There is a real danger that the virtual will just be a more oppressive version of the current system.
Think carefully about what has happened in the US and the global influences it’s had. Schmidt: if you don’t want other people to see it maybe you shouldn’t be doing it. If we can’t profit from you doing it, it shouldn’t be done. If you don’t want us to lock you out of the virtual life you’ve created and are now totally identified with, you have to let us see and profit from everything you have done or will do with no questions asked. You can change but you better not change too much it will cost us money, we need you to be predictable.
When I hear “reputation” I think here are the people trying to set up Experion, Transworld, and Equifax again. This is a pure enclosure system that presumes the thugs own your data. We don’t ever want to give them the handles again to create enclosure and divide and conquer leverage against us. We don’t want all arguments to start from backwards premises. He what’s your credit score… Oh yes, we need a way to see everyone’s credit score floating above their heads in virtual space (Suarez did this one one of his books- it was a couple lines of code or something to do it.) Reputation make sense where there is a power differential relative to the average end user like with say a big corporate like Amazon- it might need an honest end user rating. But what is happening here is such entities trying to tag end users so they can pit them against each other in stupid credit games to raise prices. Like auto insurance does with driver records. The other reason might be some elitist trip about access to country clubs and there they want Dunn & Bradstreets. So its the backwards use of power, and more enclosure.
Contract is possibly worst of all. Its the wrong term and its medieval in its implications. Not suggesting underestimating the difficulty of trying to get rid of it entirely or find alternatives when an equivalent is needed, but encouraging people to make binding promises that they can’t keep and making this as easy as possible is no way to reduce risk or even improve trust. We need no strings attached systems. This is less anxiety and less friction to start with. But every use of the word contract is a call to the legal community where your odds of winning would be a 50%/50% crap shoot to begin with so why did you even contract.
Think of peer review in research. Its a circle jerk. Its in the way. Got something say, say it. Who cares if other people said it first or their careers might get ******* (I mean this in the nicest way.) It really doesn’t matter, we’ve got challenges, we don’t need permission and its a wrong or even stupid model of mind designed to protect privilege and oppressive property distributions. Minds are connected, stuff like Safe is just a reflection of it.
The point of something like Safe, (if I am wrong, I am sorry) is honest communication and not ego enrichment. If its some BS it will get de-listed in honest search and trending. Trinket pushing isn’t worth getting caught up in contract, reputation and identity and beyond that the current ad industry needs to outright die. It can be reborn as the honest only-ever-appearing-when-specifically-requested-product-literature-industry. Really contract/reputation/identity, these are ego spam.