All of Dan B's Comments + Replies

Dan B30

I'm not arguing for abolishing norms. You are arguing for dramatically increasing the rate of norm enforcement, and I'm arguing for keeping norm enforcement at the current level.

Above, I've provided several examples of ways that I think that increasing the rate of norm enforcement could have bad effects. Do you have some examples of ways that you think that increasing the rate of norm enforcement could have good effects?

Note that, for this purpose, we are only counting norm enforcements that are so severe that people would be willing to pa... (read more)

Dan B30

For non-crime blackmail, there's a broader question about whether we should give people incentives to share information about norm-violation. I think an important question is: whose norms?

Perhaps most of society believes in ritually torturing themselves for an hour every day with electric shocks, to ward off demonic possession. Perhaps I don't believe in that. If you find out that my ritual-electric-shock chair has been mostly disabled and is running at 1% of standard power, should you have an incentive to blackmail me about that?

Perhaps I thi... (read more)

4RobinHanson
You are very much in the minority if you want to abolish norms in general.
Dan B10

Let's talk about blackmail-for-non-crimes.

I'm worried that a blackmail-for-non-crime contract is weirdly hard to enforce. The blackmailer has an incentive to leak the information to their friends, so that their friends can begin separate blackmail attempts and extract more money from the blackmailee. The blackmailee has no good defense against this, but does have an incentive to murder the blackmailer to prevent the blackmailer from leaking the information (and to save money on their blackmail contract).

I'm sure there are other categories ... (read more)

3RobinHanson
The sensible approach is. to demand a stream of payments over time. If you reveal it to others who also demand streams, that will cut how much of a stream they are willing to pay you.
Dan B20

I feel like we should make a distinction between blackmail about crimes and blackmail about non-crimes.

I don't think we should make blackmail-for-crimes legal. I think that, if someone has evidence of a crime, their incentive should be to report the crime to the police so the crime can be punished. Perhaps the police should be offering them money as a reward for reporting the crime (although we'd have to think carefully about how to do that without creating an incentive to make false reports). But I don't think we should let anyone have a monetary incentive to cover up a crime.

1Zolmeister
Would this then disallow out-of-court settlements? e.g. Uber settling a wrongful death case with cash. Edit: Upon further reflection, it would only apply to the criminal case, not the civil case. It seems like you're describing banning trade of knowledge of crimes. This is distinct from blackmail, which has to do with an asymmetry between offer direction (by Hansons definition).
1[comment deleted]
Dan B30

We played this and it was fun! Thanks for the recommendation!

Dan B30

For online events, I want to try the following solution: add a text channel to the conversation.

Like, if you're watching someone have a conversation, but you feel like interrupting to say something might derail them, instead you should be able to post a text thing. The text thing appears next to your character, lasts thirty seconds, and then fades away. If people feel your thing is valuable, they can react to it and make it a part of the conversation; if they don't feel it's valuable, they can ignore it.

2Raemon
Yeah, I do think having explicit secondary channels of communication can help a bit. A lot of the current platforms I know of hide the chat a fair amount such that it's kinda hard to notice, but that's an arbitrary design choice that could be changed.