macrocephalopod

To combat authoritarian top-down shaming of those who question policy it would be good to forge some sort of counter (and organic) social credit system protocol. One that rewards people for addressing anyone they vehemently disagree with in a respectful and engaging way.

Any social credit system will be perverted to suit the needs of those with enough power to establish a social credit system in the first place and those in power's first need is not having people questioning their policies.

Not if it’s an organic bottom up one that is shaped by the community itself. Truth is a social credit system is not a bad idea in many respects. The issue with all current incarnations is that they are subjectively applied from the top down.

Bottom up social credit systems fall apart outside small communities where peer pressure acts as enforcer. And even there, honestly, ends up hijacked by those with the power to impose the "acceptable" social mores and who, again, have an interest to stifle critical opinions.

But that’s not what I’m proposing. A social credit system based around credits achieved for achieving consensus with critics is not the same as one where credits are subjectively earned.

Izzy, a social credit system where one gets credit to achieve consensus ends up being a way where people in the majority give credit to each other and refuse to "upvote" the critics, no matter what.