and even the consciousness.
Connections
The Politicoin platform will connect the information markets, news, debate and politics by allowing for a censor free platform that is capable of reducing the subjectivism of facts that can have major consequences. (Fake news leading to war, invasions and malice.)
- Bridge between governance and smart decentralized technology
- What could be the real-world impact?
- How could it change the information landscape?
News, debate and Fake news
- Fake News (M)
Recently it has come to the attention of a great many people how the news is influenced by sensationalism, political agendas or one-sided views.
The need for unbiased media has called out for independent publishers.
Relevant topics
- Propaganda
- Censorship
Connecting worlds
- Actual communication between countries and people in it.
- Local voting on 'what is happening' in popular events?
- No more sensationalism and fake news.
Technical
- The code
- Open source
- Platforms can be made for various purposes
- Integration of DAO in Politicoin?
- DAO vs Direct democracy?
- Direct democracy inspiration
I think the objective should be to solve the distrust of a vast majority of the population through this platform.
For the purpose of discussion, the conjured idea will be refered to as ''Politicoin''. This is an idea and is not related to any current projects defining themselves by this name.
Politicoin
Decentralized publishing and debate platform. Open source peer reviewed politics.
Designation trust model. People don't trust open source because they understand it, they trust it because they designate trust to someone. Those people can be held to account.
Making sure content cannot be obscured from google searches.
Financial disincentive to spam.
Abstract
Knowledge and discussion on contentious and controversial matters currently takes place within a system not optimized/designed to provide neutrality, context, or evaluation to. Participation is polarized and contributors’ performance is largely unaccountable and influence is centralized and participation is unevaluated.
Social commentary centralized
GIVE THE PEOPLE WITH ACCESS THE RIGHT QUESTIONS TO BE ASKED. We on the platform don’t necessarily have the access to individuals that we would like to pose questions to. Give reporters the pertinent questions and reward them with positive coverage. No excuses for not asking hard questions, also recognize which reporters are honest. Create an army of interviewers who can ask reporters why they didn't think this was a pertinent question and if they will ask next time.
What makes up politics
People, events, statements, policies, reports by reporters, news articles, claims,
For most people, the accumulation of knowledge on contentious matters of political, scientific, and social importance generally comes from the consumption of partisan media owned by corrupt corporations and censored media, broadcast without the right of reproach or public scrutiny. Even news-by-social media where public discussion is possible presents minefields of staged content (fake news) within echo chambers of manipulated and censored information. Disagreements rarely proceed objectively or end amicably, and the most insightful content can be buried whilst anecdotal evidence can be presented as conclusive. Those disseminating information can do so without any accountability or greater context, giving false indications to all but the most dedicated of investigators. This has the effect of polarizing opinions, creating tensions where it might not exist and inhibiting the natural pursuit of peaceful cooperation that stands as one of humanity's greatest characteristics.
In short, political discourse is disorganized and unscientific, corrupted and without any accountability. A blockchain based system with the right design and incentives could potentially address these issues by providing a fully transparent, non-partisan platform to discuss and reflect.
How would a platform aiming to provide meaningful discussion, accountability and equal access be designed?
These are the faults with free to access platforms where sock-puppeting and astroturfing are only inhibited by the ability to register an email address.
The confusion, lack of impartiality and cherry picked information enables the corruption in politic to continue with no solution in sight, as both sides of any debate succumb to very psychologically confirmation bias. That is not to say that in any disagreement there is a universally correct answer, but through the design of a decentralized platform all information is uncensorable.
Politicoin aims to contextualize, quantify, and qualify ===== equalize the unfair ability of those with the most resources to have the loudest voices and sort between the controversial but unpopular and also baseless claims.
It is more important than ever that the process of political discussion must be fair and provably fair. Politcoin will not provide oracle style answers to questions, but a framework and environment whereby all participants take part and form their own conclusion in full knowledge knowing the *rules/set up/algorithms/weaknesses* of the platform. No bias and an understanding of the transparent weaknesses and limitations of politicoin.
Definitions of terms
Open source investigation
Describing the platform
Best described as a censor free publishing platform like Steemit or Twitter, with an integrated blockchain secured discussion system for publishers and users and researchers to comment, rebuff, link to, and debate information presented by other users. The platform aims to provide context, accountability and Network tokens will be used to incentivize behaviors, pay for visibility and pay for advertisements in a manner that remains equitable for those with minimal resources, yet still thwarts the risks of spam
,
Platform communities like reddit have shown the incredible ability to provide valuable and insightful investigate matters, mine for information with users performing arduous amounts of research and tenacity for no reward. Harnessing this hive mind with the accountability and transparency of the blockchain could provide a valuable resource tool for journalists using the platform and a timestamped proof of *heritage**posterity**ownership* for contributors to the platform.
A place where anecdotes can be fully discussed in detail
Politicoin aims to be the most optimized possible place to discuss and research politics.
Navigation of the platform/Layout
The platform is about the discussion of ideas, and ideas come from people. Rather than subject the user to an unfiltered not necessarily relevant bulk of information, user experience will be decided by a subscription to topics and users. Users arrive with existing opinions and bias’s and the platform will aim to show them opposing opinions and arguments. Users will build upon their own platform as they dig deeper into topics of discussion.
As an investigation platform Information in, like documentaries, claims, ideologies, then to be deconstructed and debated about by users
How would we like the platform to be used?
