RadicalxChange

Social movement for next-generation political economies. Official account of the RadicalxChange Foundation.

[RadicalxChange @RadxChange]

🎙️NEW POD: FIXING BUGS IN DEMOCRACY

What if democracy worked more like open-source software?

@jessaroo speaks with @takahiroanno, an AI engineer and sci-fi writer who just won a seat in Japan's parliament. https://t.co/bTvN4Uoql4

[RadicalxChange @RadxChange]

Data centers on community terms - https://t.co/SvXV0GApYe

[Plurality.Institute @PluralityInst]

RadicalxChange launches 'Reverse Alignment,' a framework by @jessaroo, @glenweyl, @timoreilly and co-authors asking not how to align AI to human values, but how to redesign our institutions (democracy, labor, science funding) for the AI era. https://t.co/qc68Rby0oM @RadxChange

[Plurality.Institute @PluralityInst]

As AI agents start flooding Congress with constituent messages, @RadxChange argues legislators need synthesis tools, piloted in Taiwan and Japan, that weigh diverse support rather than raw message volume. By @jessaroo and Jack Henderson. https://t.co/QhemRo9mOV

[RadicalxChange @RadxChange]

We’re proud to support Digital Democracy Edinburgh (March 11–12, 2027), which will gather ~200 policymakers, researchers and civic technologists from around the world to explore how technology can make democracy work better.

Want to speak at the event? Join our workshop on Tuesday, October 27 (12pm UK | 8am ET | 1pm CET) where you’ll hear from the organizers, then work in breakouts to sharpen your idea and find collaborators. The call for proposals is now open until November 15.

Register here: https://t.co/zCPi9CThLa

[RadicalxChange @RadxChange]

We’re proud to support Digital Democracy Edinburgh (March 11–12, 2027), which will gather ~200 policymakers, researchers and civic technologists from around the world to explore how technology can make democracy work better.

Want to speak at the event? Join our workshop on Tuesday, October 27 (12pm UK | 8am ET | 1pm CET) where you’ll hear from the organizers, then work in breakouts to sharpen your idea and find collaborators. The call for proposals is now open until November 15.

Register here: https://t.co/zCPi9CThLa

[RadicalxChange @RadxChange]

Digital Democracy Edinburgh & Reverse Alignment Goes Local - https://t.co/anrOiFCfEC

[Prosper Australia @Prosper_Aust]

Congratulations to the @RadxChange team for this fantastic research that highlights a critically important fact: as a society, we agree much more than we disagree. Policy disagreements almost always come down to the details.

[RadicalxChange @RadxChange]

Data is co-produced, so its governance should be too. Proud that our own @m_t_prewitt coauthored this new @FamStudies brief proposing Data Rights Associations: a legal framework for families and communities to collectively bargain over how their data is used.

[The Institute for Family Studies @FamStudies]

Nearly all data fueling the digital economy and AI is a co-produced good.

Governance of the systems and outputs it produces should be shared by co-producers, especially families and communities.

Our newest brief, co-authored by @RealDCochrane, breaks this down into three parts.

Part I argues that data is a co-produced good. Yet, control over its collection and use is concentrated in the hands of tech firms.

Part II makes the case for why both individual data rights and top-down data privacy regimes often fail to vindicate privacy, control, and economic interests.

Part III proposes a new class of informational rights.

[ᴍᴀᴛᴛ ᴘʀᴇᴡɪᴛᴛ @m_t_prewitt]

Folks, this proposal is the big one!!!

Someday, it will be remembered as the first rumbling of a tectonic shift in how the law protects our rights to the information we co-produce every day.

Remember this phrase: Right to Digital Association.

This @FamStudies proposal sketches what our legal systems can and must do to put a tourniquet on technology’s dissolution of family, community, and other forms of human association.

Big Tech is strong-arming us into a society we will not recognize. So our politics needs to get creative: building amazing new alliances around protecting a future worth believing in.

It won’t be easy. But it will work.

congrats @RealDCochrane @salome_viljoen_ @FamStudies @RadxChange @lace31692

[(((E. Glen Weyl/衛谷倫))) ⿻ 🇺🇸/🇩🇪/🇹🇼 @glenweyl]

This really looks amazing! I can't wait to read it. Really a culmination of so much I have been hoping to see emerge.

[Daniel Cochrane @RealDCochrane]

Big Tech’s power is underwritten by their near total capture of our data. Tech companies capture information on everything: what we like on Instagram, the places we visit, what we do—even how we work and the culture we help create.

All that data is fueling hyper-addictive digital products and AI systems that threaten to erode or displace human relationships, social trust, meaningful work, and agency.

The good news: there’s a fix 👇 h/t @FamStudies

[RadicalxChange @RadxChange]

Thanks @glenweyl !

