Agreed, the “well regulated militias” argument was always nonsense.

People can barely work together in office spaces, have zero appreciation for democracy, and have zero discipline. Yet we expect these same people to painstakingly learn combat, change their lifestyles, and agree who the enemy is.

For full transparency, I support 2A - but I support it because it is the best way to be uncooperative with violence. This is extremely important for not only having any chance against a corrupt government, but also your hysterical neighbors - who want to lynch you for being a witch.

P.S. Remote areas tend to be significantly more violent than populated areas. This is a phenomena observed through both anecdote and data. Protecting yourself from rabid neighbors in remote (often rural) areas is a genuine use case!

I think the rule of thumb is to never take a conservative at their word. They seem to only argue in bad-faith for their own personal gain (whether it be money or pleasure); and will go as far as changing the meaning of words and reality to be “correct”.

When a conservative makes a hypothetical, just assume it has no nuance, practicality, nor scientific process. If it did the militia argument would’ve been dead-on-arrival.

I challenge you to look at this from a different perspective.

The people with the (severely under-powered) guns come out, shoot some people, and then what?

The American populace has shown itself to be completely spineless and incapable of doing anything useful. At least 50% of the country will condemn your actions as “not the right way” - even as fascists are rounding them up and sending them to El Salvador.

So what did you just throw your life away for? Making no change, and potentially even setting back the cause. Guns will not fix the deep seated rot in America - no matter how many times you say it. Anyone with a brain looking to win (not the same as being correct!) will not show their hand now.

You make great points, and I will not necessarily refute any of them. This is why I said prior that I wanted a bunch of mathematicians to work towards a solution to this. There are many small and careful considerations that have to be made.

I think a heuristic (simplified model) may work better than trying to flat out solve it. As I said, this is not to refute, just a thought.

First, the problem is fundamentally chaotic (as you’ve said) there is no point in trying to accurately predict (solve) the outcome. Choosing “properties” that tend to be consistent, and then basing “success” off of those may be the more practical option. What these “properties” are would depend on consensus - models have elements you deem important, which may not actually be (as you’ve said). This is just something that needs RFC - hence needing a group of mathies.

Secondly, whatever the solution turns out to be needs to actually be do-able for the average joe. If there is a straight up solution, and it turns out to complex, I think it would be less valuable than a simple-to-do heuristic. If people don’t follow up it’s just worthless - and seeing how long it takes people to do very simple things, we’ll be waiting hundreds of years.

I’ll read the two articles you linked (I’ve read the abstracts) but it’ll be a slow burn.

I just find it extremely interesting that these same people (which is a majority of the voting bloc) do not have serious opinions on infrastructure, lawlessness, security, and water pollution. These are all more pressing and immediate issues - but the trans girl had more of an effect on their vote than literal heavy metals poisoning their water.

We agree here, but the word “process” implies consistency. If there is no consistency, then it is just hysteria or maliciousness - both of which are inexcusable.

As I said prior, we agree so, it is pointless to reason with the hysterical, malicious, and stupid. But why are we not referring to them as what they are?

To say it another way, stupid cannot be explained (that’s the whole point) - so why explain it? It makes it seem as if there is some form of depth to their thoughts (there isn’t) - which rationalizes them. Every time we do that, we waste more of our limited resources.

It has been 2025 years since the death of Christ, and we still do not have a functional economic system!

No matter what angle you look at it from, it’s insanity.

The logic still doesn’t track though. Even if it was a choice, who cares?

People are making choices to murder people, poison the drinking water, rape the weak, spread prion diseases, and strip your rights. But I hear nothing from the same exact people screaming about trans - which has no effect on your living conditions.

Like we really need to stop trying to rationalize these people. They are seriously worthless scum until they start speaking in good faith - which they won’t because they can’t rationalize misplaced fear.

Considering America has only increased in overall productivity for the last 30 years, I would say it’s going just fine. See the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

But according to you, the one making the claim, it isn’t. Where’s your evidence? Your feelings don’t count.

