Use of Trust Cloud To Confirm Community Transparency & Validate Current Admins
IMHO, there are two kinds of moles.
1.) Well meaning persons who can’t control their confusion. This type is hard to spot, and when you try to get rid of it, the full weight of “acceptable community standards” prevents you from getting rid of it. Sacramento has one of these today.
2.) Inadvertent or intentional vicious persons originating from whatever corner. These may or may not be government agents or socio-paths.
Either type succeeds by causing the group’s members to accuse each other, with the mole always appearing to somehow hold the politically correct high ground.
I'm citing the pain from last Friday's Structure WG conference call. It caused two people from Sacramento and one person from Southern California, who were on that call, to “quit”, amidst accusations against each other, and accusations from "leaders" on the call. The “mole's" manipulation made it seem that he had the high moral ground. Or that by listening to him it was best for the group.
Does the National group have someone of the first type that is intimately active with us today, causing our pain? Making us think the pain came from us!? And that he has no fault?
Or will we be plauged by one of the second type? If its just an official, trying to set us up the way people in Earth First were set up and then given stiff jail sentences, I think we will be able to spot them. On the other hand, although I am preparing our own internal and group-wise security protections, things could get dicey.
Please lay into me if the answer is no. I don’t really enjoy writing these things. :-((
jemcgloin Tue 24 Jun 2014 9:31PM
Justin, having block defined as "I'm a troll..." or "I'm a racist..." makes the whole poll seem like a snarky waste of time. If you want me to take your polls seriously you need to define options that don't assume your side is good and any other opinion is evil
jemcgloin Tue 24 Jun 2014 9:34PM
How do we know the trust cloud is not run by the NSA?
Justin Tue 24 Jun 2014 11:00PM
@jemcgloin
Please read the proposal.
This is only for people stepping up for social media.
Donna Piranha Tue 24 Jun 2014 11:15PM
Another Occupier told me about these multiple accounts and that is not just silly, it is unacceptable. How can we ever have trust when we find out that some people have multiple accounts? That being said, i now have 2 accounts myself because i could not ever log into the old one, so now i have this new one. The old one is non-accessible so if it cannot be removed, then it will look like i have 2 accounts, even though i will just use this one.
Anonymous people are fine, obviously, ... unless they start being assholes. i agree that for the most part ... peeps should be as real as they can to impart trust. When information is Googled that casts doubt upon the veracity of an Occupier's identity, trust will always be affected unless there is truthfulness and transparency. That is why the founding patriarchs were wise to include Freedom of the Press in the First Amendment. The press was intended to act as an unbiased "check" for lies and corruption. Have you noticed the difference in our calls since having a journalist on them to make sure that everyone is accountable? It's interesting, isn't it? <3
Sally G Wed 25 Jun 2014 3:48AM
Actually, Donna, I really have not noticed that big a difference. Journalism in large part is not what it once was, of course; “our guys” aside. MSM has been so corrupted itself that the so-called “alternative media” has sprung up to do what once was respected journalistic work. Embedded reporters in military zones are extreme examples. (BTW, I had a fairly long discussion with Jerry, the reporter on our calls—he is doing his homework.)
Justin Wed 25 Jun 2014 3:53AM
Jerry is a goof. The guy has three facebook accounts. Don't get me started lolz. Link me as you all plug into trust cloud. seems you can give + in skills ect.. kinda neat the way it links into the ideas of gift economies with it.. check out some of the platforms you can use with it- the free ones, naturally.
Cal Wed 25 Jun 2014 6:36AM
People could be an admin of Loomio who aren’t on any other social media and therefore wouldn’t have a meaningful trust score. Some of us have built trust over several/many years, based on what we do, what we've added, how we listen, how we be, how we aid others in empowering themselves, and more -- and it would take years to replicate that in social media.
jemcgloin Wed 25 Jun 2014 12:45PM
Justin, you completely blew off my concern, which was based on a reasoned suspicion of push polling.
Polls that make it obvious what the "right" answer is, have no scientific validity, except to try to shape people's opinion, which is not what a poll is supposed to do.
This fact is not dependent on what wg one is in.
jemcgloin Wed 25 Jun 2014 12:55PM
Oh and Justin, read your own proposal. It doesn't say that this is limited to "people stepping up for social media."
Sally G · Mon 23 Jun 2014 3:21AM
I hope that you are right about continual free service; I understand that those not on sites such as Facebook, Twitter, etc., not asking for control of those NatGat accounts, but Loomio might be an exception to that, as discussions appear somewhat self-contained.