Interview 1359 – Jonathan Brown on Mix-Blockchain
Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed
This week on the Social Media Alternatives series we discuss Mix-Blockchain.org with founder Jonathan Brown.
SHOW NOTES:
mix-blockchain.org
How illegal and immoral content will be handled on MIX Blockchain
Filed in: Interviews
Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
The only sane “alternative” is to abandon social media all together.
How can we complain about data collection, mass manipulation, etc. while indulging in ANY form of “social media”?
Maintaining contact with others is important, if facebook did it wrong, it doesn’t mean “social media” is a bad thing in general. I do, however, have an urge to burn it with fire.
I think the best way to burn down the centralized websites on the Internet is to create decentralized variants of them and make them very popular. The “make them very popular†part is one of the key challenges.
Note this Mix blockchain is based on Ethereum, which doesn’t scale. Or least won’t scale decentralized in any of the various proposed redesigns I have seen.
But the elephant in the room is onboarding and promoting popularity. Steem attempted to reward people for blogging, but its design favors concentration of the rewards by whales, because I showed in my 2016 Steemit blog that there is no way to reward tokens by minting them from a collective money supply that can avoid the winner-take-all outcome. I believe this is why Steemit and Minds have ostensibly not been able to grow above a few 1000s of active non-bot, real human users despite of the million or so sockpuppet accounts created on these platforms.
To achieve the goal is going to require some out-the-box thinking and design. James is correct with his questioning in his interview to imply that anti-censorship is not a strong enough incentive to drive mainstream to shift to these “decentralized†social networks. More details are available at the following blog of mine:
https://steemit.com/cryptocurrency/@anonymint/why-crypto-tokens-are-important
Note the Mix blockchain creator’s idea for a WoT is not a viable solution for preventing illegal content from being served from IPFS servers. Also a WoT doesn’t scale, i.e. trusting those who those who you trust trust, is a major hole to be exploited because of the domino effect of for example phishing.
Good evening mkey,
You haven’t met me…nor have you looked in my eyes.
Would you qualify our relationship as “social”?
I presume you’re not being a curmudgeon and are instead ridiculing for example having 5000 “friends†on Facebook and when I watch my gf click the Like button for every post of every one of those friends even if she doesn’t know anything about them or even really like it.
But there’s nothing inherently impossible about new relationships, friends, and collaborative networking being formed over the Internet. Most of my current contacts were garnished virtually and I haven’t met them in person yet.
The problem with the Likes is there is no (opportunity) cost to clicking the Like button. We’ll fix that soon.
Congratulations. You’ve successfully dodged the question
Your narrow conceptualization of what is social apparently has caused you to think I didn’t address your question. See my response to Octium for more elucidation.
There’s nothing inherently exclusive about meeting in the flesh that makes virtual interaction entirely unsocial. In fact, I find it easier to be more social with more people when I don’t have to get too near to their flesh.
The Luddites had an analogous disdain for progress.
Fact is that virtual interaction (when including VOIP) is orders-of-magnitude more efficient than the necessity to meet in the flesh.
Note your condescending tone is not appreciated.
I don’t know what is “social” supposed to mean anymore.
One of the issues with facebook is that it exploits human craving for contact and accomplishment by providing a series of dopamin hits as rewards for nothing. With some people this can replace human contact or even supress it completely, which ties in with a lacking education, subpar understanding and emotial instability hyped up on medication and sugar.
Another problem is that an all pervasive privacyless grid is formed, reconditioning people to pay no attention to privacy and give it no value. All in the hopes of being liked or accepted. To that effect, facebook could be viewed as a cult.
To a certain degree, same can be said about gaming. More so because a common feature has become to have some sort of a social feature in lobbies etc. These communities make it harder for people to quit the game, creating an emotional connection with the system.
All this draws on fact people crave contact and accomplishment. Providing substitutes is very much too easy or so it would seem.
To answer your question at least partially: this contact we have established here is based on exchange of ideas, it’s very shallow and simple, offering not much in dopamin hits and emotional involvement. It does come with a small community of its own consising of somewhat likeminded individuals.
