Those who follow me the most know I’ve been pondering about the censorship problem for a long time. Having been a victim of a myriad of censorship and financial censorship strategies (see here… and here… and here… and here.… and here… and here… and here.… and here… and here… and even here as it relates), I became so enraged that I was inspired to graft the solutions into the pinnacle purpose of my career. The pen is mightier than the sword, after all! The censorship problem is large in scope, scale, and versions, thereby it is difficult to solve. There is no silver bullet. And yes, I know I am censored. My capstone in college was econometrics. That’s two rungs higher than traditional statistics and core economics. As my statistics teacher in high school used to say, math doesn’t lie, but people do! Being an economist, I understand there’s also a psychology element, granted. People are fickle, among the most blinding the bandwagon fallacy and willful suspension of disbelief to The Big Lie and yes even much woeful onus to this evil machine. When you are a victim of censorship, people really think it’s “just you.” A powerful spell, some might say! Being deep in the throws of one of the greatest socialist coup d’état’s in known history as of this writing, it is certainly by design. Oops, there I go again pissing off those revisionist redactors with the black ink! Oh well! These words will age well, assuming they are not also censored out of existence! Truth always wins.
“Let the future tell the truth, and evaluate each one according to his work and accomplishments. The present is theirs; the future, for which I have really worked, is mine" -Nikola Tesla
The censorship problem can be broken down into each of several parts, namely: 1) overt censorship (deletion, redaction, banning, etc.) 2) covert censorship (shadow banning, search engine banning) 3) the broadcast problem (screaming in the wind) 4) being cloned and replaced 5) being placed below the fold 6) social censorship, a direct result of social engineering (as good black sheep guard against and retard healthy introspection) 7) woeful onus (as every good regime needs willing and/or coerced participants) 8) medical / food / water / EMF / spiritual manipulation (as a weak temple is impenetrable to facts / logic / reasoning) 9) book burning, and denial of information 10) information distortion, as the only thing worse than lack of knowledge is being filled with crap 11) institutional indoctrination, as these plans take decades to fester 12) echo chambers, poisoned community wells (a fallacy) and stand-down ops (to keep the wise busy with fool’s errands and smear campaigns) 13) S.S., boots on the ground (to take care of any nails which might stick up) 14) the family and friend wedge, for all those stubborn ones 15) travel restriction 16) limitation of physical gatherings 17) emotional control, keeping morality low, fear control, physical control of the person (Stockholm, Munchausen, depression, prison, house arrest, etc.) 18) limiting access to elders, as knowledge is forgotten in one generation without elder’s insights 19) cultural degradation 20) statue and art desecration 21) financial censorship (you know, one of the things BTC was pretending to solve). This should in no way be construed as exhaustive as there are perhaps unlimited vectors of attack.
The problems had long since been known about. What excites me is a solution for many of the above which I finalized today. In addition to web 4.0 being solved, something I knew the solution to many years ago but selfishly kept to myself for far too long, it occurred to me there is yet another solution which will be perhaps even more powerful.
The ‘re-re-streaming’ phenomenon has recently gained popularity. Previously censorship could somewhat find itself countered by having more than one channel, for example, a known counter-censorship strategy. But the re-stream takes it to a new level.
It started with the re-stream, and then quickly evolved into the re-stream of the re-stream. You know - I see you over there looking at you, looking at me, looking at you, looking at me. Like what happens when you first start recording on OBS Stream. The play within a play, if you will. Shakespeare’s "all the world’s a stage, preceding. There’s nothing new under the sun, of course, but there’s new flavors of old solutions.
So you see, when you are censored, you have to be creative to solve censorship. If you just lay down and do what the censors want, you’re not likely to be censored (for now), but you will lose your free will. This is FACT. And humans by our design must have our free will, otherwise we are called slaves by definition. This is FACT.
Now, the solution…
Re-streaming works great, but you have to be favored by the networks who re-stream you. If you fall out of favor, you don’t exist. If your entire network falls out of favor, they don’t exist. This is what I call ‘screaming into the wind.’ It doesn’t matter how loud you yell, you will be drowned in the noise of the platform(s) if you don’t have money, power, or influence - and censorship by its nature strips the human of these things. Yes, barbaric, I know. The broadcast problem. The problem’s solution is baked into the cake, as it turns out. The problem is solved with a platform or protocol that has the re-stream and the ‘re-re-stream’ hardwired into it. Platform for something new, protocol for the lawful trojan horse on something old. By pushing a portion of the consumed content onto the friend-of-the-friend as law and not as recommendation, we are back in business.
