Using the block chain is completely unnecessary though, so they've clearly got a money making angle.
If it isn't open source and non-profit, it won't work. ICANN for example could integrate it into what they do. Only then could it be part of internet regulations fairly.
That is what I mean yeah. Regulation and strong institutions to uphold the rules.
I somewhat vindictively hope it's every bit as bad as predicted this time, less actual nuclear war of course. But enough so that there's just no way any amount of social media shadow fails to prevent daylight getting through.
Next time we have progressive leaders there needs to be done what the tech bros and oligharchs feared: proper regulation of social media as journalistic organisations unless they e.g. remove algorithmic sorting, and take steps to remove anonymity.
My idea is you could have avatars/pseudonyms linked to a third party open source identification API which uses encryption keys. It doesn't reveal who you are to law enforcement (no one would want to use that) but it does reveal you are the same person regardless of your pseudonym if you get up to naughty business, leading to your reputation going with you to any participating platform.
I dunno man, rhetoric like that. Doesn't sound like you'll be the most easy person to share this earth with either. Better to figure out another way forward them encouraging civil war, no?
A scary possibility indeed!
He's just this guy who has a big chance of being a murderer. He is capable of deliberately planning to kill a person outside of immediate self-defence. However evil CEO A or B may be, the moral calculus isn't hard: society as a whole comes first. Unless we're sure he is innocent, it's not clear he's someone who can be left free safely. He's a flight risk for starters.
Police parade him and his manifesto so that they have an excuse to hold him, they look competent, and they get to keep him behind bars until we know for sure one way or another, or until they can't hold him any longer. In which case we may never know for sure until the statue of limitations had passed and if he wants to confess.
Terrorism is supposed to be the dogmatic or ideologically motivated killing of civilians, often by those who are willing to die in the process. It's terror inducing because it could seemingly happen anywhere at any time to any one, and it's a lot easier to cause harm to others when you're suicidal and not trying to get away with it.
Of course, that's not how it's routinely used, or perhaps was ever really used by anyone except academics.
In fairness if you're a total technology troglodyte they can supply basic answers. But the moment there's a real glitch for which actual programmers are needed....
DISM SFC
Good luck!
Okay, but I'm talking about violent coups really. Not just not-so-peaceful protests.
Even so, it seems violence didn't help the Union movement all that much either. I'm no expert though of course.
A few weeks to months following the rebellion. Maybe a year at most.
It's different if the rebellion does not itself topple the structures of government. I'm talking about violent coups specifically I suppose, not a bit of violent protesting that motivates an existing government to act.
People are increasingly relatively poor within their own societies particularly compared to the wealthy and ultra wealthy increasingly visible on the internet.
Charismatic autocrats have done a good job falsly directing blame for this to socialists. It's maddening to behold people basically cheering for their own chains.