What do we do when we find out we’re not being kind? How do we walk the talk?
1 Like
As long as every principle is stated individually as a separate proposal for accept/reject I would be ok with this. We could order the principles by acceptance rate, and perhaps they should be re-prioritized periodically.
4 Likes
I believe we need defined values to which come back when making decisions. Does not mean approve something to approve, but the length of this thread in the so short time from its creation tells that is an important topic to open and discuss for more ppl. And as said, this needs to be discussed in more languages than English.
Maybe a workshop would be nice to have. Anyone here with experience in facilitating workshops? (does not mean now:)
2 Likes
Spanish version - Versión en Español:
Los principios rectores de Proof of Humanity
El principio de humanidad: los seres humanos deben estar siempre lo primero.
El principio de igualdad: todos los seres humanos deben recibir el mismo trato y tener las mismas oportunidades en el sistema.
El principio de equidad: todos los seres humanos deben recibir un trato justo en todas las interacciones del sistema.
El principio de transparencia: todas las interacciones deben ser totalmente transparentes.
El principio de abundancia: el dinero nunca debe ser una barrera para acceder al sistema, participar en la gobernanza, en los tribunales o abandonar el sistema.
El principio de amabilidad: todos los sistemas y procesos deben ser amables.
El principio de no hacer daño: todos los sistemas y procesos no deben causar daño a ningún ser humano.
El principio de las 7 generaciones: todos los sistemas deben construirse pensando en las próximas 7 generaciones.
El principio de divertirse en el camino: la forma de llegar es tan importante como el lugar al que nos dirigimos.
El principio de soberanía - cada humano en el sistema tiene su propia voluntad y no será coaccionado para actuar en contra de su voluntad.
El principio de la libertad de expresión - cada ser humano es libre de expresar sus ideas, su desacuerdo, siempre que no sean odiosas ni incitantes.
El principio de libertad de reunión - las personas del sistema tienen la libertad de formar colectivos para defender o compartir sus ideas, siempre que no violen otros principios.
El principio del espíritu de la ley - el espíritu de una ley debe prevalecer sobre la letra de la misma
El principio de neutralidad lingüística - ninguna lengua del sistema debe estar en desventaja con respecto a las demás.
El principio de parsimonia - en igualdad de condiciones, siempre debe prevalecer la solución más sencilla a un problema.
El principio de administración ambiental - teniendo en cuenta el uso responsable y la protección de nuestro planeta.
El principio de descentralización - deben tomarse todas las precauciones para que los sistemas queden protegidos contra la centralización y el control.
El principio de la Declaración Universal de los Derechos Humanos - Proof of Humanity se adhiere explícitamente a esta declaración hasta que exista una versión descentralizada.
1 Like
Lovely work! Really simple and deep.
I would add "Recursive Improvement" to remain as a the best option in an ecosystem that will sure grow to present many options.
Idea taken from the Asilomar AI Principles.
1 Like
So you say submitting all of them into a single poll simultaneously? Or one after the other?
Also, I’ve discovered that there is a polling tool right here in the forum. We could use that as well.
1/2. PoH Principles amount of interest. Which principles you think are more prioritary?
- The principle of humanity - humans must always come first.
- The principle of equality - all humans must be treated equally and have equal opportunity on the system.
- The principle of fairness - all humans must be treated fairly in all interactions on the system.
- The principle of transparency - all interactions must be fully transparent.
- The principle of abundance - money must never be a barrier to access the system, participation in governance, tribunals, or leaving the system.
- The principle of kindness - all systems and processes must be kind.
- The principle of do no harm - all systems and processes must not create harm to any human.
- The principle of 7 generations - all systems must be built with the next 7 generations in mind
- The principle of having fun along the way - the way we get there is as important as where we are going
- The principle of sovereignty - each human in the system has its own will and will not be coerced to act against its will.
- The principle of free speech - each human is free to express their ideas, their dissent, as long as they are not hateful nor inciteful.
- The principle of free assembly - persons in the system have the freedom to form collectives to defend or share their ideas, as long they do not violate other principles.
- The principle of the spirit of the law - the spirit of a law must take precedence over the letter of the law
- The principle of language neutrality - no language in the system should be a disadvantage over the other.
- The principle of parsimony - all things being equal, the simplest solution to a problem should always prevail.
- The principle of environmental stewardship - taking into account the responsible use and protection of our planet.
- The principle of decentralization - all precautions should be taken to ensure systems remain protected against centralisation and control.
- The principle of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - Proof of Humanity explicitly endorses this declaration until such time a decentralised version is available.
0 voters
2/2. PoH Principles least interest. Which principles you think should be removed or reconsidered for later stages?
- The principle of humanity - humans must always come first.
- The principle of equality - all humans must be treated equally and have equal opportunity on the system.
- The principle of fairness - all humans must be treated fairly in all interactions on the system.
- The principle of transparency - all interactions must be fully transparent.
- The principle of abundance - money must never be a barrier to access the system, participation in governance, tribunals, or leaving the system.
- The principle of kindness - all systems and processes must be kind.
- The principle of do no harm - all systems and processes must not create harm to any human.
- The principle of 7 generations - all systems must be built with the next 7 generations in mind
- The principle of having fun along the way - the way we get there is as important as where we are going
- The principle of sovereignty - each human in the system has its own will and will not be coerced to act against its will.
- The principle of free speech - each human is free to express their ideas, their dissent, as long as they are not hateful nor inciteful.
- The principle of free assembly - persons in the system have the freedom to form collectives to defend or share their ideas, as long they do not violate other principles.
