Total transparency minus one


#1

This is the idea of ending the market for lies. After all, who is going to watch the watchers? Under total transparency, what watchers watch will become known and transparent. The prerequisite complete anonymity for people inputting info, means we are all at risk of a painful loss of privacy (particularly as a rights assertion basis) as anybody could dump anything into the system including spam or someone’s life history unvarnished in an unsymbolic form. This is a requirement for watching the watchers, but the one thing that would of necessity not really be track-able is the identity of the inputter or who dumped the info- hence the minus one that turns the camera on the surveillance state. The end user is the minus one, whose privacy in this sense destroys organizational secrecy. Of course if identity were known by other means someone one else could input and link that identity as a source of info as well but working anonymity and transparency presupposes that this is impractical and extremely unlikely.

Will will get some spun information, but somewhere in the pool will be the unvarnished version that isn’t misrepresented. A sophisticated unspun search system will be required to sift through all the noise. The noise will inflate the storage and processing requirements of the network, but providing true organizational transparency is likely the most important function of ProjectSAFE. It will bring forth a million more people like Snowden and Assange. This is the only way we will get to a considerably more honest world. Otherwise will continue to have people constantly talked out of their own interests with the processing ratcheting down tighter and tighter until society after society snaps- the totalitarian is neither desirable nor sustainable and risks nuclear war.

On thing that would threaten how trustworthy and and practical this new transparency enforcing system would be is any system that tries to centralize for commerce, or tries to centralize for payment or is very compatible with current payment culture and systems. The notion of in anyway linking central cumulative accounting data or any kind of paper trail to anonymous input reduces anonymity to pseudo anonymity. There will have to be an absolutely un-moderated global forum- even pseudonyms are highly ill advised in such a pool.

We’ve talked about systems that (I don’t want to use the term “charity” as its not accurate) pay based on merit and optional micropayment in a one-way fashion where micropayments are input outside any identifying regime where there is no way to track back to a customer or anything like identity as its all sealed. So this can possibly be consistent but it’s a lot of power loss for the supply side. But that needs to happen anyway as it’s one of the reasons why we need to end the market for lies.

Our politicians are themselves nothing but ads. They are paid into their jobs and they are paid to continue lying. The whole system is a bunch of on-going non-stop talking head advertisements. They are spinners who spin for generally non-contributing or socially destructive owners. If average people could see the actual virtue of these ‘owners’ or lack thereof that stuff could end. The owner worship would end as would the miss-representation narrative.

We have a party in the US right now which is based on increasing inequity. It’s very existence is based on oppression through suppression and its members some of which happen to be judges and lawyers refuse to uphold anti voter suppression laws, because they know their organization and their ability to continue to spread discrimination and inequity would be undermined. Instead, they are trying to strike down anti voter suppression laws.

This party doesn’t accept freedom as it rejects power sharing and is thoroughly anti-democratic. It believes other people should be controlled through the wealth of its members- that’s it’s definition of justice and anything else it deems crime- other people are its members property. Therefore it has problems with other’s being able to vote themselves a share of the wealth (in automated society possibly the most honest way) to preserve their share of the power. The way to defeat this group of criminals is to break its loud speaker with transparency. Transparency will nullify its narrative of misrepresentation. It will lose control of the spin. According to it, history is the story of it winning the right to control everyone else. Transparency will end that narrative.