Have you ever seen the qualifications of DEI candidates? People always say DEI, but always leave out the part that their resumes are often the best.

So we agree that America has been hiring based on race, and I’ll even go further and say its been for the last 250 years - but it’s for whites. Being white is not a merit-based qualification.

Also you think America has only been falling apart for the last 15 years? Did you just forget 1985-1993? This is a troll account, but at least make the bait believable - it’s pathetic.

Just guessing, it likely failed due to:

• Being relatively unknown
• I2P being relatively small
• Java being a non-standardized language
• No data verification (malicious host can corrupt data)
• Poor UI and UX
• The main developer leaving

These are killshots to this type of service as people need to develop/extend/use it - for it to be viable. It is in the right direction, but (similar to many cornerstoning attempts in FOSS) is not handled gracefully.

Yeah the uni-directional relationships are also significant. It also happens to translate well; if Mr.Beast goes to randomcorp.com he is almost guaranteed to pull more people over than if SchmoeJoe went. Those people in turn would cause the website to be a more attractive option (less weight on the edge).

That would mean that there even is nuance within tyranny, which is funny to think about.

There’s also the possibility of cycles! What a fun rabbit-hole. Definitely worth a thesis paper or large-scale open discussion.

P.S. Also agreed that with a “limit” it is not TSP, and is much simpler. It evolves into TSP only when you think about a message originating from a source and making it to everyone - with the same effect for responses.

First off, agreed that monkey brain + internet = unsolved.

Second, I think that this overall is a math problem and what you’re describing is metadata. Before I continue, there are many ways to solve and interpret problems - this is just how I see it.

If you think about this as a graph, it makes a lot more sense as a math problem. People want to communicate and the message has to reach each of them once through the shortest route. In essence, this becomes the “Traveling Salesman Problem”.

Next, imagine the distance between points on the graph become longer (when people group together) and shorter (when people split apart) - we now have described tyranny of the majority.

What you are describing (from my perspective) is the cost of going from one part of the graph to the other. This indeed is a very important part of the problem and directly relates to the tyranny, but does not solve it. Instead to solve this problem, we would have to find a way to standardize the distance between any two points in the graph (i.e it cannot take more than 30 feet to reach any given destination).

I cannot begin to describe how difficult this would be, but my brain is telling me it’s solvable.

The comments (and your github post) helped me think about this a bit deeper. This is why discussion is helpful.

There’s a lot of nuance to be had here, but it’s a conversation for another time.

You bring up something interesting though

IRL you would leave but on the internet you want them to leave.

I wonder if this is because people view these spaces as a home or a “third place”. Like if someone did something offensive in your home, you would indeed ask (or force) them to leave.

People also find it insanely difficult to “leave” because all of their friends are on the platform. Since it’s almost never open-protocol, that means being locked to said space - so you can only get people you don’t like to leave.

We generally agree the moderation has become overbearing. I would argue most of it is straight up ineffective and performative. We need actual data and science backing moderation policies, not just “this feels good”.

This is interesting perspective.

If I’m interpreting what your saying correctly, this becomes an alternation of the “Traveling Salesman Problem” - where people are the nodes, sending information is the destination, and medium of communication is the weight. The goal being finding the shortest path for two-way communication (go to destination and return).

If this is the case, “tyranny of majority” is indeed a very difficult problem to solve. This phenomena causes the weights of the graph to become change based on the number of surrounding nodes. Higher when less nodes (i.e Lemmy) and lower when more nodes (i.e Reddit).

To go even further, companies are manipulating their weights (creating closed ecosystems, etc) to make is so two-way communication is only viable within their bubble (think an edge of infinite weight). And it would also mean that it truly is unreasonable to expect laymen to “memorize the graph” (know a forum for everything) - it indeed would be just easier to know a subsection (i.e Reddit, Facebook, etc)

I’m just spitballing here, but a lot to interpret if true.