What do I mean by this? By implementing a protocol or platform which allows two or more actors (I’m using the political science word in this case) to consent to re-sharing each other’s public posts to friends of friends, the idea survives the firewall. The fire jumps the highway, to use a metaphor. You get the idea…
If you don’t get the idea, allow me to elaborate. I have a post on Facebook. I want it to jump outside of only my friend’s network. I have another friend who has agreed to share my post, as long as he or she approves of the post. So we have an off-platform protocol or script which shares the post automatically, behaving as though it were the human doing it. The friend can agree to automatically approve the post, or the friend can moderate it first. Now extrapolate, because if it’s just two friends we have achieved nothing.
The ‘friend-of-the-friend’ is the ‘re-re-stream.’ By consenting visa-vi this protocol to a 3rd friend, a stranger if you will, to be shared and viewed by both the 2nd and 1st friend, we have liftoff. And by building a portion of our viewership into the advertisement of the protocol, we have kindled the flame.
Luke 12:49 “I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled?”
So, I and my friends have the protocol installed - we will share one another’s post to our friends provided they are not offensive. And as soon as the third person is involved, we have a network. Extrapolate. Four, five, six, seven, etc. etc. people who utilize the script of protocol.
What about those pesky spam bots and porn bots? This problem is solved by the Proof of Authority. You know, the protocol that powers Charg (CHG). Networks should be semi-closed for cultural reasons.
Person B doesn’t want to see much immorality at all on his/her stream. (I’m not a moralist in this use case, but I also understand it’s a give and take!) But maybe Person B’s affinity for adult nudity is ok as in the case of tasteful art. So I will only give authority to people to ‘re-stream’ and ‘re-re-stream’ autonomously based upon what I trust my friend to allow. Our color palette becomes the other people rather than an algorithm. The human becomes the firewall, rather than the algorithm. I want to be heard, so I have to allow for others to be heard to an extent. It’s a give and take. Somebody who wants to be heard with higher reach should permit others to reach them more. Somebody who wants to be heard with a higher quality of content should permit others to reach them slightly less.
So perhaps Person A is a bit more conservative (not that there’s anything wrong with that) and Person C is a bit more liberal (not that there’s anything wrong with that). I’m not talking politics, stay focused, but this also could be used interchangeably as our example (I’ll get there, don’t worry moderates, donkeys, elephants alike). Person C is probably going to let everybody in (except maybe the angels, as it turns out). Person A is going to be more choosy of adult content. And person B is somewhere in-between - you know, goldilocks.
Let’s say our three example persons have 100 friends. I want to allow 97/100 ‘re-re-shares’ if I am Person C, 50/100 ‘re-re-shares’ if I am person B, 7/100 ‘re-re-shares’ if I am person A (it’s just an example, sheesh, I said I was getting to politics in a second!). It’s a give and take. So that our analogy doesn’t break down everyone in our thought experiment has 100 friends. So Person C sees 9,409 people’s ‘re-re-shares,’ (97 * 97), Person B sees 2,500 ‘re-re-shares,’ (50 * 50), Person A sees 49 re-re-shares, (7 * 7).
Now as I said it’s a give and take. Remember Tumblr? If you don’t want a filter and you want to broadcast like crazy, it’s going to be kind of like that. You’re going to allow friends of friends or perhaps even friends of friends of friends, etc. etc. to come on in so that you can get the word out. As a rule, people who have been censored more in their life are going to probably want to censor others less. This is not always the case, as there is also the hazing effect (a bizarre human quirk) which may factor into this, but generally speaking if you have been censored more or if you are a broadcaster by trade you understand that it is a give and take.
So it’s a script for Facebook and the like which behaves as a wrapper or overlay for our posts. For every post I get, I give one, all else equal. Perhaps this could also be a setting which each individual is free to choose.
Now that was how we game Facebook and the like. But it will only be gaming an inherently censored platform or platforms. Now lets get to the fun stuff.
Facebook, IMHO, is already very Orwellian. Such a protocol as this stands to become even more Orwellian without our escape route. There has to be some level of trust-less Proof of Authority anonymity and randomness as the cure. EMPHASIS RANDOM, VERY IMPORTANT! This delves into deterministic vs. probabilistic, a user preference which should be set by the individual, while a little salt never REALLY hurt anyone ;).
A new social media platform will be bold, daring, and yes, powered by Web 4.0 - Web four, it’s YOURS!. And a new social media platform will be necessary to prevent the rot from setting in quickly as our protocol takes hold network-wide on those legacy platforms, long in the tooth long since. (more on this in my reply later on)
UPDATES MUST NOT BE POSSIBLE, OR UPDATES MUST NOT BE CAPABLE OF CAUSING CENSORSHIP IN THE FUTURE - MORE ON THIS LATER, I’m typing too long today!