- The principle of the spirit of the law - the spirit of a law must take precedence over the letter of the law
- The principle of language neutrality - no language in the system should be a disadvantage over the other.
- The principle of parsimony - all things being equal, the simplest solution to a problem should always prevail.
- The principle of environmental stewardship - taking into account the responsible use and protection of our planet.
- The principle of decentralization - all precautions should be taken to ensure systems remain protected against centralisation and control.
- The principle of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - Proof of Humanity explicitly endorses this declaration until such time a decentralised version is available.
0 voters
1 Like
Mostly looks good but a few comments:
The problem here is “never”, in its current form POH would violate this principle (as you need a deposit). I would prefer it to be written has:
“The principle of abundance - the system tries to minimize the disadvantage that users without access to capital could suffer in term of access to the system, participation in governance, tribunals, or leaving the system.”
The issue with banning “hateful” ideas is that who would decide what is “hateful”? I think systems are better designed at classifying different kind of speech to prevent people from being exposed to speech they don’t want to be exposed to.
I would propose “The principle of free speech - each human is free to express their ideas, their dissent even if they are unpopular as long as they are expressed in appropriate places” (free speech doesn’t mean you can’t get banned for spamming a forum, it means you can create your own if you want to)
This would also be violated by the current system.
English is the de facto global language and we definitely need a unified language for POH. Otherwise the registration phrase wouldn’t work (so the only way to do so without loss of security would be turn it into a sentence which doesn’t mean anything which would actually make the UX for English speakers worse without improving the UX of non-English speakers). We would also need to translate proposal in all existing languages which would be impractical.
It seems too strong of a position. I would argue that it is definitely moral to create harm to prevent harm to others. Like imagine that someone has a gun and is about to shoot people. In this case it would be ethical to punch them to take their gun (which would create harm). The way it is worded would actually enter in conflict with principle 18. (which includes protection in multiple of its points which is impossible if people can’t defend themselves or others).
“all systems and processes must not create unfair harm to any human.” may be better
What does it mean? “fully” would probably mean that privacy is not allowed. So I would at least remove the “fully”. In general you want transparency for those in power but privacy for those who are not.
2 Likes
We should minimize this to how PoH governance works/should work. Don’t make this a Ferengi rule book for morality or oath of offending/defending. We should Chain the Gov’t and collectives, not the individuals…
17) A contract is a contract is a contract... but only between Ferengi
I don’t have an answer for that question. Maybe inclusiveness has to be dealt with at a local level? But I think you’ll agree we have to start somewhere?
I am saying that every single principle should require a separate proposal. It should be difficult to add one - and nothing should be added without the possibility of discussion.
I would vote against adding a whole list all at once.
2 Likes
I second this idea, it makes a lot of sense. It will require more work to split them up and have separate proposals, but in the end it is worth it. So the first proposal would simply be to establish an empty list of guiding principles (perhaps with rules on how it will be ordered), then future proposals would be to add / modify / or remove principles.
3 Likes
I agree with this as well based on this initial feedback.
1 Like
Then for a while, we will explicitly be an organization with absolutely no principles 
1 Like
Perhaps though, we should pick one guiding principle so the list doesn’t start out empty.
1 Like
Full UDHR is one set but we’ve to modify some words/definitions in there to fit DAO/crypto-nation style before we adopt/vote that.
- Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace
- Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Absolutely. The governance of a DAO, like a country, should not be something to rush through. I still believe it’s a little back to front to come up with some principles without first establishing a founding purpose.
2 Likes
I asked @santisiri how he would define the founding purpose of Proof of Humanity. His response was:
“securing human rights with cryptography”
5 Likes
Could be cool to have a vision statement also!
2 Likes
Well, with only five voters in the poll I created above, there’s no exact way to make more precision on which should be prioritized, but these 5 agreed that the principle of equality and the principle of fairness would be a good start. I’ll try to ask in the Telegram chats to see if we can get more voters in this internal poll.
These two principles are absolutely relevant, and with practical issues such as the basis for new regulations for babies, elderly, people with disabilities that today are unable to enter the system, which is both unfair and a sign of inequality.
Its not that different from the original, and it reflects the same principle. Don’t worry, I don’t think that anyone could imply that access is for free. Writing it like you proposed would violate the Principle of Parsimony. A principle like this could enable other policies that subsidize marginalized or vulnerable groups down the line, or help with costs os proper trial in the appeals or other costs associated with the platform.
The issue with banning “hateful” ideas is that who would decide what is “hateful”? I think systems are better designed at classifying different kind of speech to prevent people from being exposed to speech they don’t want to be exposed to.
I did not understand how can you “classify” speech and also how you would “prevent people to be exposed” to it. Saying racial slurs for example it is morally wrong and does not constitute what free speech is all about, and it is not a matter of audience, it is a matter of it being allowed or not, and I think the proponents mean examples like this. But again this is just a principle, the exact definition of what is hateful or not can be reached through consensus in the community.
I would propose “The principle of free speech - each human is free to express their ideas, their dissent even if they are unpopular as long as they are expressed in appropriate places” (free speech doesn’t mean you can’t get banned for spamming a forum, it means you can create your own if you want to)
I think that mechanism will only make things worse by ghetto-ifying speech in echo chambers.
I believe that part of the misunderstanding here is that you think that these are actual binding rules, effective immediately, but they are not. Of course that in the short term we are bound to english, but for example the contents themselves of the phrase are not the weapon against sybil proofness. A statement in sylables not belonging to any languages could do the trick as easy as the phrase in English.
Agree that it sounds better.
How about auditability? All decisions should be able to be audited, or something similar to that.