It's a shift away from large faceless business who we know value profit more than our needs, and towards a more personal connection between our needs and the provider. Accountability over anonymity.
Hmm in denmark we trust the government, but thats mostly because we are localized people and we all sorta know each or or have close ties to everyone. Even though meny are strangers, we still look at em and feel like we know em. But when itcomes to privacy, we dont acturally talk alot, but point is still there, we trust.
Yep, in a globalized world, accountability is tough because you can just leave to another country. Reputation is so important in having a good society.
These new-idea companies can still end up becoming the institutions we distrust. We just may not have seen how yet. But for instance there are issues in income share percentages that these companies offer to the service providers that seem so arbitrary or unfair. In any case though the fact that they enable ppl to find means to trust each other better, be more accountable to each other is amazing. Because ultimately no matter what facade is put on the face as a company/institution, it is people that run things inside and it is people who use the services. I wish there is something like this when it comes to medical institutions, doctors, pharmacists and government officials and services as the trust in those is eroding day by day (or may be never existed really?) Long way to go for humanity.
The accountability factor she refers to a few times is key. No one trusts that corporations are accountable, or even interested in being accountable for their actions anywhere ever. The sole exclusion is when the company will either a) lose more by not being accountable or b) gain more- or worse, profit more and then coo-pt it as a marketing strategy- by being accountable. A perfect example of the latter is the sudden transition from high fructose corn syrup in everything to food companies proudly announcing "no high fructose corn syrup!" in their marketing as if they invented the idea, but only after they were losing enough sales due to the presence of the hated substance, and only for that reason.
The problem with the AirBnB example (that you'd never leave the towels on the floor because you get a negative review) has an insidious problem. There's also pressure never to leave a bad review for an apartment you rented because your reputation will be "the renter that leaves bad reviews". It's easy to leave bad reviews for a hotel because other hotels are generally not in a position to deny renting to you in the future (it's all automated, lots of 3rd parties making the bookings, and there are laws). Not so with AirBnB. In general, each landlord can easily look at your previous reviews. All else being equal they're going to choose the renter that's never left a bad review over the renters that have left bad reviews. Why risk getting a bad review? And so in this very scary way that would seem to lead to this dystopia where you're powerless. Either that or you need some deep learning to figure out the *true* rating of a site based on if all the positive reviews are truly positive reviews or "wanted to leave a negative review but couldn't risk reputation" positive reviews. I suppose this could be solved if reviews were anonymous. AirBnB, Uber etc... only let real customers leave reviews but if those reviews were anonymous to everyone else then maybe that would solve it? So a landlord could see the reviews of you by other landlords but not the reviews you've left. And visa versa renters could see reviews of landlords but not who left the reviews. AirBnb gets one thing right. Your reviews aren't posted until you've both (tenant and landlord) written your reviews. That way one is not retribution for the other. Another problem with AirBnB like reviews is people not reviewing truthfully because you see the other person as a person instead of a business. Maybe some people think that's a good thing to "be nicer" but the problem is it leads to people that should get bad reviews not getting them. That means others are not warned of bad service. It also means the person providing the service has no feedback to fix their issues. Uber, which just asks for a 1-5 rating only makes it easier to leave a bad rating since it's instant and you don't have to write anything. On the other hand it makes it harder to give good feedback.
I agree AirBnB reviews need to be improved. I had a friend who had a horrible experience at one (not dangerous though) and she didn't leave a bad review for some of the reasons you mentioned.
If my brother hit me across the head with a tennis racket when I was five, splitting my left eyebrow, I would make the study of trust central to my career as well.People have lost faith in institutions because they understand the people behind those institutions are not trustworthy. It is similar to an adult realizing their parent(s) are corrupt and no good. It goes against the grain of what people want to believe so takes a bit of courage and the acceptance of a certain amount of cynicism toward the world. Idealism kept people happy but also blind to the harsher truths of the world. When a person feels empowered they are willing to take risks and blind trust is attractive to risk adverse people. To see life as it is and still want to be a part of life takes a strong mind.
one thing about the towels; you *should* leave them on the floor at hotels and such; they need to be washed, and a folded towel on the rack should be clean. i don't use BnB's; would you typically do laundry before leaving? *should* you be leaving your towel on the floor?
The title isn't very descriptive in my opinion. Something like "We've stopped trusting closed, opaque systems and started trusting open, transparent systems" would be more appropriate.
