Kialo requires cookies to work correctly.
Does Kialo have the characteristics of a deliberative process?
Kialo has the characteristics of a deliberative process
Kialo encourages people to strengthen and improve claims which are against their overall viewpoint in a debate.
All points of view receive attention regardless of which participants offer them.
The graphic topology of discussions is useful to see the overview, the big picture of the topic. Moreover, this is impossible in an oral deliberative process.
It has a binary system of Pros and Cons through which writers can express their agreement or disagreement with statements.
The participants argue with civility and respect.
Everything is written and there is no oral or direct interaction. So, even shy people can express their own opinion without feeling personally judged. The opinion itself is the only thing judged.
The voting system of claim's impact (range from "No impact" to "Very high impact") is helpful to mark the arguments' quality.
It is even better than an oral deliberative process because, thanks to its written form, it allows writers to argue and contribute simultaneously in the debate.
It does not use algorithms used by others social media that display messages, comments and news we previously show interest in. Thanks to this, Kialo do not create the Echo chamber effect
and in doing so it avoids the so called confirmation bias
Kialo presents itself as social platform that empower reasoning and rational debate. Thanks to this declaration of intent, users may – even unconsciously – be oriented to think in a more critic way.
Kialo's structure or the culture that has grown around it seems to discourage the asking and answering of questions, a normal part of respectful and informative debate or deliberation.
It's hard to discuss the definition of the thesis itself.
Not every claim is founded on the veracity of the claim itself.
Asking if a tool that is meant to support processes is itself a deliberative process is a category error. Kialo is a tool, not a process.
Owners and Admins of discussions have too much power.
The limited number of letters (500) is not enough to express concepts, especially if they are complex.
The site is very restrictive for newcomers who try to get involved in the discussion because of Owners', Editors' and Admins' rights.
All items have to be classed as a 'pro' or a 'con'. This makes neutral observations about an item impossible
It allows whoever writes a claim to "own" that claim.
Deliberation needs participation. (See scholars like
, or J. Fishkin and C. Luskin: deliberation must be
"comprehensive" (p. 285)
) and Kialo is not widely used.
There is no final decision/conclusion to the question submitted.
Does Crime Control (Speedy Justice) trump Due Process?
Should the United States have more than two major political parties?
Catalans should have the right to decide on independence with a binding referendum