How dedomenocracy resolves cascading injustices

In the analogy of the recent sexual controversies coming out of Hollywood, the repeated behavior by one individual results in the group ostracizing the offending individual even though each of his transgressions were satisfactorily settled individually.   When it emerges that the group is not adequately policing itself, that offends an external group such as one part of the industry versus another.   This becomes a new injustice requiring a settlement between groups. This process of cascading continues with every larger groups demanding some type of settlement from the other group. 

Injustice in Dedomenocracy

Government of data and urgency permits as bright-data the observations of events leading up to the then-interpreted injustice and the observation of the terms of the subsequent settlement.   The only data that is excluded is the dark-data of the now-settled prior-claim of injustice.

Declaration of indifference

The constitution was based on a population that accepted the concepts of individual independence.   The current government is of a population that accepts a concept of granted or not-yet revoked privileges based on merit and trust.    We reconcile the problem by operating a government for show that follows the canon set out by the constitution, and a government for real that operates largely independently of democratic control. 

Datum Governance: Distinguishing bots from real world

Data deception is a concern for automated decision making based on data analytics (such as in my hypothetical dedomenocracy). I think it is already a concern with our current democracy. I fear the current enthusiasm for data technologies because I do not see much in the way of appreciation for the possibility of deception. There is a huge confidence in the combined power of large amounts of data and sophisticated statistical tools (such as machine learning). Missing from our consideration is how well the data actual captures the real world. The data is not necessarily an honest representation of what is happening in the real world. It is very possible that the data may include deliberate deception.

Modern sensitivity to offensive speech emerged out of the prohibition

Decisive democratic action is offensive action. Some group or many groups may be insulted by the decision. This was less of an impediment when the everyday culture expected insults and offense. The nature of speech was what we today call offensive. Consequently, there was no barrier to democracy making decisions that we today call offensive.