×

Message

EU e-Privacy Directive

This website uses cookies to manage authentication, navigation, and other functions. By using our website, you agree that we can place these types of cookies on your device.

You have declined cookies. This decision can be reversed.

2020/11/14

What is the essential divergence between our current political institutions and a government of the people by the people and for the people?

We all know the feeling that our politicians "listen to us" once every 4 or 5 years in order to get elected, and then go their own way on many topics that never featured in their promises list. HS2 springs to mind, but climate change is another topic that seems to have been manufactured by the UN and foisted on populations without a great deal of democratic support. Indeed some may suspect the WHO of complicity in setting up a much over-egged "pandemic", judging by the way that governments across the world are relentlessly locking down their subjects until "big pharma" can profit hugely from their vaccine roll-outs.

We could look at this as a difference between top-down and bottom-up policy-making - all policy-making is done by political parties influenced by NGOs, "think tanks", global bodies of the rich and maybe not so famous, global institutions that some suspect have been captured by global corporate / philanthropic interests.This is clearly incompatible with a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Another way to look at this is to contrast centralisation against decentralisation - governments love to centralise "decision-making" and "policy-making", and to route communications through a few centralised points which may be susceptible to their control (main-stream media owned by a few media moguls, central internet hub servers (the cloud) owned by a few major corporates, whose controlling ownership may be in the hands of a few very people.

We can see the direct fruits of this on sites like ours where Youtube videos are now routinely censored by the Youtube "service", all in the name of "protecting us from misinformation", ie: having a few nameless people deciding what we can see and what we cannot. This removes our freedom of choice and our freedom to make our own decisions about many topics. What we can't see we cannot challenge, we cannot discuss, we cannot approve or reject.

So it is with great interest that I note the following discussion about how the internet information world could be reimagined to work through a distributed network of servers (rather like the actual internet communications packet routing works at the moment). Rather than hosting our videos (for example) on Youtube's central servers, we might host them distributed across a host of independent servers similar to the way that cryto-currencies like Bitcoin are held on a distributed blockchain all around the internet. Sound's barmy? Sounds very difficult to censor as well!

Like / Dislike this video here.   Or if it's gone from Youtube, watch on Bitchute: