The point of the market website that my friends and I are working on is to directly compare the market definition of usefulness with the democratic definition.
Here’s what you wrote earlier…

Xerographica you do realize that Quadratic Voting (Q.V.) is about GROUP decision-making?

It relates to people who have a common interest (such as in public goods)

It has nothing to do with consumers choosing private goods. It has nothing to do with Smith’s Invisible Hand. It has nothing do with rating movies, or anything relating to individual likes and dislikes that don’t impact other people.

By this, I mean, if you like something, it is irrelevant to me if I also have the option to view it (as a movie) — except in so far as you have similar tastes. So if we do have similar tastes and I know you like a particular movie I MAY also like it. I don’t need to know ‘gradations’ of liking, because your like is simply one ‘recommendation’. To go any deeper I would need to know WHY you liked it. No amount of money will tell me this, only reading a review can do this. And so if I was serious about choosing a film I may also read one or two reviews.

Q.V. especially has nothing to do with the evaluation of truth. You cannot use voting to determine the truth of anything, such as the true value of an idea.

QV would be relevant to a decision about the type of society we want and the system and rules we want.

So if you are now telling me that you want your website to be used for a community to choose the sort of economic system they want to live under, then Q.V. would be appropriate — but you would have to split people into communities for this to have any validity.

So far, you have presented zero evidence to justify a web site that ranks ideas based on the amount of money a person is willing to pay — other than the Q.V. method (which you are not proposing to use).

There is however evidence that spending money to promote specific ideologies does work as propaganda.

Halley used his money to promote Newton’s ideas. No one looked at how much money was paid to promote Newton vs money paid to promote other ideas as a measure of the worth.

It may have been that at the time, more money was spent on other ideas (given the Royal Society had already spent its budget). Would that make them more important than Newton’s ideas?

If not, how can you say that the more money spent on your site will be a measure of the importance of the idea?

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.