The thing that's kind of freaky about algorithms is that I would have never thought to look this up and the Serendipity of finding it is a rather mysterious thing to me as well, and makes me question a lot of things
Being able to hold people accountable on a global scale, is one thing that is connecting this global society. Also, if this shift is valid, how will it affect government institutions?-----Holding government officials accountable, is an element of democracy. Will countries be more democratic?
I treat towels the same in both hotels and AirBnB because I know a human being has to deal with cleaning the room, in both contexts, after I leave. If anything, I have empathy for the 'unknown person' who, like me, is just trying to make a living in life, and I respect other people's property. If digital makes us more accountable because we will be rated on our actions, does this not also point to greater selfishness of individuals? The person who does the AirBnB towel but not the hotel towel may want to 'look good online' and therefore treat the towel in a way that secures their positive individual profile. They might trust that their action will garner them a positive review, but they are still only thinking about themselves.
Interesting how she talks about the 'new trust' in people, strangers, yet she doesn't at all go into how many people also trust in people who are blatant, demonstrably liars, and would rather trust other peoples' conspiracy theories than factual analysis simply because it comes from an 'institution' and therefore must be inherently corrupt or biased. This new distributive trust isn't at all positive when seen in this light, but she doesn't even mention the possibility, nor how widespread it has become with the spread of the internet and new technologies such as youtube.
It seems the country's big companies with centralized management win the competition and decentralized tribes and small market traders but as we learn no ruler how much money he does not concentrate himself has not lived forever. Consequently, they all lost the competitive struggle to decentralized bacteria and molecules. Mathematically, we can conclude that the centralized structure is the local maximum in which we are now. Do not you think that the structure of decentralization to add to this communication everything with everything that the tribes did not have (you did not know anything about the other person) is much more effective. And such applications as Uber, Airbnb show it. The next stage of development is to decentralize these companies using blockchain and free software.
Maintaining trust in the underlying digital infrastructure is and will be huge. One example is deep fakes - how can we trust *anything* digital or online if deep fakes get more and more difficult to detect?
You won't find that opinion common among the TED protesters in the comments' section. What do they think maintains the profit motive (the "corruption and greed") of their institutions? What do they think keeps CNN and Fox News running? Do you think they'll blame the Lyrica and GE commercials they see literally every five minutes, or "liberalism"? Face it: They love the profit motive. They keep waiting for the institutions to fix themselves.
There is a lot of technological Utopianism on Ted. I feel like the technological advancements and the extent to which they have eroded trust in institution have not materialized in a transfer of power away from those institutions, nor should we assume that such a power transfer will occur organically and automatically. Institutions have used the same technologies that are frequently cited as the harbingers of a new freedom and used them for the purposes of social control. The NSA is an excellent example, the only more quintessential instance being the Sesame Credit system taking root in China. The point is that institution recognizes the threat posed to it by technology and uses that same technology to evolve and entrench itself. This Ted talk presents only one side of a future that has as many possibilities for technologically realized algorithms that facilitate Orwellian, institutional control as it does for the decentralized, technological libertarianism that she rosily presents here. This presents a part of what the future will hold, but institution is not dying, it is evolving such that it no longer needs our trust or even our awareness of it to function.
8 років тому
George Uberti , do you have any specific real or hypothetical examples in mind on how institutions are adapting, evolving, and utilizing these new tools to their advantage for increased power, control, etc, in the context of distributed trust? I am of the opinion that application of the public blockchain concept will be a net positive, but it's not a strong opinion and I'm interested to hear any and all arguments counter to that opinion.
cops using predictive technology that monitors social networks to pinpoint criminals and potential crimes before they occur. mix this with the justice system where the people do not make the laws and often oppose some laws. now tack in the fact that prosecuting attorneys offer plea deals but threaten extreme jail time if the person pleas not guilty and takes it to court. over 90% of people take the plea deal, many of them innocent. certain demographics are more targeted than others. and some actions which would otherwise be considered cultural norms for these groups are instead considered criminal actions. (marijuana should be legal for example, and black people are more likely to be targeted by the crime tracking software).
In this engaging talk, Rachel Botsman, writer, scholar and thinker fascinatingly explains about how the technologies like Blockchain is profoundly changing human behaviour in a way we never imagine. Citing examples from Uber, Airbnb she indicates how the concept of trust shifting from institutions to strangers. Highly recommended to all.
you dont throw the towel on the floor in airbnb not because of your reputation, but because you will need to use the same stinky towel your whole stay.