I do not liken it to a real human contact, but since I can’t discuss these matters with anyone in real life, it is very dear to me. I’m also very much aware there are real people behind these letters without having a peek hole through the grid into their lives.
Facebook just provided people who were already insistent they were separate from nature the opportunity to further extend that belief. They are almost-consciously choosing a fake internet friend over an opportunity to connect with a real life human being. I am personally all for encouraging this catastrophe as it’s inevitable collapse will serve as a warning to those future generations we’re always harping on about how we’re supposed to care about when we obviously really don’t. JimBob who likes that idea about making a like mean something.
Merriam-Webster says, “relating to or involving activities in which people spend time talking to each other or doing enjoyable things with each other.â€
Wikipedia says, “In the absence of agreement about its meaning, the term ‘social’ is used in many different senses and regarded as a concept, referring among other things to: Attitudes, orientations, or behaviors which take the interests, intentions, or needs of other people into account (in contrast to anti-social behaviour) has played some role in defining the idea or the principle. For instance terms like social realism, social justice, social constructivism, social psychology, social anarchism and social capital imply that there is some social process involved or considered, a process that is not there in regular, ‘non-social’ realism, justice, constructivism, psychology, anarchism, or capital.â€
Human interaction since antiquity has often revolved around dopamine hits.
The pointlessness of much Facebook activity is I think indicative of what the average people typically do with their lives. Before Facebook it was vegetating in front of soap operas TV shows. Before TV shows, it was perhaps some repetitive activity doing the gogo-gaga with babies. I have a short attention span for parties and social gatherings with average IQ folks because of this non-productive stroking the egos game. And such boring repetitive activities.
My non-english native speaker gf (whose IQ which I quesstimate to be between 105 to 110) used to be addicted to her Facebook timeline and Candy Crush but now is more addicted to a crossword puzzle game. Recently she discovered she could play against other players and has been expanding her English vocabulary at a fast rate. Her vocabulary is rivaling mine in some areas. She has also pursued her creative arts with the aid of online information.
Social interaction on the Internet is diversifying. Facebook is no longer indicative of all of the interactions and information sharing that people are doing on the Internet.
The form of privacy that people always valued they still get on Facebook. That is to keep secrets from other people. People who didn’t grow up in totalitarian regimes don’t have any experience with the notion of the panopticon (a word that surely my gf wouldn’t know and even the browser dictionary didn’t know).
The solution is the give humans what they naturally want while also building in privacy. This is what co-opting the centralized Internet behemoths with decentralized ledgers could potentially accomplish.
Disagree. Gaslight is clearly emotionally+ideologically invested in his posts here, as evident even by his choice of username. Gaslighting means, “manipulate (someone) by psychological means into questioning their own sanity.â€
I am also emotionally invested in my responses here. There is logic going on but also emotional rewards for seeking out the correct logic.
P.S. thank you for your level-headed and rationalized tone. I hope these discussions don’t turn nasty and condescending, just because some of us have different perspectives. It would be our collective loss if James had to restrict discussion because of incivility.
Thank you for googling “socialism.”
All of human existence is based on dopamin hits, the body releases all sorts of chemicals to incentivize us, keep us alive, looking for food and out of danger. The point of it when facebook or a video game does it is that one is rewarded for achieving nothing and the process repeats on a specific timeline, constructed to keep you going for more.
People are being incentivized against such behavior. Normalization for this change is provided by such movies as “the circle.”
When considering the emotional charge on social media, it’s mostly just a load of bullshit and negativity. To that extent, emotional content on this board is quite low as it should be if a rational discussion is to be achieved.
Also, while text can be imbued with emotion, writing is asynchronous and as such is a poor replacement for eye to eye communication. I’m obviously referring to worthwhile interactions in real life, not those that none of us want to have but are usually forced into on daily basis.
I perfectly accept that writing letters is a lost art and I’d submit that many relationships of a few generations past were made and broken on such artifacts, but still a written communication is easier to break off and thus less involving than having a person in contact right then and there.
