Contract, Reputation, Identity

There is a real danger that the virtual will just be a more oppressive version of the current system.

Think carefully about what has happened in the US and the global influences it’s had. Schmidt: if you don’t want other people to see it maybe you shouldn’t be doing it. If we can’t profit from you doing it, it shouldn’t be done. If you don’t want us to lock you out of the virtual life you’ve created and are now totally identified with, you have to let us see and profit from everything you have done or will do with no questions asked. You can change but you better not change too much it will cost us money, we need you to be predictable.

When I hear “reputation” I think here are the people trying to set up Experion, Transworld, and Equifax again. This is a pure enclosure system that presumes the thugs own your data. We don’t ever want to give them the handles again to create enclosure and divide and conquer leverage against us. We don’t want all arguments to start from backwards premises. He what’s your credit score… Oh yes, we need a way to see everyone’s credit score floating above their heads in virtual space (Suarez did this one one of his books- it was a couple lines of code or something to do it.) Reputation make sense where there is a power differential relative to the average end user like with say a big corporate like Amazon- it might need an honest end user rating. But what is happening here is such entities trying to tag end users so they can pit them against each other in stupid credit games to raise prices. Like auto insurance does with driver records. The other reason might be some elitist trip about access to country clubs and there they want Dunn & Bradstreets. So its the backwards use of power, and more enclosure.

Contract is possibly worst of all. Its the wrong term and its medieval in its implications. Not suggesting underestimating the difficulty of trying to get rid of it entirely or find alternatives when an equivalent is needed, but encouraging people to make binding promises that they can’t keep and making this as easy as possible is no way to reduce risk or even improve trust. We need no strings attached systems. This is less anxiety and less friction to start with. But every use of the word contract is a call to the legal community where your odds of winning would be a 50%/50% crap shoot to begin with so why did you even contract.

Think of peer review in research. Its a circle jerk. Its in the way. Got something say, say it. Who cares if other people said it first or their careers might get ******* (I mean this in the nicest way.) It really doesn’t matter, we’ve got challenges, we don’t need permission and its a wrong or even stupid model of mind designed to protect privilege and oppressive property distributions. Minds are connected, stuff like Safe is just a reflection of it.

The point of something like Safe, (if I am wrong, I am sorry) is honest communication and not ego enrichment. If its some BS it will get de-listed in honest search and trending. Trinket pushing isn’t worth getting caught up in contract, reputation and identity and beyond that the current ad industry needs to outright die. It can be reborn as the honest only-ever-appearing-when-specifically-requested-product-literature-industry. Really contract/reputation/identity, these are ego spam.

This is pretty much the only part of your post that I can comprehend and I just want to say I wholeheartedly disagree. Peer review is an essential part of the scientific method. I think the circle jerking is going on in the posts to be honest.

Well that might well be the case in some of the harder disciplines but in the softer ones people can’t even talk to each cross discipline other because of the fiefdoms. Despite the rhetoric and collegiality one discipline view the other as misguided or unrelated. Also its so much like advertisement where they pimp each others names all throughout the articles. APA appears to have an alternate convention now were you can leave the names out until the end and that is probably a step in the right direction. Otherwise its like an exercise in name dropping. And they are getting better in their 6th addition about actually recognizing and naming conflict of interest. But there is a speed limit too. This “extraordinary claims” stuff. One is only allowed to try to change any discipline at a certain rate. If one disagrees with the prevalent notions one has to tread very lightly because one is almost dogmatically (despite it being science) supposed to tow the line. And as we know the disciplines were tuned to righteously look for what confirms accepted theory and even toss out or ignore anomaly- because the weight of evidence is supposedly against it. In medicine for instance it might be easier to talk about brain damage and assume it never changes because it has to be a stable phenomenon to publish. Its been status and money first. Its also got this productive nonsense about publish or perish.

And more and more in the States post Bush deans are able to force text book selection and micro manage course content because professors couldn’t be contradicting what ever supply side story they were trying to push and were known to be notoriously liberal. Not anymore- American academia is becoming quite conservative at public schools. Put product A in box and A and product B in box B and repeat.

