On this page

Dependents The Emergence of Cyber Nation. Estates of ‘Virtual IDentity’

On this page

Dependents The Emergence of Cyber Nation. Estates of ‘Virtual IDentity’

Dependents The Emergence of Cyber Nation. Estates of ‘Virtual IDentity’

Socio-Economic ‘web’ design considerations: socially-dependent relationships...

DRAFT 1.3 — I’m still working on it..

The complex topic i am trying to dimension for you, the reader / observer, is about the implications of our societal / social information processing systems; upon, our means as individuals, as is our foundation for societal engagement.

An Introduction

When looking into history, the way mankind developed has undergone radical changes over a nominal period of time. Concepts such as ‘rule of law’ have taken many generations to develop alongside the means to fairly govern sovereignty and resources. In less than one lifetime so much has changed. The core driver of this change is communications and information technologies. Until the 1900’s the ability to instantaneously send a message across vast distances did not exist; now, this capability alongside others are woven into

Throughout our world a new geo-political and socioeconomic dimension has been forged, that is commonly known by most as ‘the web’ and by others as ‘cyber’. This new advanced communications medium features a new class of agents that are ‘web native’. These software agents are increasingly known as AI or ‘artificial intelligence’. AI is considered by law, property, and is defined and operated by sophisticated actors for an array of specified purposes. These agents in-turn exhibit an array of traits, that have an impact on our world. vast social machinery is being employed to influence and ‘upgrade’, Societal systems that previously operated on print era communications technology, that was adapted to support broadcast reception between community members and its leaders; in a social framework that was principally built upon the manifest decision making process of physically interpersonal experiences, to an all new globally interconnected cyber-alternative. This cyber-infrastructure is for the most part built upon a ‘globalist’ propagation engendered for the most part, via the USA as the core commercial jurisdiction; whilst sparingly providing ‘interfaces’ to national infrastructure, as to evolve a capacity to store information dynamically via systems that provide a single source of truth; permissively, via particular business systems.

This infrastructure has been built, tactics previously affiliated with intelligence operations of sovereign officials for nation states have proliferated as to become integrally employed tooling for socioeconomic controls; at a global level. As these traits have been proliferated, many have sought to purport a view that data, or moreover ‘information’ is not property, and whilst the underlying considerations have merit; the simultaneous reality is that a globally operated, distributed software platforms has emerged, that have an array of traits that capitalise via data worldwide.

This concept is seemingly an extension of knowledge based capital theory.

New sources of growth: Knowledge-based capital
_Investment and growth in OECD economies is increasingly driven by investment in intangible assets, also known as…_www.oecd.org

The principle argument about the manifest characteristics of these systems; as they operate today is, that they are not ‘fit for purpose’ for the advancement of liberalised democracies as nation states as represented by the registrar of sovereign jurisdictions represented by the United Nations & its core principles.

To suggest this outcome is a product of the intentional behaviours of those whom society charges with the greatest responsibilities for mankind, would both be unfair and moreover counter-productive. Yet the characteristics of this medium ‘internet’ and its use in trade; is very different to former mediums,

I believe it is reasonable to suggest that it is known to be damaging democracies in new and challenging ways, whilst simultaneously supporting radical advancements. For the most part, the ‘status quo’ has been established via the international leadership and technological advances curated commercially via the USA.

Mankind is provided enormous benefit as a consequence of technological advancements; yet there are equally an array of disturbing traits that are both endemically exhibited and merely optional, exhibited solely as illustrative choices about how it is we want our world to be made to work. These choices have consequences in many ways, and there is growing concern about the manner through which choices are being made; and whom, those choices are designed to serve - alongside considerations of implicit costs.

Much as our global, cooperatively governed societal unions, such as the united nations; require both systemic and physical infrastructure to be made to work; so too, does our cyber infrastructure, in a manner that supports the shared principles upon which our global, cooperatively governed societal unions — are made to work; and in-turn also, require in-order to work.

Prior to the creation of this hyper-media environment / cyber dimension; legal actors needed to act and curate activities differently.

There was no technological capacity to curate activities across vast geospatial distances; easily or reliably, as to bring to effect the sorts of capacities that are now the mainstay foundations for some of the worlds most vitally important and most valuable legal entity ecosystems — in our modern world.

Over the past 20 years, i’ve been working towards a useful embodiment in an informationally described framework; that seeks to illustrate how some of the most important underlying socioeconomic tenants may be better served via the employment of something that is similar to an ‘information management proposal’, such as was the title of the initial proposal that led to the creation of the world-wide-web; but moreover, has led to building upon these foundations as to form a conceptual framework that builds upon it, to create something different. Should this endeavour be successful, it is hoped the means to evaluate with clarity, provenance will be amongst the features. As such whilst the derivatives get to the very heart of ‘knowledge systems’, ethics and moral grammar; todays systems distort reality, so that no-one really knows who did what; in an environment where worth is predicated upon the concept of contribution — the ability to do something valuable, for others.

With that in mind, i hope to rely upon an outcome where provenance of who did what as to create an outcome that is better for humanity and our natural world; to just be part of what it is that’s created, to solve real-world problems.

In my work, i’ve considered an outcome in a form i call a ‘knowledge banking’ ‘industry’ and/or ‘ecosystem’. In-effect, the designs developed with others form a sort of ‘knowledge management proposal’; or an instrumental socioeconomic ecosystems framework… the name, doesn’t really matter, as the underlying concept is well-defined by functional characteristics.