What has changed? Did you miss what I wrote, “The pointlessness of much Facebook activity is I think indicative of what the average people typically do with their lives.â€
To some extent, Facebook gives some of the average people what they want and have always gotten. The level of drama about this defies sober reality of what most humans have always done with their lives. Also Facebook is being disintemediated and users continue to diversify their social media and networking choices.
Secrets that people think are important they still keep.
What you really do not like is that you think social media behemoths are tools of the panopticon totalitarianism. But the Gestapo, East German Stasi, Venetian Mouth-of-Truth, etc. all existed before the Internet.
You’re assigning blame to technology for a human nature and civilization issue that has persisted across many technological epochs.
mkey,
I like your take on Social Media and relationships.
…
…this contact we have established here (Corbett Report comments) is based on exchange of ideas…
For me, personally, sometimes I walk away with some great insights.
I think you are right. It not just that facebook is a bad example of social media. The whole concept of “social media” was bad idea in the first place.
facebook was just a way of conditioning people to accept “social media” and if you got rid of facebook tomorrow, people would still be conditioned to seek out other forms of social media that would be just as bad.
It’s not that social media gave us any new capabilities either. There were already ways for people on the Internet to share stuff with other people before facebook and social media…it’s just that social media conditioned people to turn it into something persona based, which is the real problem.
Even the term “Social Media” is an oxymoron. You could not find anything less social than interacting with a computer.
BTW This is not a comment on Mix-Blockchain as I have not yet watched the video.
I think blockchain based technology shows a lot of promise if things are improved.
The irony is that then why are you commenting here? This forum is social media.
It is obviously incorrect to assert that all social media is deleterious.
I wrote a blog about this recently: Is all virtual activity mind control?
Again I reiterate that all my major contacts in the Bitcoin arena which has been my financial lifeline for the past 5 years have all been formed virtually on social media. If my survival (and the funding for treating my near death experience with Tuberculosis) has been created by social media, then how the heck is social media irrelevant to me.
You’re obviously incorrect. This forum is an example of a new capability for social interaction and networking that wasn’t available before the Internet.
I’m not interacting with a bot, as I presume you are a real human.
QED.
That last point was pretty telling. After all, when we used phones we weren’t talking to phones, merely through them. With the first inter-city telephone line being between DeadWood and DC. Fun fact from watching the whole series of DeadWood; a depiction of an anarchial town that had ROADS! The telephones being used to find out how much money the crooks in washington wanted from the poor honest Souix land-stealing gold miners. However, this form of social media has had a negative impact on our abilities to read body language. The average for a person in their twenties is much lower than someone my age, or even much older. But this is just a hurdle to breach. It will happen. Provided that Doomsday Clock just stays stuck. JimBob who don’t know why everybody gets all excited about that clock, it ain’t never really done anything since he’s known of it. Which means its broke! Now throw it in the trash and we’ll get you a new one at Wal-Mart next week.
Reread the paragraph, he obviously didn’t mean to say internet equates facebook. Many of the features facebook provided were available at the time on various other sites (this is fact,) facebook just took the anonymity out of it and made it quite global.
” This forum is social media.”
I think you are overstretching. Communication over internet, ok.
Putting electronic devices into brains of Parkinson or Alzheimer patients might give them new capabilities, but we are still not amused with that technology (most of us I guess).
Social media can be beneficial to someone as you pointed out while at the same time detrimental for majority. You cannot apply your personal experience to other people and to different circumstances straight forward.
Communication over social media is very truncated.
Language in itself is truncated, written language even more, also because people are in general better communicating verbally.
Non-verbal communication is impossible on social media. As far as I know Mirror Neurons are not functioning over internet (it’s synchronous communication). Both are very very important in eye to eye communication.
Usually when people are not using and developing some of their capabilities they start do degrade.
“I’m not interacting with a bot, as I presume you are a real human.”
Presume.
Social network communication leaves you with lots of uncertainties and we really don’t like uncertainty. How this uncertainty affects people psychologically?
I’m pretty sure that after an hour talk with you, eye to eye, I would be able to draw some valid conclusions (certainty).