As an accountable environment to conduct open source investigations
Acknowledgement of limitations, potential for abuse, and mitigation
With a public pay-to-play platform like politicoin there exists multiple potential avenues which participants could use to try and corrupt or distort the meritocratic exchange of information.
Vote rigging
Spam - The client would allow censorship and sorting based upon the users pre-selected ‘likes’ and ‘subscriptions’. This provides a new user an entry point without having to dig through masses of content. Content from the users’ preferences would still be subject to uncensored relies and rebuttals, giving opposing viewpoints to their initial network of trust. Layer 1 censorship.
Whales - Votes for visibility are weighted whereby the amount a vote/coin increases visibility by exponentially decreases when on the same content. For example, 1000 votes would only be 50% more visible than 20 votes. This reduces the effect that large bag holders and wealthy individuals have to monopolies visibility.
Burying comments - As well as the vote weighting system, users will be incentivized to dig through thread for insightful comments as their ‘find’ of a good comment would be rewarded with a share of future votes that comment receives. Reputation of users based on received votes would also be a possibility.
sock puppets/astroturfing - The ability to create anonymous accounts has to be integral to the system so the only countermeasure to this is the would be the overall design of the system. With all activity non-rescindable and permanently recorded, the use of running multiple accounts would be inherently risky as ‘failures to respond to challenge’ would be
Users would be encouraged to add credibility to their accounts by taking public ownership of aid accounts through other verified social media and publishing platforms. Users can tweet or post to verify they control an account.
Lobbyists
What would the ideal debate look like/contain?
- An environment where participants should be accountable for their positions. Debating on the record
- You profess to have opinion X, please tackle the opposing opinion Y. Pay to/bounty for answer means where normally a point could be avoided or ignored, there would be a negative perception of someone turning away funds to argue for a point they supposedly supported.
- Right of reply/challenge. Token bounties used to grab the attention of contributors requesting clarification or debate on their
- provably fair ranking of comments
- Historical reputation and reliability
Envisioned evolution of the project/where do we see it going
If the project was successful and debate and publishing on politician became of political utility we would like to see the tracking and discussion of the roles, actions and opinions of all public officials to the extent that initially it would be adopted by honest politicians wanting to prove a point, then onto something that would be compiled on existing politicians by the community. Tracking the decisions, statements, actions and contradictions of a politician could be done in an open source community powered way. Transgressions of public officials would be recorded and accessible to the electorate as a way to provide transparency.
Crowd funded politicians
Built in advertisements for political parties. Bounties for politicians answering questions paid in tokens used for advertising to users. Why would they not want visibility. The resources is people's attention. Possibly existing traditional publications would license over advertising space on their own platforms in return for tokens since journalists might have a use for tokens. Vice versa, the supporters of a politician may directly influence decision making by cutting funding of a politician that is not upholding his mandate.
==================================================================
Bulletpoints
Applications
- Decentralised hub of censor free information and news
- Covering news items from all angles (contributors over the world) / Obtaining all sides of the story
- Direct democracy
- Decentralized provably fair voting system (No more ‘Russian hackers’)
- Uncensored decentralized research and profiles of politicians and public figures (Reputation, integrity)
- Crowdfunding politicians
- Tracking donations to political candidates.
- Tracking integrity of political promises
- Independent decentralized community investigations with bounty program
Usp’s
Free of ‘vested interests’
Independent censor free source of information
Characteristics
Censor free
Community Consensus
'Miners' become editors
Aim
To assist in censor free hub of sharing information, serious debate and governance.
To take the politics out of facts and media. / Make information objective.
Take finance out of the information industry.
Why
The information market deserves an access to unbiased information, uncensored debate and objective facts.
As opposed the never-ending desire for the powers at be to monopolize information and control public opinion.
Opportunity
We believe such a platform will be robust enough to overcome censorship, finance and lobbyists.
'Market'
- Political debate
- Political contributions
- Resolution of geopolitical conflicts?
- Bridging east and west, overcoming language barriers, connecting people - not politicians.
- News, bridging language and bias
Area of effect
- Independent politicians ‘crowdfunding’
- Independent politicians as actual representatives of the people / direct democracy
- Honest politics (censor free candidate profiles).
Background
The idea speaks for itself. The code is law. The community governs. The philosophy is as decentral as the governance of the project.
The whitepaper serves as a brainstorm initiative to inspire the crypto community to rethink the possibilities of the bitcoin ecosystem and the potential of blockchain technology in information, news, politics and even the consciousness.
Connections
The Politicoin platform will connect the information markets, news, debate and politics by allowing for a censor free platform that is capable of reducing the subjectivism of facts that can have major consequences. (Fake news leading to war, invasions and malice.)
- Bridge between governance and smart decentralized technology
- What could be the real-world impact?
- How could it change the information landscape?
News, debate and Fake news
- Fake News (M)
Recently it has come to the attention of a great many people how the news is influenced by sensationalism, political agendas or one-sided views.
The need for unbiased media has called out for independent publishers.
Relevant topics
- Propaganda
- Censorship
Connecting worlds
- Actual communication between countries and people in it.
- Local voting on 'what is happening' in popular events?
- No more sensationalism and fake news.
Technical
- The code
- Open source
- Platforms can be made for various purposes
- Integration of DAO in Politicoin?
- DAO vs Direct democracy?
- Direct democracy inspiration
I think the objective should be to solve the distrust of a vast majority of the population through this platform.
Jump to: