Funding of operating costs and ownership of infrastructure have been and will remain key points that need to be resolved.
Digress: Some famous marketing guru held a lecture to a packed auditorium. He said humanity was smart. They had developed mass production (through automation and ingenuity) and this meant that there was cheap goods, the problem shifted to distribution so humanity developed mass distribution (FedEx, container ships, rail networks) and the bottle neck to unlimited wealth for the capitalists shifted again to needing to grow their markets so humanity developed MASS MARKETING (adverts, referrals, entertainment media plugs, propaganda) and this has brought us to where we are today. The consumer is merely a variable in converting raw materials using capital into more capital.
Currently the internet user is the product of the capitalist system and until this balance is shifted every attempt to make systems to rival governments, server farms and social media platforms WILL FAIL for lack of money.
The only way to have a system that MIGHT SURVIVE is if it is PROFITABLE for the end user, otherwise it is a COST to the end user, either in a subscription or loss of their data.
I have proposed in a few places a few times the only mechanism that I can think of that might be possible to achieve this goal. The key idea is to reverse the power relationship in advertising. Make the manufacturer the petitioner.
A platform, social media first with governing features running parallel. Run on any server, eventually on private servers and not amazon or google farms. Managed with ROBUST and SIMPLE tools and applications/software that are 100% opensource. Users either pay a subscription equal to the cost of the storage/bandwidth/CPU cycles they consume ($1-100/month) OR they are guests and are fed curated adverts and network propaganda (positive propaganda but still) OR they accept to do work that will improve income. The primary work will be curating adverts, products and producers. They will rate adverts on truth (safe), taste (skin), bigotry (sexist), manipulation (weasel words) and a dozen other metrix. The network will charge the advertiser for the criticism at high rates enough to pay for the users to use the system. Those who are in a positive balance can filter their adverts using any metric that they want. They may say only honest adverts for well made products from honest companies with no ties to BlackRock or WEF or tax evasion are displayed. This means if you see an advert if is not something a manufacturer wants you to see, it is in fact a advert that YOU want to see.
Added to this rating of companies would then be company board directors and CEOs and such. Followed by investors and then media personalities, public figures and political leaders. The idea is that we could say that we do not want to see any adverts from companies with ties to B&MG or Nestle and eventually we would have a dataset that is a social credit rating used AGAINST the ELITE instead of AGAINST the PEOPLE.
A additional service that would then filter a tiny bit of money to distributed federated servers would be the use of this data set to provide information to users who want to add a fact filter to their browser or phone. If a news report shows up and the tag Reuters is included it will have a flashing red warning. If the name Fauci is in the article it will carry a warning. Basically it would be a tool curated by the people that would flag almost every fact check site as a propaganda outlet. Subscribing to this tool could cost any user a dollar or two per month and the federated network would then pay those who do the fact collection enough to keep their servers running.
If you cannot fund your revolution it will FAIL.
I think I will have to make a post about this (gonna copy this text) on my substack because I have repeated myself many times.
I do not believe you can un-corrupt anything corrupted by humans. These systems must be torn down and plowed over...fully eliminated, then replaced. This is going to happen automatically in the mid 2030's due to the power of cycles which dominates everything. That is provided they wackos don't blow the world apart before then.
Energy, frequency and vibration are the key. We must raise our energetic frequency to the frequency of love, enlightenment and joy. When enough of us understand we have the ability to change within, that will translate and create a ripple effect out to the collective consciousness.
Now that you have discovered our Action Radio Citizen Legislature doing what you folks are talking about, if you want to donate to our efforts that would be greatly appreciated! Paypal.me/ActionRadio
Politicians, which are public figures and are payed tens if not hundreds of time more than their citizens, must be made to ware a recording devices which will be constantly monitored by an office dedicated to fight corruption.
Why?
Because that is the only way to prevent them from cheating and lying.
After all, they are “public figures” and they get payed lots of money for it.
If their job should be about clarity and transparency, this would be the one way to make sure of it
It seems to me that you are advocating for a new system which governs us incorruptibly in the same way that Bitcoin is incorruptible*, with the aim of facilitating the ability of humans to 'collaborate at jaw-droppingly high levels' and thereby 'achieve amazing things'.
