I wrote an article that just went live on the Let’s Talk Bitcoin network, along with a podcast covering much of the same ground.
In working on the Technology and Choice podcast, I’ve stumbled upon what seems to be a new (or at least I can’t find it anywhere) definition of Technology that gives an interesting angle on how to look at technology and the world.
Hope some find the perspective as interesting and useful as I do.
Fascinating perspective @fergish indeed SAFE Network requires that we make a good choice to use applications that agree with us. It’ll be a deliberate choice to use an application that harvests your information versus an application that is agnostic to your usage decisions.
It seems to me that software such as microsoft’s windows operating system has occurred because of social proof and reinforcement. And I hope that we in terms of a community strive to educate against using closed source and damaging software such as windows… for instance Ubuntu is just as useful and could be preserving of your liberties, and your wallet too…
Then we can see SAFE Network offers us a choice of which applications to utilize. Even if facebook hooked into SAFE, still there is no point to utilize it unless you really want to be harvested.
The choice is yours right? To choose a client that let’s you interface with others’ clients. OR choose an application that interfaces with someone’s personal server and all of your activities are pledged to that person’s server.
Not to be confused when subscribing to a particular client software that let’s you choose who to interact with. So things become on your terms not the Server’s user agreement.
There’s more that can be said about this, I’m sure other themes as well. Yet with regard to software, I think it is critical to take in this revelation and grasp its importance.
So I chose to read the article and listened to the podcast. I’m glad I did. I’m thinking hard about it. I also think it could be a real easy segue into libertarianism (you mentioned wanting to do an episode on the subject) and the free markets or freedom to choose. It’s interesting to think about fiat and regulations in the context of social proof choices too. What is peer pressure at its core? A choice to go with the flow. We have always done it this way… could go a lot of different ways thinking through this. Thanks.
I haven’t read the article but when listening to the podcast I came to think of how decentralization allows collective choices. Today seemingly collective choices are usually centralized where a leader (or group of leaders) make a choice and then other people follow. That’s NOT a collective choice. That’s a centralized choice made by one or a few people. A true collective choice is where several people together make the choice. For example collectivism is the opposite of collective choice. Collectivism is where authorities decide over people.
That’s an angle I’d had a glimpse of but hadn’t had a chance to think about. It’s the start of emergent wisdom rather than “conventional wisdom”, perhaps. It depends on a critical mass on individuals operating on their own choice rather than packages of choice that “everybody knows” are acceptable.
Yes, collectivism requires individuals be subservient and compliant, thus the ready resort to violence when these methods are imposed from the top down. Think hundreds of millions dead in China and the USSR when communism was slam-dunked.
I’m glad you find it thought provoking. Your response certainly provokes some thought on my part. Thanks.
Yes! I was thinking that the decentralization will result in new emergent possibilities that haven’t been possible previously. Throughout all of history there have basically always been hierarchical power-over structures ruling over people. The idea is that the combined wisdom of many people can transcend the limitation and oppression of centralized authorities. Like an emergent property on a social level enabled by massive decentralization technology (including new software models) and individual freedom.
So for example some people may think that a particular collective choice sucks while others love it, and each individual decides for himself or herself what to participate in and how to make choices; individually, following others or collectively. So it’s a both/and approach instead of either/or.
This is some good analysis. Consent is a term I’ve played around with a bit. I really think this is why things such as DAOs and more generally, decentralization mean hope for so many who are exhausted by collectivism. We see where it has taken us. Can we escape it? That remains to be seen but it seems to me at least, allowing individual (ie real) choice (ie freedom) is the best way forward.
People like to associate with others. Very few are complete loners. Of course, such association can happen without a coercive force, but many people seem to fear this.
