Via Cent: This is too big of a leap from metagovernance to hypermediation. Maybe

• Give Jessop some more space to bring forth his clarity!
• add some more steps here between the clarity of the polysci and the madenning complexity of DAOs

Why? I don't see how her article makes this point.

This is a troubling admission, that it is unfair! There are surely other ways to get at simplicity—how about a simple progressive tax curve without loopholes?

Is there any evidence that this would end up reaching a different demographic than Powerball? My fear is that what you're proposing would be very regressive: that is, putting the taxation burden most of all on those least able to afford it.

I was about to say; the lottery business has a strong presence in downtown Providence!

Wow, that's a tall hill to climb!

It would be interesting to delve into the ownership structure here a bit—a nonprofit association tied to governments.

I'd like to see a citation for this one.

The hope is that this would be adopted by universities and tech providers?

Who decides what is required? In this case it appears to be the academic institution. But I suspect, in fact, that it is the company that decides what is required, which presents a potential conflict of interest.

It's not clear, but I assume "others" means fellow students in a given class? Or someone else? This seems like less of a right and more of a product offering. It's strange that it's presented as a "review and understand" rather than something like "you have the right not to be exploited by peers, and our software will help secure that right."

So this is something you can do. But would the ordinary student? How are these presented—like huge block of legalese, or in clear and coherent fashion that is human-readable?

Also notable: "Agreement" is not part of the deal.

Just rhetorically, I would recommend putting this at the bottom of such a list. Start out with the clear rights, then end with how any remaining concerns might be addressed.

Where is the conversation happening? Currently, this website just offers a comment form, so we can't see what other commenters are saying—just the company can. That seems like a tremendous information imbalance. I guess using Hypothesis here is one way of holding a more open discussion.

It's always interesting to see how tech companies see opportunities to broaden their missions, to move practices from one domain into many more. What, other than proctoring, does "Learning Integrity" include? And what responsibilities does automated "Learning Integrity" remove from instructors, for better or worse?

"a method by which one party (the prover) can prove to another party (the verifier) that they know a value x, without conveying any information apart from the fact that they know the value x" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-knowledge_proof

But what specifically is and isn't known about user data? Does this mean the company doesn't have certain data that is accessible to the instructor? What is the threat model here?

We're annotating this document as part of the Digital Pedagogy Lab 2020 conference!

Should we be more specific about what the online spaces are?

Key here is to ensure that we have appropriate analytics for large-scale classes, where note-by-note evaluation isn't feasible, combined with access to easily browse a sample of annotations.

As in beer or speech? :)

How does this currently work? If a paper posted online is revised, what happens to the annotations? I've been trying to publish continually updated drafts, but I'm not sure what that means for inviting annotation. What happens when I "resolve" (to use Google Docs language) an issue raised by an annotation in a subsequent draft? Does the annotation remain?

This is a sample annotation.

This is a sample annotation.

This is a sample annotation.

This is a sample annotation.

This was taken from the balcony of a fancy hotel that I was supposed to be profiling for an inflight magazine, but the story was killed.