Reddit was is a peculiar position, flooded by the masses isn’t really what I would call old reddit. Known by them yes (for answers), used by them no.

I think that development is fairly recent, maybe from 2019? And around that time, Reddit started to go to shit.

I agree with the government portion. I’m not really sure what the solution would be, which is why I want math folk working on it - but discussion is always helpful.

The problem is engagement - which in turn means building a community.

If someone goes to your forum, hijacks your posts, and them puts them on Reddit; there is no incentive to use your platform, which stifles and dies since no one is communicating on it. This is also part of the tyranny, as people can figuratively walk into your house, eat all your food, and then expect you to restock.

On the old internet, this was not really an issue since there was a better culture. But if all your friends use Reddit, and all the content is reposted there, why use the internet forum?

I agree that we need solid alternatives, but this doesn’t really tackle the tyranny of the majority problem. We need people to use the platforms for communication, otherwise it has not solved the problem.

For example, if you use Signal but every single one of your friends use WhatsApp and refuses to switch (which is common), then you are forced to use WhatsApp. This is why it is tyranny.

EU can facilitate thousands of platforms, but if the masses don’t use them it’s pointless.

Federated-platforms are kind of a step in the right direction, but they’re extremely weak to internal bad actors. If lemmy.world gets one million normie users, then cuts off the entire federation - then Lemmy has effectively been hijacked and set back 10 years.

It’s frustrating but true.

To use an extreme example, if I saw someone just spamming the hard-R I would want their comment immediately removed. The rhetoric makes the space becomes completely unserious; just not a good environment.

The funniest part is that this mirrors real life. If someone did that IRL, I would just leave.

I am not going to argue in terms of right/wrong because I’m just not equipped to. But in terms of platform result, I do not want to participate on a 4Chan clone - because it always leads to unserious discussion, bad faith, and death.

I think this is an XY problem.

People keep trying to bring back the old internet ; This is an broken and outdated solution.

The root problem (in my opinion) is that we need to share critical information to the masses, but the masses introduce “tyranny of the majority”. It’s a really tricky problem to figure out, and I really really really want mathematicians working on this.

If you live in the states, the Electoral College exists because they were looking for a practical solution to this problem. Considering the outcomes, it did not work - but there is no shame in this, as I think this is actually a really hard problem to solve.

The only known solution is to not share information to the masses (a.k.a keeping the normies out). In essence, this is what the old internet was - and a large part of what made it great. But this is not correct as it does not meet the criteria of the problem. Nor does it translate well, since your neighbors are apart of the masses.

If anyone has any thoughts on this, please share. If you do math for a living, please gather your friends and make an open-thesis about this.

EDIT

After some discussion in the comments, I have a general hypothesis:

• One platform, one name.

People must be able to distinguish the resource they are accessing - highly recommended this process be easy. This provides consistent “edges”.

• Open protocols only.

Looking at “tyranny of the majority” from a different perspective, one answer is to standardize how people communicate. This means no closed ecosystems nor convoluted protocols. This provides “standard weight” while preventing “infinite weight”.

• Server-wide censorship cannot be allowed.

This eliminates every platform I know of. Servers should not be given any tools to prevent incoming nor outgoing data. People should handle moderation individually - sane UI can of course be made available (BlueSky block filters could be inspiration?). Blocking should only be handled by the “nodes”, this also prevents “infinite weight”.

I find it really funny that this conclusion kind of alludes to the early internet in a lot of ways. Maybe it wasn’t the internet-forums, but the internet itself that has changed.

Wouldn’t you just use AFS, CEPH, NFS, or 9p?

I really don’t want to be that guy, but isn’t SSHFS (FUSE) actually a terrible option when compared to an actual file-system? MacOS isn’t really missing out on much there.

The most painful part of MacOS (which makes it downright unbearable for me) is that system configuration files are XML. It’s an absolute nightmare.