All I could think of was how lucky one is to be a serial killer today because bla bla car is such an easy platform to pick up victims. It is filled with suckers that blindly trust strangers and have no trust in the institution of police. I am almost sorry I am not a psychopath...
The cynic's view: Distributed trust is distributed data collection about individuals for institutions. The value of "distributed trust" information goes far beyond these individual behavioral instances. I'm not saying anything about motivations, just commenting on the concentration of informational power through the illusion of democratized services. "Trust, but verify" should still apply, and we need laws that promote transparency and knowledgeable regulators to oversee their application and to facilitate the dissemination of information about how this power is being used. Our problem now is that this power is being shared (or co-opted) between governments and institutions, creating a conflict of interest that will never favor the individual. Until we start voting for politicians who make dismantling this conflict a priority, we will continue this downward spiral of institutions asking for forgiveness when they are caught abusing this power instead of asking for our permission to use the power for uses that promote a common benefit.
it is your job as an individual to be a detective on how you are being manipulated. you need to learn how manipulation works, you need to understand past examples of manipulation and how it applied. you need to look at motivation to manipulate people's behavior and look at who gains and who loses. when you understand this, you can create a 2nd account on anonymous block chains, and you can manipulate just as well as they can. when everyone does this, than the whole thing falls apart.
That's not the point. We have to trust strangers no matter what. It's a requirement of modern society. If you don't want to have to trust strangers, you need to move to an isolated agrarian village where you can rely on local trust. Until recently, in order to trust strangers, you had only two options: 1. Pick a random person off the street and trust them. 2. Pick a system that you believe in. Find an institution that implements that system, and trust that the institution is run by trustworthy people. Today, we still have those options, but a third one was added: 3. Pick a system that you believe in. Now you don't need to worry about whether the people are trustworthy. No person needs to be trusted with ensuring integrity. The system itself guarantees integrity. We have technology that can mathematically prove its own trustworthiness. It's called blockchain. This simple fact is the sole reason why bitcoin has any value at all.
Fantastic talk. This idea of accountability is so essential to everyday trust- I couldn't agree more with Rachel views; I think institutional reform in this sense is almost inevitable.
I thought this talk was going to be about how people trust Facebook posts and celebrities more than the scientific body on topics like the safety of vaccines and climate change and whatnot.
That's a pretty deep question but this is what I think: I'd say greed functions well as a motive for people to work, but it becomes a bad things when people strive for something they desire while taking from others. And I don't mean just material things like stealing, but also immaterial things like trying to get a form of affection by making fun of other people. At that point you'd see yourself as more important than other people and you'd work only for your own sake. I think it would be the best if there wasn't so much greed, so people would be more willing to share their possessions and wouldn't always put themselves on the first spot. I think the world would look a lot nicer if that happened.
at the end of the day we are just biological machines driven by emotional behavior that was selected to get us to reproduce. greed is motivated differently in men and women. men are greedy because it will get them laid. if they stock up on resources they can use it to attract a woman (that is why you see men buying expensive cars and peacocking). women are greedy because of an instinct for nesting behavior and providing a safe environment for their children to grow up in as well as provide them food. this is instinct. in this manner most mammals that share parenting are greedy. it results in the survival and thriving of their offspring.
Reputation systems based on ★ ratings and unstructured text reviews are a bottleneck here. For discoverability and trust in general. Technologists slapped it together and gave up on more rigorous approaches thinking you couldn't get people to deliver better quality than that. The cutting edge seems to be that slideshow of questions about app features that you get on Google Play Store. It produces structured, semantic data that's more machine-readable, but isn't so much of a chore for users to input that it doesn't get done. These sometimes turn out comical, but nevertheless that's the direction we need. We need another go at the Semantic Web, the original vision for the WWW. But this time imagine if us consumers took more proactive approach. Radically more. Imagine if we joined forces and *collaboratively edited a Wikipedia of human needs and problems.* Solutions providers would then (voluntarily) fill our existing, real and pressing needs. And when we organically discover a product that's the most likely fit for our problems all that's left is to try it and confirm if it really was. This cuts through the fog of conspicuous consumption. And the machine filtering made possible would be truly amazing. Forget finding the best deals, machines could point out start-ups in need of founding, directions for design refinements, suggest certifications and - in the more speculative sci-fi arena - estimates of how _naturelike_ a solution is (See Adrian Bejan's _constructal law_ and Dmitry Orlov's _Harm-benefit Analysis_ )
I'm probably dumb because I don't understand why people don't like Ted anymore? I don't understand american politics but what has this videos or ted got to do with it?
