I think impersonal institutions are toast. If you want an alternative to neopatrimonialism, start thinking of mechanisms for enabling transitive p2p trust. Technology that makes it such that if A trusts B and B trusts C, A trusts C in certain predictable ways/defined scopes.
-
-
How would you use this? Instead of saying “I really want this job!” you’d say, “I want this job so much I’ll stake my entire TWIMC forest* on this application!” * Set of To Whom It May Concern DAG trees
Show this thread -
You’d literally be staking your reputation. Or at least signing up for a very expensive reputation reconstruction failure mode. Including recommendations from dead people that may not be recoverable.
Show this thread -
You could robustify your reputation forest. If Bob thinks Alice may in future turn out to be a criminal, he stakes his gig with Charlie using both letters from Alice and Dan. That way if Alice goes to jail, her letter can be removed without orphaning the Charlie letter.
Show this thread -
New conversation -
-
-
What if they stiff you (for e.g. Personal Reasons) and destroy your recommendations without cause? Any recourse?
-
That’s the risk cost of you trusting them. If it mattered and you could demand it, you’d hold their letters too. Mexican standoff type deal.
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.
When Alice says, “I trust Bob” to Charlie, the only way to capture the promise being made is to include a model of Alice in any new Bob-Charlie relationship definition.