Would you be able the same?
Have you ever heard of videochat such as the billion users on WeChat, Whatsapp, Snapchat etc..
Virtual communication will continue to gain realism. Eventually it will be functionally equivalent to being in the same room with the others in the conversation.
Many of you guys just hate the Internet. And probably because you see technology as a tool of control by the matrix. But all technology is applicable to both good and evil, e.g. guns. But old geezers will be dying in another decade or two. And the Millennials don’t have these biases that favor the “pristine†lack of technology of their forefathers.
The Luddites also faded away and thankfully we have industrialization so we have a higher quality life with vehicles for transportation, refrigeration, etc.
You didn’t address my main points at all.
You think it’s just about old geezers hating internet (luddites) and Millenials that are not biased.
Man, this is ignorance that you should not tolerate to yourself, if you want your opinion to be found serious (I have a feeling you would want).
I like internet. Internet can be used for good and bad. But you probably missed that it is often good and bad at the same time. The same with other technology.
“Virtual communication will continue to gain realism. Eventually it will be functionally equivalent to being in the same room with the others in the conversation.”
Almost impossible, even with advanced virtual reality. Look at my previous reply.
Another aspect, maybe we are not expecting the same from communication with other people, particularly friends.
Let me start with analogy. Some people enjoy jazz and funk, while they find house and trance as annoying and boring. Vice versa of course. These groups are pretty much exclusive.
Well, maybe you and me belong to different groups regarding communication. Basic, superficial, easy, non-involved communication is possible on internet. Some people are satisfied with this, not me. Even with people I just do business I prefer something more than just small talk.
What do you think, would we have todays level of divisiveness, if people will be more involved in their communication and not often see others as mere objects?
I’m not sure, that it is just how we are wired, that is in question.
Regarding music it is proven that people who were just exposed to more complex music in childhood are in general listening more complex music later.
Gaslight,
Anything you do in life will have consequences. To use a cliche, most technologies have a double-edged sword. They can be used for both good and bad. The solution is not to just abandon the technology altogether, but to use it for good purposes.
The problems
As I see it there are some problems with social media:
1) the information is massive.
2) A lot of information is false, partially false, biased, mixed with prejudice and illogical.
3) Minority reports and actual facts are often discarded due to unpopularity and bias. This can be easily influenced.
People and companies are able to infiltrate the system and push their own agendas onto people. This means that futuristic stuff (like GMO and space) will become popular, based on the wrong reasons.
4) Illegal information (can differ per country). Child porn should be illegal. But whistleblower information should not be illegal.
And what about links to torrents?
5) Offensive, shocking or violent information. And nudes, porn, art. Political memes. What about news?
The mix-blockchain seems to deal with 5. but can not ensure 4. What a group of people find OK is different from what the law in a country (like China) finds OK.
Using encryption, crypto-currency and/or block-chain does not solve the above problems. Essentially they are just adding random numbers.
They are solutions to different problems:
Encryption improves privacy. Currency reduces the ability to post or reply. Block-chain of the information can make the information more persistent, and may prevent censorship.
My goal for information sharing media
On discussions:
The system should be designed in such a way that it becomes clear that 911 was caused by demolitions. The evidence is extremely clear on that, but the conclusion is very unpopular.
The 911 truth can not come to most people, because people don’t understand the physics behind it and because of the extreme bias of people that might understand it.
Other information
I have not thought about that yet.
But I think that it might be similar.
My solution
A discussion system, with information sharing, should have a structure that promotes logic reasoning and good philosophy.
This means that the discussion has a cooperative goal of building good reasoning from different viewpoints. The idea is that you can see how other people look at the same problem. If you and they want to.
A simple version of this is in MIT’s deliberation.
http://cci.mit.edu/klein/deliberatorium.html
It really needs improvements and logic, but it shows how a cooperative discussion can work.
True logic allows philosophical subjects that do not have clear reasoning. It should allow for unknown and secret things, which might be filled in in different ways. It gives us the skeptical “I don’t know”, but can also be “I suspect..”.