If you have to go into a doctors office, be sure to take your voice recorder with you. The public needs to look in and see what's happening in the doctors and psychiatrists office. Don't even feel guilty about it.
On TED, men are dancing hand in hand in the tall grass and rainbows arguing to the death they aren't gay, and a woman has an intellectual point that is full of rationality and common sense. Welcome to the Twilight Zone.
That was cute.. At exactly what point in time did 'we' have trust in banks, government, or any other system? Was it the 80's, 60's, 1860's? No.. Trust in any system wanes as your knowledge of that system increases. In other words, the less you know, the more you trust. One day the speaker will be amused by what she's said here..
I am aware that typing your thoughts on the internet is constitutionally legal, yes. However that doesn't mean that you should just write whatever is on your mind without thinking about what the effects are, a comment like that doesn't do anything for people who actually liked to video and it also doesn't give constructive criticism or anything at all that could make people understand his opinion. So the only purpose that comment fulfills is if someone who hates the video reads the comments, they can see that they're not the only one, while doing that it annoys every person who did like the video (which tend to be a lot more than people who hated it). Is that really enough reason to go to a video just to write that you hate it?
It's a shift away from large faceless business who we know value profit more than our needs, and towards a more personal connection between our needs and the provider. Accountability over anonymity.
Watching this near the end of 2020 and incredible to see how well this talk has matured
Every time I feel too trusting, I play Rust. Clears it right up for me.
MrC0MPUT3R lol true
She seems so charismatic
Hmm in denmark we trust the government, but thats mostly because we are localized people and we all sorta know each or or have close ties to everyone. Even though meny are strangers, we still look at em and feel like we know em.
But when itcomes to privacy, we dont acturally talk alot, but point is still there, we trust.
Yep, in a globalized world, accountability is tough because you can just leave to another country. Reputation is so important in having a good society.
Perhaps it's because your country is rated in the top 5 most transparent and least corrupt governments on the planet.
found this talk really helpful.
Look who is here :D I like the new song you just posted/released.
These new-idea companies can still end up becoming the institutions we distrust. We just may not have seen how yet. But for instance there are issues in income share percentages that these companies offer to the service providers that seem so arbitrary or unfair.
In any case though the fact that they enable ppl to find means to trust each other better, be more accountable to each other is amazing. Because ultimately no matter what facade is put on the face as a company/institution, it is people that run things inside and it is people who use the services.
I wish there is something like this when it comes to medical institutions, doctors, pharmacists and government officials and services as the trust in those is eroding day by day (or may be never existed really?) Long way to go for humanity.
When I saw the title I thought the video was gonna be bad, but it wasn't!
The accountability factor she refers to a few times is key. No one trusts that corporations are accountable, or even interested in being accountable for their actions anywhere ever. The sole exclusion is when the company will either a) lose more by not being accountable or b) gain more- or worse, profit more and then coo-pt it as a marketing strategy- by being accountable. A perfect example of the latter is the sudden transition from high fructose corn syrup in everything to food companies proudly announcing "no high fructose corn syrup!" in their marketing as if they invented the idea, but only after they were losing enough sales due to the presence of the hated substance, and only for that reason.
Many of the comments below require a prelimiray level in "The Trust Stack": self-confidence.
Excellent presentation Rachel!!
The problem with the AirBnB example (that you'd never leave the towels on the floor because you get a negative review) has an insidious problem. There's also pressure never to leave a bad review for an apartment you rented because your reputation will be "the renter that leaves bad reviews". It's easy to leave bad reviews for a hotel because other hotels are generally not in a position to deny renting to you in the future (it's all automated, lots of 3rd parties making the bookings, and there are laws). Not so with AirBnB. In general, each landlord can easily look at your previous reviews. All else being equal they're going to choose the renter that's never left a bad review over the renters that have left bad reviews. Why risk getting a bad review? And so in this very scary way that would seem to lead to this dystopia where you're powerless. Either that or you need some deep learning to figure out the *true* rating of a site based on if all the positive reviews are truly positive reviews or "wanted to leave a negative review but couldn't risk reputation" positive reviews.
