The depth of an argument is limited by the shallowest person in the argument. Which means arguments are futile if there is no decisive conclusion reachable at a shallower level. If the proof takes calculus and your opponent only knows algebra your only real option is to arrange an empirical demonstration that will seem like magic to them.

Blogger at ribbonfarm.com, running summerofprotocols.com, host of /gloom ☀️

This would mean that democratic elections won't work unless you maintain or increase the "depth" of the electorate

>the idea of capping funding was to give equal visibility to all parties and candidates, so none could just outspend the others to victory

Yup this is Bernie's point as well. I'm just saying that the goal of giving all candidates equal visibility is unachievable in modern media

When the only way to spread your message was to pay media gatekeepers, funding regulation can ensure equal visibility

But there are now new ways to hijack engagement to spread a message. These tactics are only going to get more effective & will be impossible to regulate

To get equal visibility is this environment, candidates then get into an engagement bait arms race. But crafting the best engagement bait requires distorting the message, which can't be good for the electorate

Feels like at least some of the energy put into funding regulation reform should be directed to making the electorate more epistemically robust. But I don't hear many voices for this

I wish some of the energy put into free speech rights and funding regulation reform were spent on "deepening" the electorate instead

I wish some of the energy put into free speech rights and funding regulation reform were spent on "deepening" the electorate instead

https://warpcast.com/dinesh.eth/0xbd1d7419

Correct. That’s why they get captured by people doing cheap magic tricks.