Is that right?
If so, I like the word 'incorruptibly ' but I worry about the words 'govern us'.
I couldn't support any system which is set up with the intention that it should govern us, rather than we govern it.
I support the concept of 'government of the people, by the people, for the people'** and I worry that a system of the kind you propose would become totalitarian even if it is set up with the purest motives.
For my part I am struggling to devise a new system which would facilitate what I call Individual Autonomy, with the role of government of any kind reduced to the barest minimum, whether such government is the current disastrous system or the sort of incorruptible system you propose.
* Bitcoin itself seems to have proved that it is incorruptible. The Exchanges on the other hand have proved to be open to all sorts of corruption. Perhaps the inventor/s of Bitcoin didn't consider the need for Exchanges and write them into the system. You have to think of everything when you invent a system which has open interaction with humans.
** I'm well aware that Lincoln was flawed (aren't we all?), but those words resonate with me.
Interesting idea that should definitely be explored further in my opinion.
However, I have two specific concerns:
1. TIME to reach a consensus. Using a "human swarm" for decision making can be lengthy. What do we do if decisions need to be made quickly?
2. COST to reach a consensus. Using the Bitcoin blockchain for gathering "human swarms" may be quite expensive, even on the lightning network.
I also have concerns about redundancy. What happens if the Internet is down or is very slow?
Finally, it appears our enemy is also using the swarms system. Is that where you got the idea from?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEkgZtu_Q2Q
Length of time is not an issue. We can ask the world a question and get an answer pretty fast (30-50 minutes) like we described here: https://joshketry.substack.com/p/ask-the-whole-world-a-question-and
Of course we could do it even faster if needed. Or slower too if time wasn't a constraint.
Good stuff! What about redundancy and cost?
Funding of operating costs and ownership of infrastructure have been and will remain key points that need to be resolved.
Digress: Some famous marketing guru held a lecture to a packed auditorium. He said humanity was smart. They had developed mass production (through automation and ingenuity) and this meant that there was cheap goods, the problem shifted to distribution so humanity developed mass distribution (FedEx, container ships, rail networks) and the bottle neck to unlimited wealth for the capitalists shifted again to needing to grow their markets so humanity developed MASS MARKETING (adverts, referrals, entertainment media plugs, propaganda) and this has brought us to where we are today. The consumer is merely a variable in converting raw materials using capital into more capital.
Currently the internet user is the product of the capitalist system and until this balance is shifted every attempt to make systems to rival governments, server farms and social media platforms WILL FAIL for lack of money.
The only way to have a system that MIGHT SURVIVE is if it is PROFITABLE for the end user, otherwise it is a COST to the end user, either in a subscription or loss of their data.
I have proposed in a few places a few times the only mechanism that I can think of that might be possible to achieve this goal. The key idea is to reverse the power relationship in advertising. Make the manufacturer the petitioner.
A platform, social media first with governing features running parallel. Run on any server, eventually on private servers and not amazon or google farms. Managed with ROBUST and SIMPLE tools and applications/software that are 100% opensource. Users either pay a subscription equal to the cost of the storage/bandwidth/CPU cycles they consume ($1-100/month) OR they are guests and are fed curated adverts and network propaganda (positive propaganda but still) OR they accept to do work that will improve income. The primary work will be curating adverts, products and producers. They will rate adverts on truth (safe), taste (skin), bigotry (sexist), manipulation (weasel words) and a dozen other metrix. The network will charge the advertiser for the criticism at high rates enough to pay for the users to use the system. Those who are in a positive balance can filter their adverts using any metric that they want. They may say only honest adverts for well made products from honest companies with no ties to BlackRock or WEF or tax evasion are displayed. This means if you see an advert if is not something a manufacturer wants you to see, it is in fact a advert that YOU want to see.
Added to this rating of companies would then be company board directors and CEOs and such. Followed by investors and then media personalities, public figures and political leaders. The idea is that we could say that we do not want to see any adverts from companies with ties to B&MG or Nestle and eventually we would have a dataset that is a social credit rating used AGAINST the ELITE instead of AGAINST the PEOPLE.