The answers should generally relate to logical fallacies, or cognitive biases. These are available in lists. If I want to oppose the 911 truth, I could state that it might be a bias towards a government conspiracy. To answer that, I can also reply to myself that certain people in the government can be corrupt and that there was a lot of money involved.
By restructuring the information the presented information becomes clear and logical and allows for different viewpoints. The discussion should become a more stable source of information, like a multi-view wikipedia. You can agree to disagree, or to leave something open. That way endless yes-no saying should end.
Of course the logical structure can be different, and people are allowed to build their own logic systems. In mainstream news the logic is often wrong to begin with, and needs some restructuring. In science there is often a lot of bias and corruption.
“Open source” to reduce conflicts
An advantage of my proposal is that you can point out problems with certain ideas, without the need for conflict. There is enough conflict in the world, there is no need to bring it into the discussions. You can make your own logical structure if you want to.
It is similar to how open-source software developers work cooperative on information. They help each other with bug-reports and advises for change. If you have a different idea, you can just “fork” your own version of the program. I think it would be a great idea to have 911 truth working together like that.
People that want to push their own agendas or prejudice can show up quickly as their reasoning will be illogical and biased. My solution works against most of these techniques:
https://www.activistpost.com/2016/05/25-rules-of-disinformation-propaganda-psyops-debunking-techniques.html
For people that are simply bad in reasoning, the system will invite them to be more logical. And other people might even help them out.
Note for other readers that I replied in the Minds thread about your agendas.
In summary, my only agenda is to remove top-down control and enable economic meritocracy. I do not want myself or anyone to have totalitarian control over what people are allowed to discuss and view.
So you want the totalitarianism of a World Government in order to enforce your agendas on what other people should be able to view, discuss, and think? Your agendas are Orwellian. Thus I do not agree with you.
Those who serve content will probably choose to obey the laws in their jurisdictions (and perhaps the laws of the recipient’s jurisdiction if it has any enforcement power). Yet this will not prevent information from being served from jurisdictions which having different laws.
So you would rather choose totalitarianism so you futilely attempt to outlaw that which is economic?
Prostitute Tokens of Rome & Regulation
Nature doesn’t have morals. It only knows economics. I would agree with outlawing rampant drug use in jurisdiction where I live, because these drugs are known to destroy productivity and thus aren’t economic. Child pornography seems to encourage deviant behavior which would curtail productivity but the cost of outlawing is totalitarianism which has a greater cost to society than the few deviants who get some sick joy out of watching babies and pre-puberty youth abused on film.
Nature abhors a perfect society as it abhors a vacuum. The Second of Thermodynamics requires that disorder trend to maximum. In one of my recent blogs I elaborated on the physics of why we can’t exist without uncertainty and imperfection.
I think that we all struggle to put balance in our lives, whether it is virtual, physical, spiritual…monetary, altruistic, or whatever.
Last night, I had the pleasure to going to a Dallas area event about “Safer Water”. That is, “Safer Water North Texas” and “Safer Water For Dallas”, where folks from all around the area met to become more informed and to network with each other.
I met old friends, made new friends, and ran into folks that I had met before but did not know that they also were activists towards this goal of safer water.
One new friend I was very excited to meet face-to-face was this fiery, hot tongued gal (Yamie) who tore out a new defecation channel on some of the officials with the water department. We had a great time talking about it.
Watch her tear into them…
https://youtu.be/MPaXk7IkKFY?t=1h49m1s
They should have bought some of those similar domains, they are cheaper in bulk, it would have been 100$ well spent.
Where’s the proof that the bad health in the area is due to the water quality? Looks like everybody in that room needs to lose a heck of a lot of weight and discover the concept of an hour of daily exercise. Auto-immunity is caused by many things and including the use of antibiotics and especially the devastating fluoroquinolones. Also who drinks tap water these days. Always drink purified water.
I lived in Corpus Christi, Texas around the turn of the century, and many Texans don’t exercise probably because of the intense heat in the summer. And they like everything supersized including their SUVs, ranches, and meals.