I suppose this could be solved if reviews were anonymous. AirBnB, Uber etc... only let real customers leave reviews but if those reviews were anonymous to everyone else then maybe that would solve it? So a landlord could see the reviews of you by other landlords but not the reviews you've left. And visa versa renters could see reviews of landlords but not who left the reviews.
AirBnb gets one thing right. Your reviews aren't posted until you've both (tenant and landlord) written your reviews. That way one is not retribution for the other.
Another problem with AirBnB like reviews is people not reviewing truthfully because you see the other person as a person instead of a business. Maybe some people think that's a good thing to "be nicer" but the problem is it leads to people that should get bad reviews not getting them. That means others are not warned of bad service. It also means the person providing the service has no feedback to fix their issues. Uber, which just asks for a 1-5 rating only makes it easier to leave a bad rating since it's instant and you don't have to write anything. On the other hand it makes it harder to give good feedback.
I agree AirBnB reviews need to be improved. I had a friend who had a horrible experience at one (not dangerous though) and she didn't leave a bad review for some of the reasons you mentioned.
What an excellent `Talk` that was.
My faith has always been with humanity and always will be :)
Very timely talk. Very well built framework. Interesting to think of journalistic trust / integrity in this light too.
🙂😏😏🙂😏😏😏😏😏😥😥😥😇🤔💀👻😜😝😟🙁🙃😴😫😒😒😒😌
Uuuuuuuj88
If my brother hit me across the head with a tennis racket when I was five, splitting my left eyebrow, I would make the study of trust central to my career as well.People have lost faith in institutions because they understand the people behind those institutions are not trustworthy. It is similar to an adult realizing their parent(s) are corrupt and no good. It goes against the grain of what people want to believe so takes a bit of courage and the acceptance of a certain amount of cynicism toward the world. Idealism kept people happy but also blind to the harsher truths of the world. When a person feels empowered they are willing to take risks and blind trust is attractive to risk adverse people. To see life as it is and still want to be a part of life takes a strong mind.
Rachel, YOU ARE A STRANGER, YOU KNOW....
one thing about the towels; you *should* leave them on the floor at hotels and such; they need to be washed, and a folded towel on the rack should be clean. i don't use BnB's; would you typically do laundry before leaving? *should* you be leaving your towel on the floor?
The title isn't very descriptive in my opinion. Something like "We've stopped trusting closed, opaque systems and started trusting open, transparent systems" would be more appropriate.
The thing that's kind of freaky about algorithms is that I would have never thought to look this up and the Serendipity of finding it is a rather mysterious thing to me as well, and makes me question a lot of things
Being able to hold people accountable on a global scale, is one thing that is connecting this global society. Also, if this shift is valid, how will it affect government institutions?-----Holding government officials accountable, is an element of democracy. Will countries be more democratic?
Thank you so much! I will join you later. I live in Peru and work from here.
I treat towels the same in both hotels and AirBnB because I know a human being has to deal with cleaning the room, in both contexts, after I leave. If anything, I have empathy for the 'unknown person' who, like me, is just trying to make a living in life, and I respect other people's property. If digital makes us more accountable because we will be rated on our actions, does this not also point to greater selfishness of individuals? The person who does the AirBnB towel but not the hotel towel may want to 'look good online' and therefore treat the towel in a way that secures their positive individual profile. They might trust that their action will garner them a positive review, but they are still only thinking about themselves.
Brilliant TED talk. Thank you.
you have to trust that there are more honest processing power in the network than coordinated abusers
I find bartering is more profitable and straight forward with no destructive interest
Hmm. The reason why I put my towels on the floor in hotels is that's what they ask me to do with them if I want fresh ones.
Wells Fargo you're the perfect example of "trust"
Great talk
Interesting how she talks about the 'new trust' in people, strangers, yet she doesn't at all go into how many people also trust in people who are blatant, demonstrably liars, and would rather trust other peoples' conspiracy theories than factual analysis simply because it comes from an 'institution' and therefore must be inherently corrupt or biased.
This new distributive trust isn't at all positive when seen in this light, but she doesn't even mention the possibility, nor how widespread it has become with the spread of the internet and new technologies such as youtube.