Is it me or what? I really struggle to understand what points you are making or even what you are saying. It looks like English but something is definitely awry. I’m going to try my best to decipher and reply where I can though.
Firstly, I don’t know the distinction between a hard discipline and a soft one - do you mean like say particle physics as opposed to say Biology (not dissing biologists)? Not sure why you claim peer review is useful in one and not the other, or why you make the claim that scientists are two faced or view different disciplines as misguided - can you evidence your claims? I’ve also no clue how name dropping has anything to do with the peer review process - it just doesn’t work like that. I have no idea what APA is (a magazine?)
What do you mean by “extraordinary claims stuff” and “recognizing and naming conflict of interest”. You appear to be talking about something other than the peer review process. As to having a “speed limit” on scientific progress, you’ve just totally lost me. “disciplines tuned to righteously look for what confirms accepted theory” also flies in the face of the scientific method, as does “toss out or ignore anomaly.”
Really can’t grasp what you are saying about medicine and brain damage, it is just incoherent and again “status and money first” has nothing to do with the scientific method.
The last paragraph again seems totally incoherent, what exactly is a “supply side story”?
Do you have anything to back up any of what you are babbling about?

1 Like

Never read Khun? My guess is some day all that babble will be perfectly clear to you and obvious. No, its not you on the clarity of the writing.

Unfortunately, I do agree with @Al_Kafir insofar as I find it difficult to dissect a lot of what you’re writing. There’s a lot of really broad ideas and vague terminology (possibly from an angle of thought I’m unfamiliar with).

Either way :: makes hand flying over head motion and whoosh sound ::


I just googled “Khun” (why, I don’t know!) - as I expected - nothing. I assume now that you meant “Khan”, which is about as useful as asking me if I have read “Smith” - it’s completely devoid of any information. Any chance of getting someone to proof read your posts before posting, or just read through it yourself first and take your time. At the moment it is like having a conversation with Lewis Carroll and I don’t speak Jabberwocky.

1 Like

Lol :slight_smile:

Individual reputation:
Attempt to discredit and marginalize viewpoints we dont like. Its censorship. Even in the financial sense doesnt rise above slander, libel and gossip. Look at the US credit agencies talking smack about each other. Look at there rejection by the EU.

Contract: An attempt to transition the business status quo in tact. That is not consistent with the spirit of wanting change. We need systems that are honest and tollerate ambiguiety. In the Islamic world a billion dollars can change hands with three people shaking hands. That is their contract.

If you really dig you will find the idea is a misnomer and misguided to start with. But on a practical level its not much better. Privacy relative to identity is something like position relative to veloscity. It won’t be pinned down but we need privacy more.

Sorry…too much effort for too little reward Lewis

Why would contract, identity (positive human idenity is a separate matter but also a questionable goal) individual reputation be built into the MaidSafe core or even supported as they are generally understood?
Its like there is a group of shills lobbying to turn Safe into AOL/Amway/FaceBook. Some one can be a diamond or a double diamond, or an emerald or a ruby.

Also, the picture is too rosy in some ways. Alan Turing did some wonderful things for Britain in the way of crypto that were possibly determinative of WWII. The UK rewarded him by chemically castrating him not long after the war. Julian Assange should have been given the Nobel prize, instead US statesmen were trying to suggest his execution even when he didn’t come under their law. Establishment players may have Tor but if they control Tor to extent that’s another matter. Why would they not view MaidSafe the way they presumably viewed the efforts of A. Q. Khan. Maybe they were just waiting to trade on those efforts? So yes, MaidSafe is at risk during gestation and at risk for becoming a shilware platform. Don’t build in the hooks.

Could you explain what you’re getting at in casual vernacular?


Alan Turing’s chemical castration had nothing to do with his connections to WWII. That’s a very misleading connection you’re making. And no one seriously talked about executing Assange in the US, except for very few sensationalist politicians and news anchors that get massive airtime in the popular news outlets. Don’t take the mainstream, ad-driven news media in the US too seriously. They just the want money from selling you toothpaste.

It seems there is a curious history around anything crypto getting an extreme response conscious or unconscious. Someone here sent a link to video where the head of the Pirate party pointed out that even the translation of the bible into the common vernacular displaced a gate keep position for the Church and had huge consequences, including wars, for what in a sense was a decrypting. In Turing’s case he supposedly saves Britain and helps win the war or possibly provided something determinative on the way but a couple of years later he is forced into chemical castration, the link is only proximate but still there. With Assange they go after him first sex to try to criminalize him (just like with Clinton, Gary Hart, Strauss Khan) and they chase him all over he globe for his outfit showing what a working US media should have. Then they as you point out make crazy claims as they demand extradition- for laws he shouldn’t be subject too. Anyone who messes with an establishments control of the narrative is messing with its existence, or that seems the be the reflex.