Blockchains are Fundamental to Online Freedom
View this post on Hive: Blockchains are Fundamental to Online Freedom
6 years ago in #philosophy by clayboyn (70)
$8.93
- Past Payouts $8.93, 0.00 TRX
- - Author $7.59, 0.00 TRX
- - Curators $1.35, 0.00 TRX
Freedom starts with the meshnet ... one of my old posts on the meshnet if you are unsure what it is about ......
https://steemit.com/meshnet/@thelifeofbrian/meshnet-news
This conversation about big corporations being unfair lmao that will not change as long as you are playing in their sand box ...build your own free secure uncontrolled internet ... I have many many posts on the mesh if you want more information about it ....
Nice, I'm going to read the techcrunch link in a bit. Thanks for letting me know!
The meshnet is a passion of mine ...our local ham radio club just built a meshnet for the local ham radio operators to play with ..but you need a ham license to get on ours as we built it as part of the emergency communications network for our area .... but anyone can set up a node and become part of a meshnet and help them grow ...
I've also experienced many that love the idea of decentralization but either get hung up on the "userbase" aspect or the "money" aspect. To me, those two are outweighed by what you mentioned "steem's security of no deletion status".
I suppose some people just enjoy the illusion of security that comes with having protected and safe thoughts and opinions about everything. Who will keep us in check if the government and corporations don't do it for us?
So true. Great article. Following.
Everything is a freedom till it is not. Every single thing you have ever posted on the blockchain is there forever for anyone down the road to look up and use as a weapon when it’s no longer the “correct” thing to say and or do something.
Many people have said some really stupid things in their pasts even more so if they where really young. While on other social platforms you could delete it and maybe someone didn’t save a copy of that. No such thing on blockchains. Such things if they were trying be funny or it was taken out of context still costed people there lively hood and even pushed many down a very dark hole in life.
Perhaps it will inspire some actual thought to go into what people say or do online as opposed to shooting out "covfefe"s. Personally I don't mind taking ownership of anything I've said. If it's out of context, people are free to pull up the post and see that for themselves. If I was wrong, I can admit that too. Having a government or corporation tell me that I don't have the right to disagree with them? Not worth the convenience.
You're right, mate.
A lot of people are going to get burnt.
This is the main reason I use my real name.
Reminds me when I'm writing, this is here forever.
Use a pen name and you're only anonymous until somebody outs you on chain.
When that happens, a lot of people are going to regret things they said under the cloak of anonymity.
Not even that needs to happen. Many of us have more than exceed enough for writing samples to be taken and compiled in a database that can be compared and contrasted against other writing samples. Your own writing style, word usage, and other factors is a digital fingerprint.
People like to think they can’t be boiled down so easily into numbers like that. Big data scares the daylights out of me.
Facebook is still shadowbanning my steemit posts, which are mostly just the travel ones. It's annoying.
Crypt0 was talking about how he (and his whole team of moderators) got banned from FB a few weeks ago. Not only are all the photos gone (which is what's pissing him off the most), but none of them can log into anything where they were using their FB logins. That is something I'd not considered until he mentioned it.
Ya... to anyone with a network they don't want to lose, I'd suggest making it very well known that you are also on a platform where bullshit like that doesn't go on. Having a backup network that people know they can find you is a solid idea.
Everyone on FB is a real life friend. Yeah, all the people I care about know how to find me.
For me, certainly one of the single most appealing things about Steemit (and the whole blockchain idea) is precisely that it has that sense of "permanence." There's no dictatorial Sub-Redditor with an axe to grind who's suddenly going to get rid of something... and I can actually use this place to write "personal landmark" stories with the knowledge that someday — whether it's out of need or something else — I will be able to refer back to thing that happened on certain dates here... and there it will be.
Agreed. I like not having to wonder if a company will collapse or purge me.
100% Clay, you had me at the title of the post, and I agree with everything you said...
My only question, is the future: Could a giant whale potentially affect the freedom of speech on this platform? For example flag anyone they disagree with systematically, to the point of causing a small user to self censor. Even though we are less likely to experience this here, i don't know that we are totally immune form speech police, when wallet size also has "the greater say"
I suppose the answer to that question kind of directly correlates to the types of witnesses that we have in the top 20. This is why I am a very vocal opponent of selling witness votes. We only need 17/20 to fork and if a whale somehow bought up enough stake to control the top 20 witness spots, we'd just have to fork off before they started making code changes. Essentially to answer your question, no, it would require complete and utter corruption of the entire ideologies and beliefs of most of the people running the chain and then making the chain mutable would probably kill it as it wouldn't be a crypto any more.
hmm.. i need to better understand the witness dynamics... but that sound quite reassuring.
Maybe a simpler way to say that is this:
At the point that it became a possibility, we would all have abandoned our own principles and beliefs. Essentially... as long as roughly twenty people that have the technical capacity to run a witness node hold similar beliefs about freedom and anti censorship, they would be able to keep the chain alive. Even if someone tried to "steal the chain" they would have to convince everyone else to go along with them.
I see! well lets keep our witnesses well wined and dined then :D
I do think that there is a shift in thinking happening on the platform. I think there is an awakening towards building communities, upholding principles, and viewing the platform as serving more than just the monetary purpose. So i'm actually more convinced now that the platform will do well, regardless of the jokers of the world. :)
Ugh, this stupid alex jones shit again is so annoying. He was NOT "Silenced" or "censored". He violated the terms of a contract that he signed. It's like if you worked customer service at a call center and started calling the customers of the company you worked for devils that should be burned alive and got fired. He wasn't silenced lmfao, he got fired, plain and simple.