It seems the country's big companies with centralized management win the competition and decentralized tribes and small market traders but as we learn no ruler how much money he does not concentrate himself has not lived forever. Consequently, they all lost the competitive struggle to decentralized bacteria and molecules. Mathematically, we can conclude that the centralized structure is the local maximum in which we are now. Do not you think that the structure of decentralization to add to this communication everything with everything that the tribes did not have (you did not know anything about the other person) is much more effective. And such applications as Uber, Airbnb show it. The next stage of development is to decentralize these companies using blockchain and free software.
Maintaining trust in the underlying digital infrastructure is and will be huge. One example is deep fakes - how can we trust *anything* digital or online if deep fakes get more and more difficult to detect?
Institutions can only blame themselves for being so untrusted.
Institutions should go stand in the corner.
Perra tarea de Blackboard me tiene aquí
Last time i was that early institutions were still worth something
Btw libertarianism doesn't work, we need better solutions asap
You won't find that opinion common among the TED protesters in the comments' section. What do they think maintains the profit motive (the "corruption and greed") of their institutions? What do they think keeps CNN and Fox News running? Do you think they'll blame the Lyrica and GE commercials they see literally every five minutes, or "liberalism"?
Face it: They love the profit motive. They keep waiting for the institutions to fix themselves.
FunBotan
Unfortunately, DIDI ruined all the trust we customers give to it
A surprisingly good speech
You should have trusted Rachel Botsman.
we starting trusting facts and evidence.
There is a lot of technological Utopianism on Ted. I feel like the technological advancements and the extent to which they have eroded trust in institution have not materialized in a transfer of power away from those institutions, nor should we assume that such a power transfer will occur organically and automatically.
Institutions have used the same technologies that are frequently cited as the harbingers of a new freedom and used them for the purposes of social control. The NSA is an excellent example, the only more quintessential instance being the Sesame Credit system taking root in China. The point is that institution recognizes the threat posed to it by technology and uses that same technology to evolve and entrench itself.
This Ted talk presents only one side of a future that has as many possibilities for technologically realized algorithms that facilitate Orwellian, institutional control as it does for the decentralized, technological libertarianism that she rosily presents here. This presents a part of what the future will hold, but institution is not dying, it is evolving such that it no longer needs our trust or even our awareness of it to function.
George Uberti , do you have any specific real or hypothetical examples in mind on how institutions are adapting, evolving, and utilizing these new tools to their advantage for increased power, control, etc, in the context of distributed trust? I am of the opinion that application of the public blockchain concept will be a net positive, but it's not a strong opinion and I'm interested to hear any and all arguments counter to that opinion.
cops using predictive technology that monitors social networks to pinpoint criminals and potential crimes before they occur. mix this with the justice system where the people do not make the laws and often oppose some laws.
now tack in the fact that prosecuting attorneys offer plea deals but threaten extreme jail time if the person pleas not guilty and takes it to court. over 90% of people take the plea deal, many of them innocent. certain demographics are more targeted than others. and some actions which would otherwise be considered cultural norms for these groups are instead considered criminal actions. (marijuana should be legal for example, and black people are more likely to be targeted by the crime tracking software).
In this engaging talk, Rachel Botsman, writer, scholar and thinker fascinatingly explains about how the technologies like Blockchain is profoundly changing human behaviour in a way we never imagine. Citing examples from Uber, Airbnb she indicates how the concept of trust shifting from institutions to strangers. Highly recommended to all.
You damn idiot. Shut your nasty mouth.
We've stopped having faith in institutions and started having faith in strangers. Faith is trust or belief.
you dont throw the towel on the floor in airbnb not because of your reputation, but because you will need to use the same stinky towel your whole stay.
I am happy with my anonymity and large corporations then every thing i do having a rating and judgment.
“We’re starting to realize that institutional
trust wasn’t designed for the digital age”
Do not trust someone who thinks Hawaii is a continent.
OMG, You're going on Gawker!
Trust the strangers, be the Ranger:)
All I could think of was how lucky one is to be a serial killer today because bla bla car is such an easy platform to pick up victims. It is filled with suckers that blindly trust strangers and have no trust in the institution of police. I am almost sorry I am not a psychopath...
we now need Ted, to point out the obvious? have it become a place for old people that want to catch up?
