Contribution to the handbook
Supporting · Assessed 2026-10-28
The material provides useful background on what some online systems aim to add to open participation: listening, cross-view support, and possible areas of rough agreement. These are stated aims, not demonstrated outcomes, and the supplied evidence does not detail enough implementation or risk controls to make the question central (s-plurality-augmented-deliberation-67578994a550a046; s-plurality-augmented-deliberation-a30d2dbc81bf0dd0).
Does this challenge the goal?
In-scope gap
The question identifies intended features of online collective discussion systems within the definition’s existing interest in citizen participation and legislative processes. It does not contest the goal.
The packet describes intended aims—listening and finding shared views or rough agreement—but does not establish that systems achieve them.
Why this category?
- Useful background: systems are described as combining open participation with features intended to encourage listening and identify shared views or rough agreement (s-plurality-augmented-deliberation-67578994a550a046).
- Relevant qualification: the packet distinguishes these aims from demonstrated success and notes differences among systems (s-plurality-augmented-deliberation-67578994a550a046; s-plurality-augmented-deliberation-0ba210304d0bc58e).
- Limited contribution: the question identifies aims but does not, on this evidence, specify a governance mechanism or resolve its risks and tradeoffs.
The question is best treated as useful context about intended system functions. The packet does not establish that these functions improve deliberation or that rough agreement represents consent.
This is an AI assessment of contribution to the goal, separate from whether the question has an answer.
- What do online collective discussion systems aim to add to open participation?
- Seeking support across views
- Encouraging listening online
- Beyond simplified online interaction
- Making large discussions easier
- Richer responses and possible agreement
- Mapping and navigating conflict
- Rough agreement and continuing differences
Making and interpreting laws →
Read the exploration goalNew evidence is being assessed. Any answer below is provisional; parts whose evidence changed or was withdrawn are withheld.
Identify the intended additions, including support for listening and finding shared views or rough agreement, without asserting that the aims are achieved.
What we can say so far
These systems aim to add listening and ways to identify shared views or rough agreement alongside open participation. Some proposals would let people express fuller views and use models to summarize discussion and surface possible areas of agreement. The aim is not necessarily unanimity: the chapter also values distinct perspectives and productive disagreement.
What remains open
- The evidence does not establish how well these systems achieve listening or identify agreement in practice.
- Practical methods for ensuring summaries or identified agreements are accurate are not described.
Conditions and limits
- The source describes aims and proposals, not demonstrated outcomes.
- Systems differ in their features; the chapter does not detail their success or trade-offs.
Evidence and related ideas
Supporting evidence, qualifications and context play different roles in this answer.
supports
Encouraging listening online Online systems such as Polis, All Our Ideas, and Remesh combine open participation with features intended to encourage listening and identify shared views or rough agreement.
Directly states that online systems combine open participation with features intended to encourage listening and identify shared views or rough agreement.
Plurality — Augmented Deliberation
Read full source: Plurality — Augmented Deliberation (opens in a new tab) ↗Read source discussion: Plurality — Augmented Deliberation →
context
Rough agreement and continuing differences Deliberation is sometimes idealized as overcoming divisions to find a true common will. The passage instead says overlapping, rough agreement can support common action, while renewed diversity and productive disagreement can keep discussion dynamic and inform later deliberations. It calls for attention to both resolving conflict and reducing explosive conflict.