[(((E. Glen Weyl/衛谷倫))) ⿻ 🇺🇸/🇩🇪/🇹🇼 @glenweyl]

This may be the work that has come out of @RadxChange that I am most proud of. Everyone interested in the issues of "abundance" set of issues (@mishachellam @ezraklein @mattyglesias @DKThomp @ProfTortuga @dsallentess @SlaughterAM @rosical) should see.

[RadicalxChange @RadxChange]

Thank you @pujaohlhaver for this sharp summary of the key design & methodological contributions in our Sydney density deliberations!

[Puja Ohlhaver @pujaohlhaver]

1/ The YIMBY–NIMBY housing debate is one of the sharpest political pain points in cities today, and one where conventional consultation can take months/years while reproducing the same divisions.

What makes this work by @RadxChange especially striking is the combination of speed and methodological innovation.

[Puja Ohlhaver @pujaohlhaver]

1/ The YIMBY–NIMBY housing debate is one of the sharpest political pain points in cities today, and one where conventional consultation can take months/years while reproducing the same divisions.

What makes this work by @RadxChange especially striking is the combination of speed and methodological innovation.

[paula berman 🇧🇷🦋 paulaberman.bsky.social @_paulaberman]

So happy this is out in the world! This is a dream plurality process, using a sophisticated design and all the very best tools available - https://t.co/RYOA28MwYj, Quadratic Voting, AI moderated small group deliberations - to work on a deeply entrenched debate.

[(((E. Glen Weyl/衛谷倫))) ⿻ 🇺🇸/🇩🇪/🇹🇼 @glenweyl]

This may be the work that has come out of @RadxChange that I am most proud of. Everyone interested in the issues of "abundance" set of issues (@mishachellam @ezraklein @mattyglesias @DKThomp @ProfTortuga @dsallentess @SlaughterAM @rosical) should see.

[RadicalxChange @RadxChange]

Plural Tech Meets Sydney's Density Dispute - https://t.co/CSr4NN5XcJ

[RadicalxChange @RadxChange]

We first brought in 22 activists from both sides of the debate to help map the arguments, using https://t.co/YPJ0iOGvLO, quadratic voting, and small group deliberations. Then 150 representative Sydneysiders tested what they produced. Most of it held, some of it near-unanimously.

What we kept finding: objections have terms. For instance, 75% of height sceptics back a halt to massive high-rise; 81% of the same cluster accepts it in certain areas with affordability attached. The same pattern held across different themes and instruments, from permanence trades to community power. Conditional density carries people unconditional density loses.

The report also debuts Uncommon Ground, a methodology for locating the questions where a person's camp no longer predicts how they respond. These statements draw nothing like the support of the consensus findings. Instead, they mark the open ground around which new, cross-cutting majorities could potentially coalesce.

Our results back the shift away from exchanging vetoes and toward negotiating the terms of growth. The raw material for that negotiation, the conditions, the definitions, the questions still open on both sides, can be surfaced systematically. The same Sydneysiders who argue past each other in comment sections produced, in a different setting, a workable list of terms.

The common ground a public can find depends on the infrastructure it deliberates in. We already have the technology: an abundance of open source, freely available tools that help sensemaking at scale. What's missing is the shared institutional infrastructure and deliberative capacity to run processes like this routinely — that's what this report makes the case for.

Read the full report 👉 https://t.co/ltMW19bquI

[RadicalxChange @RadxChange]

We partnered with AMPLIFY Australia to put ⿻ plural tech to the test on one of the most entrenched debates in Australian public life: Sydney's density fight. Beyond NIMBY vs YIMBY, what we found is that even the most engaged partisans hold conditions the other side can meet.

Check the key findings 👉 https://t.co/IY0upugtbS

🧵

[RadicalxChange @RadxChange]

We first brought in 22 activists from both sides of the debate to help map the arguments, using https://t.co/YPJ0iOH3Bm, quadratic voting, and small group deliberations. Then 150 representative Sydneysiders tested what they produced. Most of it held, some of it near-unanimously.

What we kept finding: objections have terms. For instance, 75% of height sceptics back a halt to massive high-rise; 81% of the same cluster accepts it in certain areas with affordability attached. The same pattern held across different themes and instruments, from permanence trades to community power. Conditional density carries people unconditional density loses.

The report also debuts Uncommon Ground, a methodology for locating the questions where a person's camp no longer predicts how they respond. These statements draw nothing like the support of the consensus findings. Instead, they mark the open ground around which new, cross-cutting majorities could potentially coalesce.

Our results back the shift away from exchanging vetoes and toward negotiating the terms of growth. The raw material for that negotiation, the conditions, the definitions, the questions still open on both sides, can be surfaced systematically. The same Sydneysiders who argue past each other in comment sections produced, in a different setting, a workable list of terms.

The common ground a public can find depends on the infrastructure it deliberates in. We already have the technology: an abundance of open source, freely available tools. What's missing is the shared institutional infrastructure and deliberative capacity to run processes like this routinely — that's what this report makes the case for.

Check the key findings 👉 https://t.co/IY0upuh11q

Read the full report 👉 https://t.co/ltMW19bYkg