99% of people on the steem blockchain are taking this AJ thing to be far out of what it actually is and it's scary. We aren't talking about collusion, we aren't talking about big tech, oligarchs, civil liberties, we're talking about "censorship". It's dumb and not productive.
With that out of the way, decentralized media is far superior to centralized media. You can disagree if you want, but youtube and twitter are FAR FAR FAR more decentralized than anything we've ever had prior. Before the only media was the tv and newspapers, now anyone can say anything anywhere. Sure they can remove your posts and sometimes they do, but the decentralization of media in a centralized fashion was the first of many steps. Total decentralization (close to what we have on steem, but not entirely) is the end goal, but what will this entail?
If you've noticed, the extreme far right are in power in the american and western european zeitgeist and it's horrifying. Look at STEEM, even. A significant majority of users here are far right radicals and far right "libertarian" radicals that are just as crazy as AJ or worse.
Total decentralization is a scary prospect when a majority of the population are out of control radicals. It's a cool experiment, but do think it will fail at the current rate. STEEM is 90% far right crazy, 5% "libertarian centrist" and like 5% actually intelligent people who understand how the world works, and it's a scary ratio combined with the fact that money rules the platform and it breeds the same issues that raw capitalism has but entirely unchecked. Raw capitalism is a failing concept and unless regulated will end in disaster. Just like America is currently going through.
The point is, we NEED regulated and moderated environments just as much as we need decentralized and visceral environments. We need fairness and balance. People who preach death and violence against minorities do not deserve a platform equal to those who don't. They are not providing anything worthy of discussion, full stop. That's the main plague of STEEM and fully decentralized media.
The truth gets lost when everyone is screaming differing things, not all ''''''opinions'''''' are equal.
Plus, the good opinions get flagged or ignored and the shitheads go trending here on STEEM, it isn't being used properly and probably never will.
Kinda rambly, and I'm a bit drunk at the moment, but I think the complete disregard of regulation and moderation is silly. Somethings just don't deserve to be stored.
I personally don't care to read anything Alex Jones writes as I think he's most likely a controlled opposition to make conservatives and libertarians look crazy. My personal beliefs are more inline with anarchy and voluntarism. This entire paragraph pointed out that I totally accept and understand that we use or don't use those platforms based on our own consent:
I don't think anyone has the right to censor another person based on opposing beliefs. I don't want echo chamber of people that agree with me at all times. Sometimes I have some pretty stupid beliefs and if I don't break them down and challenge them, then I never learn and grow and change. I don't think it's okay to say "we're going to accept and allow the beliefs of one group of people, but not another group because they disagree." That's taking a side and creating a bias. That is how we get things like racism and homophobia being the societal norm, because if the majority of people are racist and homophobic, then the extremist are the ones saying that's stupid.
It's easy to agree with a decision when it fits our own beliefs, but to look at the bigger picture and see how this is setting a precedent that could be used to silence others later is important. There is no equality unless we are all equal and that's why I'm saying it isn't about this one issue or Alex Jones. It's about setting the precedent that the government has any place regulating online free speech or private companies. Every time we give away freedoms by making more laws we are more and more limiting ourselves as a species and setting ourselves up to be controlled in the future.
Freeze Peach and telling your fans to burn queer people and kill minorities are two differing subjects. I had no problem with AJ until he started advocating for violent murder against minorities. That's not freeze peach, that's insanity and insanity should not be defended under any circumstance. It's not a principled issue imo. It's not so much what you say versus how you say it in this instance. I'll defend to death anyone who wants to say anything even if i vehemently disagree, but when we get to the discussion of genocide, murder, and commands for death of innocents, it's not a speech thing anymore. Words and actions aren't entirely separate and they have consequences.
I totally get that, and even respect that these companies want to create distance between themselves and that opinion. I just think there's actually a bigger agenda at play here and that Alex Jones is little more than a tool being manipulated or directly told to create an extreme case that will get people to demand government intervention. At the point that the government needs to get involved and tell private companies what they are and are not allowed to do or what is or isn't allowed to be said on their platforms, we're all losing. Just like what you said earlier about television being decentralized by YouTube. It only stays decentralized from the government until they are able to manipulate public opinion into asking them to get involved. Just like guns don't kill anyone, the person pointing the gun and pulling the trigger does, I don't think social media is trying to kill anyone. If people don't want him on a certain platform because of his violent outbursts, by all means, the platform or users should make a decision, but I really think this is more about trying to get the government involved and dictating what we can and cannot do online. That is what I'm 100% against.
Still, 1A does not protect against threats of violence and slander. They are very lenient on them, but not entirely against it. the right (and AJ) have perfected the "what we can get away with" strategy, which is why they cause such massive violence (neo nazi rallies like A12 starting tomorrow for example) but stay distant enough to not be jailed. It's a lot more horrifying than anything YouTube can do in the current era IMO
He was also unpersonned on linkedin at the same time. He didn't post any content there, just his professional details. That's creepy.
No idea about that stuff, but yeah that's pretty weird I'd say.
To listen to the audio version of this article click on the play image.
Brought to you by @tts. If you find it useful please consider upvoting this reply.