CPR is code for "registersamkøring". Register matching. The small wellfare nation needing to be able to see the populace as a sum of abilities and leanings and willingness to be swayed and pushed to support present and future economic needs of the whole.
Denmark comes from a long line of institutional trust: We say we do this, so we do it, so everyone else will naturally expect that.
Changing a whole societal mentality in the institutional level happens slower than the populace discovering the "naturally" occuring dysfuntionality of everyday life, because the System has never felt the need to ask: Does it work as intended? OR Why would anyone disrupt a functioning system?!
We are having to learn. I have no ideal how. In this instance, the CPR hack, it would be completely IDIOTIC to replace the system with a new propritory system, since the problem is trust in the system rather than informed understanding of the threats to any system.
That’s fair, but i don’t have much hands-on experience yet, so I’m reading technical articles to learn from people who have actually tried these approaches.
And require public scrutiny and reputation risking, I agree. Flags are louder than comments yet require no risk. It's a systemic bias against discussion.
Some of the juiciest discussions on this forum recently are the perma-flagged posts with active comments and high upvotes. The moderation bias (by supposed "crowd" or not) is obvious, there are clear tendencies of suppressed topics. It's like the dark side of the front page.
I'm not interested in promoting or exploring juicy discussions.
I'm just interested in some transparency: when I select "flag" I want to say why: a) this isn't a tech story b) this story is just self-serving advertising c) this story appears to have gamed itself to the front page d) this story is just a sign up page (I consider that misleading). e) the story doesn't match the headline, etc.
If I see a story flagged, I'd like to know why (headline doesn't match, self-promotion, etc).
