You have wrote yourself into a catch-22.
Either,
A. The discourse is less genuine due to lack of skin in the game
Or,
B. The discourse is less genuine because people will self censor if they have too much skin in the game
Further,
You then state that claims are easier to verify if we know what credentials users have...
This is part of fiat culture, not of a meritocracy.
Ideas should stand (or fall) on their own merit (or lack thereof).
No, skin in the game is what enforces genuineness over the long haul. Because there’s a cost for being full of shit.
And you don’t judge the truth of something based on credentials. You judge the motives/ of someone who works for Pfizer based on the fact that you know they must say and believe what they’re saying otherwise they couldn’t work there.
"Skin in the game" as you define it promotes group think.
Just go look at any other social media platform...
without skin in the game you have people who stand for nothing, Other social media platforms could deplatform you. Now that’s no longer possible.
you can have skin in the game here with your social graph
Oddbean new post about login | logout