If you want to justify being able to voice controversial or distasteful (to most people) views with accuracy, perhaps the norm should be to hold such writing to a high standard. Any writing promoting such views should have more precise forecasts associated with it, and/or show clear skin-in-the-game. This can be viewed as a spectrum, where very uncontroversial ideas do not need this while the most controversial should very strongly only include ideas backed up with something concrete. Just an off the cuff thought...
Yes I think this view is very defensible. It's a costly signal, as the kids say. On the other hand, writing provocatively is a cheap signal to the point of getting you 10,000s of followers.
Should have said: I'm not (yet) convinced the if at the start of my comment is something that is a good idea.
If you want to justify being able to voice controversial or distasteful (to most people) views with accuracy, perhaps the norm should be to hold such writing to a high standard. Any writing promoting such views should have more precise forecasts associated with it, and/or show clear skin-in-the-game. This can be viewed as a spectrum, where very uncontroversial ideas do not need this while the most controversial should very strongly only include ideas backed up with something concrete. Just an off the cuff thought...
Yes I think this view is very defensible. It's a costly signal, as the kids say. On the other hand, writing provocatively is a cheap signal to the point of getting you 10,000s of followers.