The cynic's view: Distributed trust is distributed data collection about individuals for institutions. The value of "distributed trust" information goes far beyond these individual behavioral instances. I'm not saying anything about motivations, just commenting on the concentration of informational power through the illusion of democratized services. "Trust, but verify" should still apply, and we need laws that promote transparency and knowledgeable regulators to oversee their application and to facilitate the dissemination of information about how this power is being used. Our problem now is that this power is being shared (or co-opted) between governments and institutions, creating a conflict of interest that will never favor the individual. Until we start voting for politicians who make dismantling this conflict a priority, we will continue this downward spiral of institutions asking for forgiveness when they are caught abusing this power instead of asking for our permission to use the power for uses that promote a common benefit.
it is your job as an individual to be a detective on how you are being manipulated. you need to learn how manipulation works, you need to understand past examples of manipulation and how it applied. you need to look at motivation to manipulate people's behavior and look at who gains and who loses. when you understand this, you can create a 2nd account on anonymous block chains, and you can manipulate just as well as they can. when everyone does this, than the whole thing falls apart.
No manches este video estuvo genial...
distributed everything!
Nada como la UVM para obligarme a ver TED TALKS una y otra vez sin parar Xd
Jajaja justamente estoy haciendo una tarea y tuve que ver este video
didn't realy got anything from this 17 min talk except: well we dont trust constitution so let's trust strangers because technology enables it.
That's not the point. We have to trust strangers no matter what. It's a requirement of modern society. If you don't want to have to trust strangers, you need to move to an isolated agrarian village where you can rely on local trust.
Until recently, in order to trust strangers, you had only two options:
1. Pick a random person off the street and trust them.
2. Pick a system that you believe in. Find an institution that implements that system, and trust that the institution is run by trustworthy people.
Today, we still have those options, but a third one was added:
3. Pick a system that you believe in.
Now you don't need to worry about whether the people are trustworthy. No person needs to be trusted with ensuring integrity. The system itself guarantees integrity. We have technology that can mathematically prove its own trustworthiness. It's called blockchain. This simple fact is the sole reason why bitcoin has any value at all.
@@megamaser Can you explain more about block chain?
Fantastic talk. This idea of accountability is so essential to everyday trust- I couldn't agree more with Rachel views; I think institutional reform in this sense is almost inevitable.
I just hope this does not lead to the "nosedive" episode of Black Mirror
Strangers > Government Institutions
I thought this talk was going to be about how people trust Facebook posts and celebrities more than the scientific body on topics like the safety of vaccines and climate change and whatnot.
I trust NO ONE to drive a car apart from myself...
Are we trusting people, or the systems that manage it i.e. we trust AirBNB to do the due diligence to ensure we are safe
This is an idiotic shift. I will not trust a stranger.
Hmm.. interesting take on things
My first reaction is that, Bla Bla Car is a thing?!!
Full disclosure: Yes, but it is only available in Europe.
Same here.
Atheists need to stop being rude to religions
Religious people need to stop being rude to outsiders.
Preposterous!
Ae Rachel so pode falar trust na palestra
Digital reputation and Meritocracy are ineherent transparent, ence the way of the future.
Is greed a bad thing? When does greed become too much of a bad thing? What makes greed a good thing? Thoughts anyone?
That's a pretty deep question but this is what I think:
I'd say greed functions well as a motive for people to work, but it becomes a bad things when people strive for something they desire while taking from others. And I don't mean just material things like stealing, but also immaterial things like trying to get a form of affection by making fun of other people. At that point you'd see yourself as more important than other people and you'd work only for your own sake.
I think it would be the best if there wasn't so much greed, so people would be more willing to share their possessions and wouldn't always put themselves on the first spot. I think the world would look a lot nicer if that happened.
at the end of the day we are just biological machines driven by emotional behavior that was selected to get us to reproduce. greed is motivated differently in men and women. men are greedy because it will get them laid. if they stock up on resources they can use it to attract a woman (that is why you see men buying expensive cars and peacocking). women are greedy because of an instinct for nesting behavior and providing a safe environment for their children to grow up in as well as provide them food. this is instinct. in this manner most mammals that share parenting are greedy. it results in the survival and thriving of their offspring.
Conveniently ignores how hard it is for a black man to get accepted on Airbnb or BlaBlaCar
Reputation systems based on ★ ratings and unstructured text reviews are a bottleneck here. For discoverability and trust in general. Technologists slapped it together and gave up on more rigorous approaches thinking you couldn't get people to deliver better quality than that. The cutting edge seems to be that slideshow of questions about app features that you get on Google Play Store. It produces structured, semantic data that's more machine-readable, but isn't so much of a chore for users to input that it doesn't get done. These sometimes turn out comical, but nevertheless that's the direction we need. We need another go at the Semantic Web, the original vision for the WWW.
