Read my post, there is. Nick Szabo called it the God protocols. My version is similar, basically instead of putting the crowd in the position of God, we encrypt all private data so no human being can read it, but AI can do data analysis on it, and output a result useful for all while preserving privacy. This is theoretically possible and it's called homomorphic encryption and in my opinion preserves more liberty than Dan's solution which has the potential to dissolve all individuality.

In Dan's transparent society we will have to rely on sentiment analysis to determine what food we can eat because we might upset animal rights activists if we don't. Every decision we make will have to be negotiated with the crowd, so are the decisions going to even remain our own? Do we need or want the crowd to judge everything about our lives? How would the crowd ever do this without being biased anyway?

In my opinion, this level of judgment shouldt be opt-in. If you want to seek approval or advice from the crowd you should be able to ask. At the same time, if the crowd is judging you by a global standard which you aren't even aware of, from your childhood, what kind of thinking and behavior will this promote when you become an adult?

References

1. http://nakamotoinstitute.org/the-god-protocols/
2. https://steemit.com/politics/@dana-edwards/total-transparancy-benefits-the-top-of-the-pyramid-and-may-not-actually-work-as-intended-there-are-costs
3. https://steemit.com/steem/@dana-edwards/the-concept-of-saving-face-western-eqivalent-is-preserving-honor-is-a-key-regulator-of-human-social-intercourse
4. https://enigma.co/