@ZeniorXV

1. It is about people's self-organisation, which _they_ may wish to use for any (or none) of activities you listed. Or for something entirely else.

2. My goal is to help provide people with tools to communicate, cooperate and coexist in a secure way, through the means of protocol-driven confederacy of communities. How will they make their communities internally and what will be the content of political protocol of confederacy, should be strictly a business if the parties involved.

3. I do not believe decentralised networks are good enough, as they tend to impose "community == instance" paradigm and do NOT address the question of multiple communities' affiliation. Communities should morph freely, so they cannot be embedded as infrastructure nodes. Also, decentralised network forces federated vs. confederated governance (user POV), which eventually leads to republican model.

4. The last part I did not understand at all. I will do my best to understand, if you care to elaborate.

@Petros

1. Yes, and the question is which kind of toolbox they will have at their disposal in order to customize and adapt to the consequences (of what they need) when they make their choices.

2. See 1.

3. Again, which toolbox/toolset/features will let them be free? The #openSource community should be the provider of #platform & #features. Very important.

4. Which, the part about #transparency? (next reply)

@Petros

(Ref. #4 in my previous reply.)

From my #perspective , for true #democracy to be realistic and function properly, all #decisionMaking must be verifiable, it must be possible to check if decisions are carried out according to their intention(s), and corruption must become impossible.

Transparency is key to this. We need #openSource #technology (#software & #hardware ).

@ZeniorXV

I absolutely agree with you (even if I consider democracy only one of many possible community models). Ad I have no problem with Open Source. However, open source is a necessary, but not sufficient condition. You stop at this point, I go further. Open source, yes. But not ANY open source. Specific architecture, specific underlying existential paradigm.

@Petros

Not stopping there, just pointing out that we need a solution in place to guide, monitor and help us reach consensus in this discussion, before we start discussing...

Ref. "Anarchism is quite good with transparency."
Really? Do you have any references on that? Where has anything like that been implemented/tested and confirmed to be adequate to govern (a large) #society?

@ZeniorXV

Assumptions, assumptions and more assumptions. Why wouldn't you read what I wrote before, for a change?

I do not support the idea of large society. If you cared to read what I wrote here and linked as well, you should know I advocate confederated (p2p) network of small communities.

I do not plan to run mass discussion about the construction of social network software. There is no point.
If you do not accept the model I advocate NOR you want to discuss it (you seem to ignore it persistently) -- no problem. We can stop this conversation any time.

I am not interested in convincing anybody, let alone someone who ignores what I propose. I am interested in finding people who already think along the same lines -- and join forces. If you are not one of them, no hard feelings. It was nice to have a chat.

@Petros

And btw, when I say "govern (..) #society", I do not mean to imply that anarchistic #models necessarily are inadequate. I am aware of the (potential?) incompatibility between "governing" and "#anarchism" in its essence.

Anarchistic societies need ways to agree on things, too.

I am asking whether the world has seen any such functional examples yet, or not...

#politics

@ZeniorXV

#EZLN
#DemocraticConfederalism
#Selfgovernance aka #selfmanagement

From my experience, when we get to the point "show me an example", the conversation stops being constructive.

You keep ignoring what I propose as a model and try to get me into historical dispute instead. I am not interested. Please change the course or we shall end the conversation.

@Petros

Fair enough. Do I understand you correctly in that we agree to not endeavour further into your statement "Anarchism is quite good with transparency.", then? I do not think that is relevant here at this point anyway, I just asked if there was a reference or the like that might render it relevant for our conversation.

The main challenge is on tools to help reach consensus

@Petros

And FTR, I think that any underlying platform should be systems-agnostic, letting people discuss and develop whichever systems or solutions they see fit, be it socialistic, capitalistic, anarchistic, or whatever.

IMHO, we should just take for granted that the world will have a variety of different societies whose communities should respect each others' existence.

@Petros

Final footnote on that topic:

It is clearly "just" an ideological point of view I made in my last comment here, and I am aware that in order for that to come to reality (communities respecting each other), there is a huge challenge in how to a) let that happen, and b) maintain peaceful co-existence. The platform we need, must be flexible enough to let us establish that

@ZeniorXV

Well, you finally got to the point from which I started. Congratulations and good night.

@ZeniorXV

1-3. My money are currently on #ipfs. But I am open on other proposals (#Aardwolf, perhaps?)

@Petros

It is important to pinpoint the needs & related features / flexibility first. Define scope/limits, etc., before starting to talk about technologies.

The problem here, though, is almost a chicken/egg #dilemma ..:

a) We need a structured (and transparent) way to conduct this very discussion, and relatively flexible/sophisticated #voting features to help both reach consensus, and to automagically document that process behind each decision we reach.

b) But how to discuss and reach consensus about those tools without those exact tools...

There is a LOT of power involved in deciding these things, and I think we all know that the political system does not have the credibility needed to do this "on their own". Their processes are already secretive, manipulative and corrupt. Simply inadequate.

IMO, we first need an open solution for #digitalidentity & build #voting on top

#ITstrategy

@FuzboleroXV

Depends on what political system you use. Anarchism is quite good with transparency. Sometimes even too good.

As for features, I believe I outlined them in my today's toots pretty well. Political and existential model, that is. If I have a bit of time, I will put it into more structured way at https://cni-coop.net/pip/Confederated_society.html

@FuzboleroXV

Also: #overthinking :P