But this time imagine if us consumers took more proactive approach. Radically more. Imagine if we joined forces and *collaboratively edited a Wikipedia of human needs and problems.* Solutions providers would then (voluntarily) fill our existing, real and pressing needs. And when we organically discover a product that's the most likely fit for our problems all that's left is to try it and confirm if it really was. This cuts through the fog of conspicuous consumption. And the machine filtering made possible would be truly amazing. Forget finding the best deals, machines could point out start-ups in need of founding, directions for design refinements, suggest certifications and - in the more speculative sci-fi arena - estimates of how _naturelike_ a solution is (See Adrian Bejan's _constructal law_ and Dmitry Orlov's _Harm-benefit Analysis_ )
Where is she from?
SHIN SHIN sounds south African. but most likely Australian
I'm probably dumb because I don't understand why people don't like Ted anymore? I don't understand american politics but what has this videos or ted got to do with it?
Too many people are going to be lefty-hand or right-hand in a ideology. We need a balance to stay even if there is a big storm.
رجاء الترجمه بالعربيه من فضلكم
0:32 Chinese guy on the bottom left
YEAH THAT'S ME
how can help me to learn how to speaking English faster. I'm from Egypt
Hi Brother ,“The expert at anything was once a beginner.” , So continue your journey. Just watch this ua-cam.com/video/o_XVt5rdpFY/v-deo.html
*TED*
Ideas worth _silencing._
#IdeasWorthSilencing
#CommentsWorthSilencing
Hur dur fight the establishment!
Harrison Pike You're a big boy, you'll figure it out.
We’ve stopped trusting institutions…no, we love them! We trust everything. Yawn.
If you have to go into a doctors office, be sure to take your voice recorder with you. The public needs to
look in and see what's happening in the doctors and psychiatrists office. Don't even feel guilty about it.
só vim aqui por causa do curso da Dharma
doing this talk on x1.25 looking forward to being able to do that on x1.5
On TED, men are dancing hand in hand in the tall grass and rainbows arguing to the death they aren't gay, and a woman has an intellectual point that is full of rationality and common sense. Welcome to the Twilight Zone.
oooy
TED
#IdeasWorthSilencing
I don’t trust Bitcoin s thing who in the time of money, no Barry needs his up and down
I had to stop watching. The scanning of the audience is annoying.
lol "even churches"
That was cute.. At exactly what point in time did 'we' have trust in banks, government, or any other system? Was it the 80's, 60's, 1860's? No.. Trust in any system wanes as your knowledge of that system increases. In other words, the less you know, the more you trust. One day the speaker will be amused by what she's said here..
Do you trust Donald Trump to make America great again?
Like si vienes para una tarea de la UVM
4 ؤ
طبعآ انتا مش فاهم حاجه علشان كده معلقتش
+نصرالدين بسعود نعم انا مصري
+نصرالدين بسعود شكرأ كتير ليك علي التحيه بس بلاش السيسي علشان دة مش رائيس
+نصرالدين بسعود ممكن نكمل حديثنا عبر الفيس بوك لو حبيت ابعتلي الاميل تبعيتك لو سمحت
she thicc af
last
10000000th
2nd
What's up with her eyebrow?
I was with her until she outed herself as a blockchain weeb.
title should be: bla bla talk
yet another garbage from TED
If you don't like it, you could just leave without letting people know you dislike it without explaining why...
I am aware that typing your thoughts on the internet is constitutionally legal, yes. However that doesn't mean that you should just write whatever is on your mind without thinking about what the effects are, a comment like that doesn't do anything for people who actually liked to video and it also doesn't give constructive criticism or anything at all that could make people understand his opinion. So the only purpose that comment fulfills is if someone who hates the video reads the comments, they can see that they're not the only one, while doing that it annoys every person who did like the video (which tend to be a lot more than people who hated it). Is that really enough reason to go to a video just to write that you hate it?
bro, dont waste ur time here, i m sure better use of ur time
Never trust a women with a dodgy eyebrow.
her eyebrows are weird.
UA-cam please ban MSNBC on UA-cam.