Thursday, August 31, 2017

The solution to internet corruption is, ahem *cough*, digital democracy


How do you defeat the GOOGLEFACEBOOK tyrants of the world?

You use something like torrents or blockchains to decentralize internet services. Any single corporation will always be under enormous pressure from governments to censor information content. Corporations will be held legally liable for the content on their platforms. If the information causes "psychological distress," it can be grounds for attack. If the content is copyrighted, grounds for attack. If it offends a government, grounds for attack. If a pressure group doesn't like it, grounds for attack. The only way to escape this is to escape accountability. That means there can be no explicit owners, no corporate structure of public record, no centralized office that can be raided, no named executives, no data center waiting to get shut down. It must be;
  • distributed: all data must be stored in a blockchain or torrent system in the cloud by the users themselves.
  • open source: all the programmers must be either volunteers or paid in bitcoin to work from home
It also can't be a "dictatorship"; Wikileaks is an organization headed by one man. As such it can be attacked through him. Julian Assange lives under house arrest and is slowly going mad from solitary confinement. No man should have to endure this. So I will suggest an alternative system. I lied: this is not a "democracy," per say. It is something else. But it has checks and balances and a decentralized authority structure. It's better than democracy. Let's call it by the terrible sounding name "constocracy.," because it is constitutional, and consistent.

There is a Constitution of Rights and Principles. The constitution spells out absolute rules like "we never censor anyone for anything accept child porn, and plotting terrorism." There is a community of user/enforcers who act like moderators. They have the power to censor someone for violating the rules, and to restore censored content if a moderator removes it dishonestly. The difference between this and other systems is that the moderators are themselves rated for their honesty, and moderators who are dishonest are assigned zero votes while highly trusted mods have like one-hundred votes. The more faithfully you adhere to the principles of the constitution and the more honestly you perform you moderating function the more power you have. The mods are themselves rated by each other.

And no one knows how many votes they have. If dishonest moderators know they are being downgraded they may be tempted to create sock puppets to get around the rules. Therefore their IP addresses are recorded and function as their de facto accounts. Another possible way is that you need an invitation to become a moderator.

However it is constructed, the system if designed to marginalize entryists who refuse to honestly uphold the constitutional principles. It is a democracy of the honest and faithful where one's power is proportionate to one's reputation for reliably following the constitution. This is assessed mathematically by having every person in a community unit (about 20 people) rate the reliability of every other. The 5% of mods within each unit (the 1 highest rated person each unit) then passes on to the Second Level; which is another group of 20 people who all rate each other. There is a Third Level and a Fourth Level that repeats the process. The Fourth Level is therefore composed of the most reliable of the most reliable of the most reliable of the first level, or the "thrice rated." This group governs the system, sets its rules, and can suggest a rule change to the constitution. When a rule change is suggested it goes to the hidden founder. The hidden founder is just exactly what he sound like. He wrote the original constitution and is the only person who can change it. When the founder moves on to bigger and better things he either adopts a successor from the Fourth Level, or nominates his successor from the Fourth Level to be confirmed by them. He may also appoint a council to replace him if having one man in a position of power is too risky to that man, or he may simply delegate all his powers to the Fourth Level.

Alternately, one could simply randomly assign the new member 20 people to rate. Once he has done that he unlocks certain voting privileges. The people more he rates for reliability, the more accurately he rates them, the more votes he earn. Once he passes a critical threshold of time commitment and number of votes, he graduates into level 2, after more commitment and earning more vote through proven reliability then level 3, etc.

Regardless, the entire management is anonymous and governs through VPNs.

This system assumes there will be 160,000 users. If your system is smaller then either there should be fewer levels, or fewer people per level.

You can apply this system of digital organization to almost anything;
  • To a decentralized version of twitter than runs on the blockchain, and automatically deletes all tweets after 30 days to conserve memory.
  • To the political governance of group of contributors to Tor.
  • To a new version of Wikipedia like Infogalactic
  • To a decentralized replacement for Wikileaks "controlled by no one" so that Assange can finely live in peace.
  • To the management of a torrent-based system like BitChute that is designed to replace YouTube.
  • To the management of a group that can replace GitHub and be free of SJW influence.
  • To a hypothetical decentralized news corporation to replace CNN; a news company that is almost totally reliable, that does its due diligence, and that is virtually immune from attack because it is leaderless and anonymous.
  • To Hatreon, and other crowd funding systems. You can even write a political bias into the constitution.
  • To a leaderless and anonymous version of Wesearchr.
  • To the management of political betting markets.
  • To the management of an anonymous university teaching heterodox ideas.
  • To black market and agorist systems to replace sites like Silk Road.
The whole point of this is to define a logic of commitment other than money — which if we believe Nat Soc types, will always favor Jewish people in organizational arrangements. In contrast, our system is neutral, and favors commitment to principle instead. Unlike this idea, CounterFund is an example of a system built on a monetary commitment model instead.

This gives us "trustlessness" without a person needing to have financial means. It is meritocratic in a way that buying your way into an organization is not, and it defines principles as the guiding structure rather than a monetary selection effect like CounterFund. Do you really want the richest bastard running your organization is all circumstances?

Of course, what we have constructed here is an extremely rigid organization structure. Its virtue is its relative immunity to entryism, outside pressure, and its high commitment to a set of values. Its weakness is that it can be rigid; if the needs or the organization change it may not be able to quickly adapt. It promotes dogmatic people to the top, who may be inflexible to change. It also needs to have a really good sense of its own values, or a fatal flaw can be written into the organization constitution from the beginning. And the writers need to be very practical, and keep the principles to a minimum.

To correct this we may add to a collection of "agents" who are allowed to do things besides merely follow constitutional principles dogmatically. They do NOT have power to modify the organization constitution, but they can act in its defense. After a set amount of time their actions are reviewed. The question is asked, "did this person act in the best interest of the organization and the spirit of its principles?" (The spirit, not the letter of the rules). A vote is taken. If found lacking, the employment of the person is terminated. This gives the organization a "rigid/flexible" approach akin to the Star Fleet/Section 31 arrangement in Star Trek, (yes, I'm using Science Fiction as an example). The organization has a rigid set or moral principles, but also has agents who can do more extreme things in extreme circumstances. Though obviously getting in trouble with the authorities is not in the organizations best interests, and so it should always follow the law where its agents are concerned.


No comments:

Post a Comment