let’s design fake voting software for direct democracy! let’s assume the problem of identifying users is solved, and hope the system makes this moot. i’m imagining an ideal system where people can collaborate productively on disparate ideas to identify solution spaces that include all their values. this might mean discussing their different experiences and forming clear truths regarding their opinions, perceptions, and guesses, and proving these things. moreso it might mean including and defending meaningful value around everyone’s importances so people are satisfied these importances are honored. i usually think of such a system as involving a graph of related concepts, an interface for discourse and navigation within this graph, a way to navigate or unify shared concepts, and a way to protect the data and dialog from potential malicious actors who maybe simply prefer a different approach more than to learn about this one. last bit gives rise to an idea of presenting the system well to such people, such that they develop interest rather than worry, and find it to have utility for their ends. given that would be a learning curve i imagine people would still value protecting the dialog from aggressive influence finding a way to game the product of the rules and the human behavior. one could see difficulties around this as related to fragmentation of current systems, but one can also imagine algorithms that might reduce such things, such as encouraging the value of conflicting viewpoints in ways that strategically and atopically address vulnerabilities of the human-/system. what parts might develop small steps toward such an ideal, and are reasonable to consider?