> what interests me most about Community Notes is how, despite not being a "crypto project", it might be the closest thing to an instantiation of "crypto values"
Wut
Wut
Yes, the actual software runs at a single location. But apparently it's open enough that you could in principle run it in a distributed manner. As you can even cross-check the data and compute the same results deterministically, you could theoretically even do it as a blockchain, although it's unclear why you would. But you could, if there was value in P2Ping such a thing.
In that sense, Vitalik's point does land.
https://gizmodo.com/twitter-x-elon-musk-vaccine-bronny-james...
May be it’s the false sense of being decentralized that makes it like crypto?
Looking at that specific note, it's obvious that the note was extremely open to dispute and that's why it was voted down. You don't need to invoke the spectre of The Terrible Elon to explain that. The medical establishment has by their own admission created an endless torrent of false claims about vaccine safety, so it's something where you just aren't going to get bipartisan consensus about anything at all.
At least, that’s what the centralized authority says.
No one outside Twitter can verify that claim.
>Community Notes are not written or curated by some centrally selected set of experts; rather, they can be written and voted on by anyone, and which notes are shown or not shown is decided entirely by an open source algorithm. The Twitter site has a detailed and extensive guide describing how the algorithm works, and you can download the data containing which notes and votes have been published, run the algorithm locally, and verify that the output matches what is visible on the Twitter site.
Do I vote in the same or different place where my neighbor's botnet votes?
I don't think I'm alone to share all of this not-so-closely-related beliefs, so there perhaps a connection. I guess first of all its rooted in a fundamental trust of humans and human institutions more than anything. I think if you ask people "do you think politicians can generally be trusted to work for the common good of their constituents" then those who strongly agree probably also agree to some extents on the above issues.
I doubt you're alone but my suspicion would be that you're in a very small minority.
> a fundamental trust of humans and human institutions
These are two separate things. In general, those who primarily trust the former do not place the same level of trust in the latter, and vice versa. Finding those who trust in both seems a rare thing.
> I think if you ask people "do you think politicians can generally be trusted to work for the common good of their constituents"
It's been my observation that many people who vote do so on a "least worst" basis. National statistics bodies collecting data on levels of trust in public representatives rarely post figures above 50%.
Community Notes is an interesting example of collective moderation, but it’s an example of collective moderation, a long-standing thing that has nothing to do with decentralization as I think most people understand the term. The objection here, I think, isn’t to Vitalik’s interest in it — it’s to the “if all you have is a cryptocoin, everything looks a blockchain” mindset.
It's not. I should have added more examples. Another one - how do you arrive at a single truth?
The correct answer is, I found that quote unintelligible and incoherent. I cannot see what one thing had to do with the other.
This is the guy that thought of Ethereum because he disagreed with a balance patch in an MMO and thinks that in a blockchain mmo you could just fork it.
Every take he has is about cryptolibertarian ideology and should be treated as such.