I lived in Dallas around that time. You forgot to include drinks on that super-size list. Texas is the drinkingest state in the world. JimBob who enjoyed his years in Texas even though he don’t drink any more, partly thanks to Texas.
That fellow from Allen sure kept his cool after that woman spoke. I stopped watching it then because I remember discovering my town’s notification system. This being a thoroughly modern government entity that has internet capabilities. They just put it on a note and stick it on their door. Needless to say, I not only double filter my water; I finish it off with a good boil to boot. JimBob who has lost teeth from over-fluoridation. Or at least those teeth looked just like those in the pictures, JimBob not being a state authorized thinker in the field of just any damn thing you can think of.
Note…May 25th, 2018
QUOTE –
The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is the most important change in data privacy regulation in 20 years – we’re here to make sure you’re prepared​. … Enforcement date: 25 May 2018 – at which time those organizations in non-compliance may face heavy fines.
https://www.eugdpr.org/
My attention to this GDPR came via “Meetup.com”, when Meetup sent out an email notice: “…In line with the upcoming changes to European Union data protection law, we updated our Privacy Policy effective May 25, 2018, for all members globally….”
https://www.meetup.com/privacy/?_cookie-check=NqXA4iluS44cJO6a
A couple weeks ago, we started Dallas For Safer Water Meetup Group in order to gain exposure and momentum from Erin Brockovich’s attention drawing actions to North Texas in March and April.
https://www.meetup.com/Dallas-For-Safer-Water-non-profit/
The “Dallas For Safer Water” website ( http://www.DallasForSaferWater.com ) also has links/information/issues/events about “Safer Water North Texas dot Org”.
On May 15th, our groups (DallasForSaferWater.com and SaferWaterNTX.org ) came together at an EVENT.
Surprisingly, on May 17th, The Dallas Morning News ran a very pro-“concerned citizen” article.
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/watchdog/2018/05/17/north-texas-municipal-water-district-fights-critics-dirty-web-trick
Meetup is kind of expensive. $90 for 6 months. It has limitations. However, it does offer some beneficial aspects of exposure and community.
Hello
This review of tools is absolutely a great Idea, and I thank you James for this job.
It seems this Mix project is very close to another project, Akasha, which is basically built on the same components, Ethereum blockchain + IPFS : the Akasha team has also developped browser plugins, one for each component. There is also the Twister project : a blockchain based version of Twitter.
I think it would be interesting to design the “social media tools”, or tools to anonymously promote and discuss Ideas and informations, in order to help the users of the no-free-speech-zones. In the “EU globalist and collectivist experiment” if you are publicly too critical about certain facts, you could even be “socially ruined”, fined in trial, loose your job, or be invited to jail. No first amendment there. We in Europe need such a tool.
There are two pradoxal issues to adress : first the problem of “illegal content” could be a false problem. We need a tool which could provide the same privacy as a talk in a long noisy street. Perhaps in this long noisy street there are pedophiles, terrorists, or human traffickers talking. But we don’t care, we need to talk together. In the real life each of us privately talk to people who talk to people who talk to people, and perhaps in this “circle of trust” or “circle of followers of followers of followers”, a man is exposed to “illegal” content (in Europe many more things are illegal….). Basically we do not care. We need to talk, promote ideas… If you talk anonimously and if the tool si fully P2P, you don’t care about someone three hundreds yards away in this noisy street talking about pedophilia.
Second paradox, if you leave in a no-free-speech zone, and if you are committed to a cause, you are ready to spend something like one dollar each day to “like” or “retweet” interesting content in relation with your cause, if you are sure no organization could track you back. To a certain extent It could protect the system from trolls (but a lot of them are fueled directly or undirectly by tax money…), and provide a living for talented pedagogues of the cause, or for developpers.
So the simple requirements added to the basic twitter / youtube / facebook fonctionnalities are : posting anonimously, giving money anonimoulsy, fully P2P, and fully opensource of course. If possible via browser plugin for simplicity, and capacity to run over anonimity layers like VPN or better like I2P. It seems the technology is there.
