borken link printing in pdf 5-0-collaborative-technology-and-democrac…

…y.md

contents/english/5-0-collaborative-technology-and-democracy.md

@@ -116,7 +116,7 @@ Nor need we look to hypothetical scenarios to perceive the danger of compelling
 
 Luckily, a middle, pragmatic, ⿻ path is possible.  We need neither take a God's eye nor a ground-level view exclusively.  Instead we can build tools that pursue the goals of a range of social groups, from intimate families and friends to large nations, always with an eye to limitations of each perspective and on the parallel developments we have to connect to and learn from emanating from other parallel directions of development.  We can aim to reform market function by focusing on social welfare, but always doing so based on adding to our models key features of social richness revealed by those pursuing more granular perspectives and expecting our solutions will at least partly founder on their failures to account for these.  We can build rich ways for people to empathize with others' internal experience, but with an understanding that such tools may well be abused if not paired with the discipline of deliberation, regulation and well-structured markets. 
 
-We can do this guided by a common principle of cooperation across difference that is too broad to be formulated as a consistent objective function, yet elegant enough to unify a wide range of technologies: **we develop tools that allow greater cooperation and consensus at the same time as they make space for greater diversity**.  Consider two extremely different examples we will discuss below that both can be justified by this logic: [brain-to-brain interfaces](https://www.ise.ncsu.edu/bci/projects/brain-to-brain-interfaces/#:~:text=Brain%2Dto%2Dbrain%20interfacing%20(,from%20one%20brain%20to%20another.) and [approval voting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting).  While the first is a wildly futuristic and disturbingly invasive concept, the second is an old and widely applied voting method.  Yet the simple idea of cooperation across difference helps justify both: a key aspiration of brain-to-brain interface is to allow children to retain more of their imagination as they grow to adulthood by allowing them to directly share this imagination rather than having to fit it into what they can write or draw.[^B2B]  This allows much greater diversity and much greater common understanding.  Similarly, a key goal of approval voting (where citizens can vote for as many candidates as they wish and the one with the most votes wins) is to simultaneously ensure that the elected candidate has very wide general consensus *and* enable there to exist a much broader diversity of candidates because voters are not afraid a "third party" will act as a spoiler as voters can choose both the third party and one of the leading ones.[^Approval]
+We can do this guided by a common principle of cooperation across difference that is too broad to be formulated as a consistent objective function, yet elegant enough to unify a wide range of technologies: **we develop tools that allow greater cooperation and consensus at the same time as they make space for greater diversity**.  Consider two extremely different examples we will discuss below that both can be justified by this logic: [brain-to-brain interfaces](https://www.ise.ncsu.edu/bci/projects/brain-to-brain-interfaces/) and [approval voting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting).  While the first is a wildly futuristic and disturbingly invasive concept, the second is an old and widely applied voting method.  Yet the simple idea of cooperation across difference helps justify both: a key aspiration of brain-to-brain interface is to allow children to retain more of their imagination as they grow to adulthood by allowing them to directly share this imagination rather than having to fit it into what they can write or draw.[^B2B]  This allows much greater diversity and much greater common understanding.  Similarly, a key goal of approval voting (where citizens can vote for as many candidates as they wish and the one with the most votes wins) is to simultaneously ensure that the elected candidate has very wide general consensus *and* enable there to exist a much broader diversity of candidates because voters are not afraid a "third party" will act as a spoiler as voters can choose both the third party and one of the leading ones.[^Approval]
 
 [^B2B]: Rajesh P. N. Rao, Andrea Stocco, Matthew Bryan, Devapratim Sarma, Tiffany M. Youngquist ,Joseph Wu and Chantel S. Prat, "A Direct Brain-to-Brain Interface in Humans" *PLOS One* 9, no. 11: e111322 at https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0111332.
 [^Approval]: Steven J. Brams and Peter C. Fishburn, "Approval Voting", *American Political Science Review* 72, no. 3: 831-847.