There's some evidence form looking at trial juries, that randomly selected pools lead to people taking things *more* seriously, and being *more* interested in getting to the facts and making the *best* decision than people who actively seek positions of power.

Yeah, it's not an obviously insane idea.

I wasn't saying the note should *physically* be deleted by anyone.

Yes. That was my only point.

ah cool!

I get that. And that's not what I was suggesting.

I wish there was a way for clients to respect deletion -- maybe even at the individual's discretion. Main reason I've wanted to use deletion is correct spelling mistakes / edit things I've posted! Could get best of both worlds by just treating deletion like a hint for clients to hide it by default -- even though it is still *there*.

The argument is basically that a lottery approach to picking representatives would be *more* democratic than voting, because it would be statistically representative of the whole population and their views, and there wouldn't be an obvious way to capture the politicians for special and private interests -- they don't need to fundraise. It's more like jury duty.

There are some democratic theorists who are advocating for this, believe it or not. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22878118/jury-duty-citizens-assembly-lottocracy-open-democracy

You could! You could elect representatives by random lottery. That would be perfectly democratic. For something to be democratic the standard is to ask: "is everyone equal before the law, and do they have equal franchise?". Like voting, a random lottery would also satisfy that.

No. That's definitely not what democracy is. Democracy is not simply about voting.

Democracy cannot function under the auspices of censorship.

I thin it's network effects are rapidly breaking down in front of our very eyes.

It's just broken. Nostr is a shape of the future, yes. But I think the eventuality is causally-disconnected in the near term.

That wouldn't surprise me!

Yeah

My base case for Twitter at this point is that it gets sold for pennies on the dollar within the next 12-months.

Is that because you think it's absurd to pin every deviation from the mean on climate change, or because you think climate change itself is absurd?

Is this good advice, though? I know if you polled people, the vast majority of people would say yes. But if you were think think carefully about it, is it *really*?

Is what you believe true because you want it to be, or because you know it to be? And how do you tell?