I hope I'm right, but I don't expect the NYT article on Scott Alexander to be a hit piece. It's revealing that so many worry it will be, though. Few would have 10 years ago. But it's a more dangerous time for ideas now than 10 years ago, and the NYT is also less to be trusted.
-
-
I think this is indeed something which would require brainsweat, but do not think that underwriting this would tax the capabilities of the US financial industry overmuch. “Inside me against character flaws in an employee” sounds hard in abstract; is really pedestrian concretely.
-
Ironically I might imagine this could make the problem worse. There's a countercurrent perverse incentive *to get cancelled* both for fame and financial reasons if you're insured against it. That wouldn't actually make ideas less dangerous, just more controversial.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Hmm. Price would have to start on the basis of disability insurance, discounting min wage/repl level employ. "Counterparty premium" is harder to price, i.e. people not wanting to do business with "cancelled" person Would also need "opinion adjuster", eval vol. of cust. opinions
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The major impact seems to be twofold 1) doxed person’s relationship with institutions[jobs, colleges, etc.] 2) reputation. One of those can be insured, but you can’t really insure loss of credibility? (note the irony that this discussion came about bc of the NYT)
-
"Reputation insurance" is real. In its current form, perhaps only desirable for Fortune execs. Lemonade it. Meaning, automate it and get it to the masses.https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2011/12/13/226947.htm …
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.