Cutting telecom/cable cord is prerequisite to power-sharing and possibly a primary Project SAFE application. After Project SAFE is up and running what’s next? To me what is next is getting true distributed automated organizations with transparent code running on a global wholly end user owned network for the purpose of honest open communication. I think these would constitute the most vital and basic Project SAFE application and class of applications. At first the purely end user owned networks will regional, but regional is fine, we have that already because of various nation states like China do a lot of walling in. What’s formulated in the regions will cross one way or another across regions.
The wholly end user owned network may be done primarily with Linux phones, that out-of-the box are primed to cut the cord- Apple’s multipeer is moving in the right direction but it’s too limited so far. Standard mesh is probably enough for a communication service as it doesn’t have to be instant but truly breaking the cable/telecom megaphone will require an improvement to basic mesh. There are candidates for that improvement, but key is in making all the pieces reside on the phones. It may be possible to create a no compromise completely end user owned network in terms of quality-latency-bandwidth-coverage. The first real step on a true cord cutting network may be all that’s needed. I am still convinced it’s an ad/sponsor free environment that relies on total end user control of user interfaces and honest search (DAO type search that is obviously sponsor free,)- no modal windows, nothing modal ever.
Firms will actively oppose this and will try everything including spectrum-licensing and patent games. We’ve seen that with their bribes to block municipal wireless. The possibility of cord cutting, vice financing, has to be the underlying reason they have locked up phones and made it so phones generally have to be jail-broken. My hope is when this end user owned crypto powered net is up people will loudly call for and vote for spectrum liquidation- there is no reason including allowing these firms a return on investment, to allow property that should be freed up and turned over the public to continue to be corporately controlled. Cable and telecom and their business models are in the way, their cords are veto power and that has to end as soon as possible.
In the US we constantly hear that an issue must be decided in part based on how well funded it is. This is absolutely unacceptable in any form as it gives the rich veto power. Even the converse would be much better where people were not allowed to offer their input or even vote without first parting with their wealth and power. The wealthy and powerful are not legitimate minorities. We always hear that under democratic systems the rights of the wealthy and powerful won’t be respected. What rights? The right to oppress or stay rich and powerful? Neither are rights because both impose a potentially unlimited cost on others. It’s always said we can’t delegate our power even to the first degree. But in the end it’s the best ideas that are the most powerful and DAOs backed up by an instant ubiquitous wholly end user owned net and coded to block the wealth and power filter give us the first means to evaluate ideas truly on their merits in a massive global forum.
While we are on the subject, let me again suggest that personal reputations systems are just elements of cast systems and should be relentlessly opposed in all forms. It’s fine to rank products and organizations but forced public reputation of persons is a breach of privacy and person-hood. Think yellow stars during WWII or military ranking systems where the rich can dodge the draft because they become officers who can resign at any time or can often avoid the front lines. This would be Face Book’s dream because it’s like having the keys to mine people endlessly. It’s a handle to exploit people by reducing them to a label the rich and powerful can use to retain their position by summarily discrediting anyone they think is a threat. It’s a financial gossip system, its enclosure of the public by entities like Experian. It turns people into SKUs. It’s a bar code on your head, a concentration camp tattoo. To be summarily defined by others is total subjugation. It’s stupid, oppose it.
Some progress markers are important. The most important is the dis-empowerment of the business community. The idea of leadership is highly questionable but the idea that leaders should come from the business community or that business should be especially empowered is absurd. If war is about the worst thing imaginable and the thing that is said to justify war is avoiding subjugation it easy to see that being subjugated by ideas like “money is the bottom line,” or “what matters is making money” is about the dumbest thing that ever happened to mankind. These are not values, these are criminality. Want lead in your gas and lead in your child’s brain? Allow business fools to run things. The business schools teach people to be criminals and to feel good and righteous about it. Conspire to price fix while conspiring to suppress wages, and stimulate slavery with high interest and debt. The fall of the MBA and decent of business as a profession will be a huge indicator of progress.
Supply side society is horrid. Society for the sake of business is total subjugation. The business case! There are no business cases, because business is not what matters and it never will be. People are what matters. What they call trade is simply people communicating and cooperating, the material/property was never what mattered. “Trade” this and “free market” that, it needs to be recognized for the religious blather that it is. We’ve seen where their religion leads in Mercantile England and Mercantile Sweden, The concentration camps were preferable. We’ve see the pure free market and its pure hell.
A second marker would be the plight of private concentrations of wealth. Accumulations of wealth and power acquired by extractive or non-contributing means will get tossed. As will accumulations that are not pulling their weight. In their own lingo the wealthy themselves tend to be an inefficient use of capital. Show me an actual definition of society that isn’t collectivist in some basic way?
If we can allow someone to make money and charge for a service or we can do it with open source and make that service free (even if almost always better) we should always eliminate the business. To do otherwise is crime as arbitrary empowerment through business is crime. A prime use of technology is to limit coercion and end enclosure games.