I’ve Thought About Moderation, A Lot. It’s broken and here’s the fix. More details coming soon. Please subscribe and listen.

I commented on your YouTube video at the end of my recording. I’m doing all of this live by the way from the typing of the comment to checking out your site to writing this email. It’s all verifiable. I would have shouted you out before if I’d seen you. Please reevaluate having a further conversation or believing that our ideas are different for whatever motivation you have to do so. I GUARANTEE we are working on essentially the same pattern and I can make us and our users more money in an equally as ethical way.

I would like to see the creation of a system that does not participate in the judgement of anything, just collects and displays the data.

Anything that does this is inevitably not going to work well for you. I can prove it to you existentially if you would like. Definitely don’t want to offend you. It just isn’t possible.

The system is built for the purpose of judging people and data, but that judgement is done by the populous and outside sources doing that filtering and judgement.

Outisde sources are always a waste of money. You can always perform a job from inside a group on average better than you can with those from outside a group. Imagine if you were in control of enforcing China’s laws. It simply wouldn’t make sense. I’m going to go a little quick on the response so that if it comes of incomplete, please let me know where. I’m actually working on provably logical ways of making sure that we were creating the best system possible, even if you stole all these ideas. If you are after profit, you should debate my idea because that’s going to be one of the core facets of my system. Ever wonder why governments control gambling? Immediate source of income, forever. I will invite you to stake money to prove that mine isn’t beneficial to you in its very existence. I will put my money where my mouth is to if you’d like to have a publicly viewed debate. Whatever you please, seriously.

You can build your own judgement system to judge the people based on the data that is available in our system, but that would be separate from the system I would like to create.

It’s very important to me that people get the Raw data of exactly what the most popular opinions are, then if they wish they can view that data through a judgement filter something like what you want to make.

Are you talking about yours or mine? Of course you can do that. And of course you can choose what other judgement systems are being used. And you can ignore that. And you can use generated filters for various groups where you can proove there is passion. That’s where the flattening goes wrong. That’s what happens when you just collect and display. Not any one individual is special. IT’s when we all come together and play the game of competition that we create passion. At the same time, people are dying in Africa of starvation because America would rather incentivize as a country collective the ever approaching limit as x->0 of getting 0 minute delivery of physical goods (literally not possible under our cultural conditioons and since then, should effectively be considered in the same realm as the infinite or as the speed of light. 300 years ago, no one could have predicted the types of information sharing systems we possess. Therefore, we have to abandon more readily our INTERPRETATION of the stories of the past, but not the stories. You wipe away the stories and your clearing off the lecture of every Dawkins, every Hitch, every Harris, every briliant scientist ever. Everything loses its passion and we devolve into the greyish death of hell that is lack of diversity. There would be no music, no art, no new thought, just 1984 scenarios where you walk around following the rules and then you die, the exact same as everyone. At least in the West (and I don’t know enough about the East to say) you can live your best life, try and make as manny people as happy as you possibly can, and create networks of things doing the same thing and feeling fulfilled and doing what they love and making the world a better place for everyone and I could go on… you want to take care of those pepole. Jordan Peterson said it himself in his most recent interview with that Brittish fellow. These groups previously were churces. Now religions have inevitably become corrupt, and that has echoed through and obviously and unavoidably begun to deteriorate our ability to have free speech.

If you were concerned about people working with the Raw data before you can filter it for the smart people, then you will not be interested in working with me.

I know it’s annoying but you dont’ know your idea well enough to explain it so precisely. If you think you do, I read the comments in the other reddit, and other people don’t think you do. You attack people who are attempting to work with you by saying they don’t understand. I do the same things. It’s annoying as fuck to spend all of that effort trying to orate or dictate your idea for no one to pay attention, and when they do, they just say it’s dumb. I’m not saying your idea is dumb. I’m saying it’s an idea that’s so good I think it’s close to my idea. If you would just explain it better, I think we would end up they are agreeing and we can call it your idea and that I just didn’t understand. I really don’t care. But if we do work together, we’d be working towards common goals and that’s a VERY good idea, espeically considering the completely separated digital climate as you no doubt can observe we hold very solid footing on at the most unfortunate of relative situations that we could be experiencing.

We can and should do better to communicate online in fair, unbiased, truthful ways. If you agree with that statement, there is no way we’re working on opposed ideas. I just don’t imagine that to be possible. We’ve collectively and as individuals come across a problem so worth solving with such similar ideas that it is the same thing as Newton and Liebniz discovering a new calculus in our age and actually working together to somehow improve it. Math is always going to be created and differently skinned into various sciences, etc. Math doesn’t just appear out of thin air you know like a magic trick when the clock strikes twelve. It comes when people passionately obsess over problems that you don’t think have anything to do with anything. And guess what — they always end up having something to do with something in the next generation or so.

So, please reconsider at least having a conversation with me to better understand both yours and my ideas, and reevaluate whether or not you want to assume you know what someone is talking about with your idea or with theirs in the first 10 minutes of reading what they say. Becuase if someone told you your site’s idea sounded like it wasn’t theirs 5 years ago, would you still have built it? Of course.