Well absolute freedom could also bring absolute chaos, as entropy increases.
Sometimes I want to drink water from a cup, not from a bunch of plasma.
What do I mean by this? The information age has shown a glimpse of the effects of the decentralization of knowledge.
We dreamed a revolution in education by the free access to the library of libraries, the superhighway of information, or whatever name that people gave to the internet.
Production of content and distribution was disrupted and we all cheered about the decentralization of content creation and the elimination of “centralized” institution of curators, editors and producers.
Now everyone can produce content and publish it, and we all cheered for the absolute democratization of information.
I share that sentiment, the mission was/is noble.
But now it is a nice reminder that there isn’t ever a free lunch anywhere, there is always a side effect and consequences… and the sad consequence is that now the concept of truth is being eroded, nobody seems to know what is true and what is not, can’t differentiate what is relevant, what sources to follow, who is who and what is what. The populace gives the same weight to an absolute clown to a scholar who has been researching with cold true facts for most of their lives, and can’t really tell them apart.
A teen blogger who spews misinformation might have the same weight as a journalist who have actually studied and lived the subject.
Flat earthers who started trolling just for fun, ended up creating a freaking movement from idiots who took it seriously.
Deep fakes are going to destroy the only lasting bastion of reliable digital evidence, to the point to be indistinguishable from real video sources.
There is a flood of data and people seem to be drowning in it.
“Democratization” of biohacking is going to cause a chaos from the DIY kits that will allow crispr-cas9 genetic engineering at home, DNA evidence will be also thrown out of court as it will not prove anything anymore.
Some scholars are calling this as a
the post-truth era…
Before, institutions were actually providing a structure that produced information accesible to lay people, an authority to lay on in case of doubt.
People trusted the Encyclopedia Britannica, Webster, National Geographic, PBS, etc…
People trusted investigative journalism, researchers and scientists.
As much as I rebelled against authority all my life, I can see how useful it has been for the organization of society.
So I disagree that it would “seriously undermine their ability to lie and mislead masses”.
Definitely the SafeNetwork will be of immense help to whistleblowers, but also for the dirty politicians who will be able to use it to spread misinformation in psyops campaigns, astroturfing.
The SafeNetwork will probably fuel both sides of crap and quality content, amplifying both noise and signal at the same time.
There will be nobody to censor Alex Jones, Flat earthers, and Neonazis, but at the same time there won’t be anyone who will prosecute future Snowdens, Binneys and Mannings.
The problem that I foresee is… even though it may enable absolute radical transparency, will people be able to notice it? Will people actually believe it is the truth? How? What evidence will be now trusted? How will people actually believe you are the real deal and not yet another bullshitter?
Well I better end it here haha, sorry for continuing this derailing from the thread.