Integrally

💡Will the disruption AI creates lead to a better future? Use Integrally to practice making strong arguments and debating on an anonymous platform that rewards high-integrity dialogue: bit.ly/FF2025AM 🎥Full interview: wetheblacksheep.com/p/this-artist-…

🔎 Banning AI = banning prosperity? Author and @OpenAI prompt engineer @AndrewMayne spoke with @SalomeSibonex about whether AI will do irreparable harm to job security, society, and the arts. He points to the difference between Hong Kong and India:

More pundits and "public intellectuals" are letting their disagreements devolve into insults and emotional outbursts in place of reason and dialogue. It's incompatible with today's reality, where every idea is up for debate, whether we like it or not: wetheblacksheep.com/p/is-freaking-…

When you get past the fear of being wrong, the world opens up to you. Instead of being enslaved to your beliefs, you're free to question yourself, have good disagreements with anyone, and when need be, change. But first you need to get bored: wetheblacksheep.com/p/is-freaking-…

“I’m not saying there aren’t people who need to be in prison, who are dangerous to society. I get that, of course. But there are a lot of non-violent and reformed people who don’t have a hope of getting out.” @lyn_ulbricht, @CruelSentencing

💡What are your views on the criminal justice system? Use Integrally to practice making better arguments and debating on an anonymous platform that rewards high-integrity dialogue: bit.ly/FF2025LU 🎥Full interview: wetheblacksheep.com/p/ross-ulbrich…

❌ "It doesn't work." @lyn_ulbricht, founder of @CruelSentencing, debunks the myth that harsh sentencing is necessary to deter crime in 30 seconds:

💡What are your views on the criminal justice system? Use Integrally to practice making better arguments and debating on an anonymous platform that rewards high-integrity dialogue: bit.ly/FF2025LU 🎥Full interview: wetheblacksheep.com/p/ross-ulbrich…

🔎 Is cruel sentencing the forgotten epidemic eroding America’s justice system? @SalomeSibonex asked @lyn_ulbricht, @RealRossU's mother and founder of @CruelSentencing, what people are missing about this issue:

What are your views on the criminal justice system? 🧠Use Integrally to practice making better arguments and debating on an anonymous platform that rewards high-integrity dialogue: bit.ly/FF2025LU

🔎Do we need harsh sentencing to deter criminals? @SalomeSibonex asked @lyn_ulbricht, @RealRossU's mother and the founder of @CruelSentencing, to explain her views on this and more:

The only incentive Integrally has is the "reputation score," which users gain based on whether their arguments are frequently rated "high integrity"—not just whether they're popular. It's a tool for testing ideas, improving debate, and sense-making: bit.ly/Integrally1BSM

💡No need to imagine: we built it! You can try our app to see what happens when debate is focused solely on the quality of argumentation, not likes, followers, or performance. Integrally users rate posts by whether they agree AND are high-integrity using our Scoring Triangle:

@itrtv3333 @pmddomingos Great point. The way our app does this is through removing all incentives besides sense-making (all anonymized accounts, no followers, etc.) and allowing users to rate arguments not just by whether they agree, but by whether they're strong.

@pmddomingos Problem is that you can't democratically vote on logic and LLMs won't cut it either. So you would need an army of trained philosophers to moderate every interraction.

Imagine an online debate platform where instead of being rewarded by number of likes you were rewarded by how much you moved the needle on the argument.

@t3hSurge @pmddomingos I think you would love our app! It does exactly this. Give it a try and please share your feedback: bit.ly/Integrally1BSM

@pmddomingos Can we push for dialectic over debate?

@wokoma_festus @pmddomingos It does! But hard to get people on it. Integrally is an anonymous platform where users rate arguments by whether they agree AND whether they're high-integrity. Users get a reputation score based on how often they make strong arguments. Try it here! -> bit.ly/Integrally1BSM

@pmddomingos Game changer if this platform exists

@LubosKolouch @pmddomingos Exactly! We built an app like what Pedro described, but ours is fully anonymized so there are no implicit or explicit rewards for attention or status at the expense of good argumentation. The app only allows accruing a "reputation score" based on making arguments with integrity.

@pmddomingos Rewarding people for moving the needle doesn't change the fact that the loudest voices are still the ones getting the most attention. It's just a different kind of noise.

@SamRedlich @pmddomingos Our app Integrally works similarly! It tracks if users change how they rate arguments, using a spectrum marking both agreement and whether the argument is strong. Users get a "reputation score" based on whether they argue with integrity, not just whether people agree!

It would work by tracking belief changes: users state their position on a claim before and after engaging with specific arguments. Each contribution is structured so the system can see which inputs caused belief updates. You’re rewarded based on how consistently your arguments shift other users’ positions.

@pmddomingos It already exists! Integrally is an anonymous platform where users rate arguments not just by whether they agree, but also by whether they're high-integrity. Users get a reputation score based on how often they make strong arguments. We'd love feedback: bit.ly/Integrally1BSM

Democracy doesn’t require perfect truth—but it does require something more fragile: independent voices. The “wisdom of crowds” depends on independence between judgments. If a single actor can speak through thousands of inauthentic accounts, the apparent consensus of the crowd stops being informative. The most dangerous outcome is not a single viral lie—it is synthetic consensus: the illusion that “everyone is saying this,” which can quietly bend beliefs and norms.