But you can’t build such a tool respecting these requirements on one hand, and on the other hand control all the revenues from it…because controlling all the revenues imply centralization, and centralization does not fit with the above requirements.
You can absolutely not trust even a partially centralized system in a no-free-speech-zone.
And to build a good tool, you need money to pay the right developers, and to pay them more time than you think at first. (by the way who paid for the bitcoin code ? so to say who paid for the blockchain code ?)…and to pay another team to audit the code (…you never know…).
The strategy could be to agree on requirements, and to help a good candidate (something like Akasha, or Mix, or Twister, or…) via something like Kickstarter ?…
I just refuted Vitalik and pointed out that his 3 years of design work on Ethereum has been a total failure.
The following new blog of mine is a compendium of my expertise:
https://steemit.com/cryptocurrency/@anonymint/scaling-decentralization-security-of-distributed-ledgers
My point is in fact a meta-political point, not a technological one.
I have no opinion as to which solution will or will not emerge.
I think on the meta-political level there are at least 3 parties struggling with the problem.
First the ruling elite, less than one percent of the whole population, a trans-national oligarchic layer who destroys our civilization day after day. According to its ideologies, and for its greater profit. Both. It is not a plot, it is a massive convergence of multiple interests. Each pawn pushed there on the chessboard sees its fellow pawn pushed far far away accordingly. No communications needed. just convergence of interests.
Second a tiny awakening part of the whole population, a few percent, ordinary people, who sees the symptoms, and tries to alert the rest of the population, at least to make this tiny part growing. But this risk is absolutely unbearable for the oligarchy, who perfectly knows that one ant can’t resist against ninety nine ants in the long term.
Its reaction is on one hand to contain the population in an electronic grid, to monitor and control the information, to brainwash people with the politically correct vision about history, events, rules of conduct. To allow you to have access to other information. Or not. To allow you to speak. Or not. To allow you to transfer payments. Or not. To allow you to receive payments. Or not.
On the other hand, the reaction is also to produce laws to state clear boundaries, that ultimately lead you to prison : about hate speech, about fake news, about the respect of this or that exotic constructed dead or alive part of humanity…
So these ordinary people need the work of a third part, the geeks and crypto-experts, network experts… who could work to build a new protocol (in fact a brand new and robust protocol, not necessarily a “social network”) in order to communicate, and pay, and be paid through the grid. Legitimately, the geeks want a reward for their work, so they introduce a little centralization to control revenues. And inevitably to protect their revenues from the anger of the oligarchy they have to deal with the “illegal content paradigm”, which is the Trojan horse concept against free speech. Centralization and control of the speech are strongly conflicting with the basic need of the ordinary people.
That’s why I think the solution is that ordinary people should pay for this new P2P protocol which would allow them to speak freely and anonymously and securely, to pay and be paid freely and anonymously and securely. And I believe that they would agree to pay for it. Do the math : if each serious meta-political Twitter or Facebook or YouTube avatar who have hundreds of followers would give five dollars…
who perfectly knows that one ant can’t resist against ninety nine ants in the long term.
Good points. Most of which went over my head. But this one statement reminded me of a brilliant victory by Che in Cuba. Hey, I don’t support Che, just recognize his brilliance in this action. There was a fort, manned by a battalion of Cuban soldiers. He would go at night and just fire one random shot towards the fort. The whole fort would just blaze away at the night all night. He did this for like three nights. After that, the entire fort just marched on out of there. One ant against 500 ants. It’s not the numbers that matter. After all, in your own statement, the elites are just one ant in a hundred. Everybody keeps forgetting that part, while saying that it doesn’t apply to them. JimBob who likes to think that his ant bite can scare the other 98 ants after he bites that one ant’s head clean off!
Interesting tactic.
The situation I describe is slightly different : my story is about one ant in the bunker surrounded by ninety-nine ants, and not ninety-nine ants in the bunker surrounded by one ant…
I know, but I needed to tweak it a bit to make it work.
I’m looking for an alternative social media to FB.
A friend has recommended mewe.com
Does anyone else have experience of this?
Chris Lipthorpe