A group of people might prefer to use only one Comind account, for example, because these people would act together in good harmony, show solidarity, and find it difficult to separate each other's actions.
This facilitates the use of Comind in eliminating details as it is then possible to describe only the group's actions.
This allows group members to:
When creating a group, it is often with a limited connection and thus within a limited framework and solidarity. By having just the framework of a group of individuals without further information, the negative consequences of the group’s actions on individuals could exceed the intended limits, or the rewards could exceed the intended scope and distribution among individuals could become unfair due to the scale (a small discrepancy seems less unjust than a large one).
If a group member does not have an individual Comind account, it is possible that they cannot provide additional information, which could harm them as well as Comind.
There is a risk of manipulation within the group so that some individuals benefit from the actions of others, for example, through someone using a position of dominance or appealing to a morality of solidarity.
The study of disadvantages shows that grouping individuals can lead to serious problems, which already exist in some groups outside of Comind (for example, the unfair sharing of the fruits of labor in many companies). To combat these disadvantages, one can:
These disadvantages do not concern the collective more than other issues of injustice. Therefore, the reason to apply measures to correct them is the same as for other injustices.
It is not a problem if individuals group under a single account.