I’ll wait for the Julian Assange review.

“Don’t be evil”

What about we be evil anyway?

Yesh numbers can be easily manipulated.

Netflix is “sold” along other services. Here many internet companies bundle netflix in their plans.

They don’t need to be attractive to the consumer. They just need to do a deal behind curtains with other companies and force Netflix on people by other ways. Numbers go up.

Yeah, that has like 0 chances for working. At most it would annoy bots for web search, at least it has a proper robots.txt.

But any agent trying to process data for AI is not going to go to random websites. It’s going to use a curated list of sites with valuable content.

At this point text generation datasets can be achieved with open data, and data sold by companies like reddit or Microsoft, they don’t need to “pirate” your blog posts.

I’m tech savvy and I use AI daily.

Probably not the AI you think of. As it’s not LLM or image generation.

But I have a security system self hosted using frigate, which uses AI models for image recognition.

Of course.

http://alia.gob.es/eng/

We could ask for anonymous digital certificates. It works this way.

Many countries already emit digital certificates for it’s citizens. Only one certificate by id. Then anonymous certificates could be made. The anonymous certificate contains enough information to be verificable as valid but not enough to identify the user. Websites could ask for an anonymous certificate for register/login. With the certificate they would validate that it’s an human being while keeping that human being anonymous. The only leaked data would probably be the country of origin as these certificates tend to be authentificated by a national AC.

The only problem I see in this is international adoption outside fully developed countries: many countries not being able to provide this for their citizens, having lower security standards so fraudulent certificates could be made, or a big enough poor population that would gladly sell their certificate for bot farms.

Not pirated. But my country, Spain, released an open AI model completely for free. Everything is open. The training data the models and everything. It’s supposedly ethically trained with open data(I have not personally dig in the training data but it’s there published).

It’s focused on spanish and regional languages of spain. But I think it can also do things in English.

Not piracy per se, as it’s completely legal. But there’s something you don’t depend on any bussiness to run.

Threads tried and failed to do that with mastodon. I think the fediverse is well thought to prevent that even by big actors.

When have that happened? Within the fediverse?

The thing about the fediverse is that it’s incredibly easy to make an instance and they are all compatible. So if any instance becomes evil people just have to seamlessly move away.

It’s not like twitter where if the owner become evil there’s nothing to do. Here you just move instance and be done with it, still the same platform, still the same users.

I kind of disagree. In the sense that people have multiple interests and identities.

If you are a french person who likes anime and technology. Where so you sign up, to the French instance, the anime one, the one focused on technology? You have to make and maintain one account for every interest you have?

I think instances should be bland an irrelevant. Like email addresses. They should say nothing about the users of that instance. Imho, the goal should be that people just sign in in the most convenient instance and should not have to think again in which instance they are.

It’s not an issue. As long as .social is able to maintain the load.

The good thing about decentralization is that at any moment anyone could open a new instance and it would work perfectly fine. It does not matter if one instance have more or less users.

If it lowers the entry barrier it is welcome. It should not matter at all.

It could be different.

I’ve been thinking a long time. And I think it may be one scenario where a public ledger would actually make sense, aka a blockchain.

Instead of economic transaction, votes are casted. It could be anonymous using one way pseudonyms for the public key. So the caster may be able to verify at any point that their vote was correctly casted, but no one could know who the caster is. The signature keys could be issued by the government same as it’s already done in most european countries with digital signatures.

The ledger would be public and anyone could be able to verify the votes in a similar manner as most cryptocurrencies.

I really think there is not a technological barrier here. It’s not only more democratic but probably safer that the current way of casting votes. As it could be proven at any point that all votes are casted and valid without interference, no moron could say that “election was stolen” because it could be proven that it was not.

And with the idea of “permanent open polls” would mean that even if somehow your vote was stolen, you could just change it again. So any malevolent actor should need an insanely amount of work to keep constantly tampering election results (while nowadays the malevolent actor only need to tamper one election and their work is done for years).

People don’t vote because why bother.

You vote a representative that says “I will do this” and then they don’t do it. Representatives lie. And you can’t do anything about it within the current political system.

Or even if they don’t lie, nobody agree 100% with a representative. You may agree in some topics but disagree in others. And having to vote for something you don’t want to happen is very frustrating and many people don’t vote because of that.

We need a system where popular vote can make decisions directly.

The elections we have nowadays are already manipulated that way, so there is not a change on that regard.

People should not need to vote on every issue, you should be able to still delegate on a representative. But if on some things you don’t agree with your representative you should be able to vote it by your own way.

I remember a proposal someone made a long time ago. About a voting system where every delegate have a “power of vote” and by default is 100% percent. But whenever a voting is made in a representative chamber the vote is also open online. And people’s vote would rest value from the representatives votes. So if it’s a matter where a lot of people cares and vote directly the people’s vote would decide. If people don’t care and don’t vote the representatives vote would have more power and they would decide.

I thought it was very interesting.

Why not. A good system should be one that it’s easy and cheap to put a vote out. If the voting you put on its ridiculous, people simply wont vote it and that’s it

It’s not like that doesn’t existe now. I don’t know in the US, but in most european countries and in the european union itself people can try to raise a vote on anything, they just have to be backed up by X number of people.

Just make that easier, 100% online, and instead of sparking a debate of representatives, if the thing had enough support an online referendum is held and if people vote hes it automatically become law.

I don’t really see an issue.

We don’t have this already only for one reason. The people that would need to allow this (the representatives) would be the ones that would be jobless and powerless if direct democracy where to be implemented, so they won’t.

I’ve been thinking about this concept for quite a long time now.

4 years election cicles had sense in the XVIII century when the fastest way of communicating was letter delivered by horse.

But with internet it makes no sense that old fashioned system.

Forget about elections every 4 years, forget about having an official month of political campaigns that decide the fate of the country for 4 years, and the 4 years of the president doing whatever they want without consequences.

We have the technology to make a direct democracy. Every citizen should be able to vote on any issue or who is their representative at any point of time.

You won’t have time after spending all day complaining about bad documentation.

I trust my will to do it. But I will fail for two reasons:

1. I don’t fully understand humans. I will try a world that would be perfect if everyone would be like me. Problem? That’s not the world we live in.

2. Even with all the money and a good plan I’m a bullet away from the ground. And I’m pretty sure anyone trying to fix things becomes a priority target right away.