A additional service that would then filter a tiny bit of money to distributed federated servers would be the use of this data set to provide information to users who want to add a fact filter to their browser or phone. If a news report shows up and the tag Reuters is included it will have a flashing red warning. If the name Fauci is in the article it will carry a warning. Basically it would be a tool curated by the people that would flag almost every fact check site as a propaganda outlet. Subscribing to this tool could cost any user a dollar or two per month and the federated network would then pay those who do the fact collection enough to keep their servers running.
If you cannot fund your revolution it will FAIL.
I think I will have to make a post about this (gonna copy this text) on my substack because I have repeated myself many times.
If swarming systems can run and take over all centralized systems, and create a swarmed economy, that also solves funding. Or make it a non profit.
We have written about the social credit scores for politicians a few times now. We also subscribed to your substack.
Social Credit Scores Are A Good Idea... For Politicians!: https://joshketry.substack.com/p/social-credit-scores-are-a-good-idea
And more recently as part of this: https://joshketry.substack.com/p/we-the-people-should-write-our-own
I do not believe you can un-corrupt anything corrupted by humans. These systems must be torn down and plowed over...fully eliminated, then replaced. This is going to happen automatically in the mid 2030's due to the power of cycles which dominates everything. That is provided they wackos don't blow the world apart before then.
Humans will always try to corrupt the system. Just like hackers will try to corrupt your computers. It is up to us to build better systems.
{...Humans will always try to corrupt the system...}
OK.
How about "well trained" (you know, what that means) AGI managing the system ??
It should operate w/o greed 24/7/365, just feed it with electricity and data ...
Kind of Bitcoin but for administrative purposes.
We can build the new thing now. Thats what we are advocating for. Before it breaks and there is unecessary suffering.
Energy, frequency and vibration are the key. We must raise our energetic frequency to the frequency of love, enlightenment and joy. When enough of us understand we have the ability to change within, that will translate and create a ripple effect out to the collective consciousness.
Or, we could use the divine power of imagination and actually create a better world with intent and effort
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=remRJ1fcx5A
Now that you have discovered our Action Radio Citizen Legislature doing what you folks are talking about, if you want to donate to our efforts that would be greatly appreciated! Paypal.me/ActionRadio
Greg Penglis
Creator, Host and CEO
https://rumble.com/c/ActionRadioRumble
WriteYourLaws.com
BlogTalkRadio.com/citizenaction
GregPenglis.Substack.com
Here is a obvious solution.
Politicians, which are public figures and are payed tens if not hundreds of time more than their citizens, must be made to ware a recording devices which will be constantly monitored by an office dedicated to fight corruption.
Why?
Because that is the only way to prevent them from cheating and lying.
After all, they are “public figures” and they get payed lots of money for it.
If their job should be about clarity and transparency, this would be the one way to make sure of it
It seems to me that you are advocating for a new system which governs us incorruptibly in the same way that Bitcoin is incorruptible*, with the aim of facilitating the ability of humans to 'collaborate at jaw-droppingly high levels' and thereby 'achieve amazing things'.
Is that right?
If so, I like the word 'incorruptibly ' but I worry about the words 'govern us'.
I couldn't support any system which is set up with the intention that it should govern us, rather than we govern it.
I support the concept of 'government of the people, by the people, for the people'** and I worry that a system of the kind you propose would become totalitarian even if it is set up with the purest motives.
For my part I am struggling to devise a new system which would facilitate what I call Individual Autonomy, with the role of government of any kind reduced to the barest minimum, whether such government is the current disastrous system or the sort of incorruptible system you propose.
* Bitcoin itself seems to have proved that it is incorruptible. The Exchanges on the other hand have proved to be open to all sorts of corruption. Perhaps the inventor/s of Bitcoin didn't consider the need for Exchanges and write them into the system. You have to think of everything when you invent a system which has open interaction with humans.
** I'm well aware that Lincoln was flawed (aren't we all?), but those words resonate with me.
Do you know why the exchanges are corruptible and that Bitcoin isn't? Centralization is always corruptible. It is our longest article but more here:
How To Uncorrupt Government In 3 Simple Steps:
https://joshketry.substack.com/p/how-to-fix-corrupt-government-in
Yes I read that. I'm going away to think.
Semantically we agree. But all of our systems now govern us. We no longer govern. The people who have corrupted the systems do.