The underlying principles of greatest importance are about formation of cyber-infrastructure that is equipped to serve mankind and through our lens, our biosphere and our capacity as a species to advance our useful arts and sciences in a sustainable way.

The development of cyber-physical common infrastructure that is equipped to support our means to thrive, our capacity to solve problems, advance the useful arts and sciences, preserve freedom of thought, avert threats of war and improve the socioeconomic platforms through which productivity is rendered rationality.

In this not insignificant undertaking, but after many years an array of insights have been forged, which is in-turn coupled to international works with persons whom have cooperatively (and somewhat competitively) formed ‘fit for purpose’ tooling; that provides a pragmatic technical foundations through which socio-economic systems can be brought to market and made operational.

As noted, it is my view that part of this solution is about formation of an underlying protocol framework that supports management of provenance; as to vastly improve productivity, optimising the use of ‘resources’ — including but not limited to, the lives lived by human beings…

What is now missing, is the ‘will’ to do so; which i’d argue to be somewhat false and/or unsophisticated, in my considerations. This is in-turn a complex issue to illustrate as the effect of the underlying ‘disease’ acts to distort reality.

After extensive research and consideration what appears more likely to be the case; is that,

Todays global systems have been built with a form of immune system which exhibits a set of traits that act to stymie the growth of alternatives as to disguise ‘reality’ behind a complex web of ‘falsehoods’, defended vehemently by sickly agents. Whether they are good or bad becomes irrelevant when they’re unable to retain a grapple on reality in a manner that is consistent with the topical facts that have an inextricable relationship to causality and their roles within ‘it’.

“the distinction between reality and our knowledge of reality, between reality and information, cannot be made” Anton Zeilinger

Therein, as systems are produced to intentionally distort inferencing capacities in relation to ‘reality’, those who thrive most easily within it must be careless. This in-turn appears to reinforce the circumstances of poor health as the ecosystem itself forms a causality linked loop temporally, increasingly diminishing the availability of alternative choices that may act to augment the system.

In so doing; whilst it appears to be the case, that healthy people do not seek to act as to make demands of royalty, revenue or domination (abuse); as to undermine systems of democracy, human rights, personhood, human agency or our means to foster the creation of solutions to best provide for the needs of our biosphere,

We are now living with a system that we serve, which acts to consume us all.

Whilst the learnings forged through my specialised focus on this particular field of endeavour form derivative insights that are complex in nature, one of the easier ways / means to explain what is fundamentally known by most; is that which Noam Chomsky speaks of as Moral Grammar.

Upon the basis that this assumption has merit; one may consider evaluating social systems as to consider and review socioeconomic doctrines, as to garnish a comprehension of any debilitating limitations embodied within various roles of agency; and in-turn, socio-economic incentive and disincentive systems. My findings through this process of evaluation have been explored at great depth, on a world-wide basis inter-operatively with both domestic and globally pronounced ‘peers’ and/or ‘luminaries’ / leaders.

The findings are both troubling, grounding and heart warming. It does appear that there is a global pandemic that is exhaustively pronounced. Much as the influence upon the world brought about by the print era vs. the cyber era is very different; this pandemic is unlike other forms of biological existential threats; this problem is not bedded or wedded to biological harm in the same form of predicated manner; rather, the impacts cause systemic mental illness.

There is a widespread belief that in-order to survive; and that,

One must accept harms caused by their actions upon others and distort the sense making capacity of others in-order to survive.
‘Knowledge’ or ‘Information’ resources are finite.
our biosphere, biodiversity, has little value other than as a consumable resource that can be employed as to obtain ‘money’.
the artificial structures created by mankind are more important than our biosphere; and that as it is inevitable that mankind will negligently cause inextricable harm to our world, we must build capacity to go to another planet to survive; whilst engineering life with commercial intellectual property to substitute and provide alternatives to that which mankind destroys, which must in-turn most benefit artificial entities.
the ability for those without financial means to be provided the full capability of our technological advancements for their beneficial use in a court of law to defend their rights to live unto rule of law, is a threat that must be stymied and/or prevented on a basis of economic virtues
providing economic instruments to support socioeconomic participation; including but not limited to, greatly enhanced means to participate in a persons system of government particularly in areas governed by way of a system democracy — is a threat, and not an opportunity.
information systems which act to distort the truth as may otherwise be garnished by observable reality; is preferential, over the international democratisation knowledge systems.
online services are ‘free’ today, and no alternative could successfully exist.
those who are known as the billionaire owners / leaders of the worlds most pervasive online platforms are ‘free’ and fully able to employ their personal agency.
it is better for society that the useful derivatives formed by work activities of people across the world be made available as to be ‘freely’ employed, without consideration for the personal sustainability of its creators.

Whilst there is an exhaustive potential list of considerations, the point is that the manifest operational frameworks exhibited by our online environment do not appear to manifestly support ‘sense making’ about reality. The consequential disorientating effects of these characteristics is leading to manifest derivative outcomes that are effectively mindless and irresponsible in nature; leading to a pervasively degrading desire to further limit ‘sense making’ as to protect a series of business systems, that are not actually working for the betterment of humanity or our biosphere; in a ‘fit for purpose’ manner. As is part of the problem, the means for persons to stand-up for their human rights has both been dismantled and intentionally ‘set aside’ by cyber-business systems developers, seeking to capture a ‘rent seeking’ relationship between natural persons and commercially curated artificial ones.

Herein — is a fundamental problem that is seemingly inexorable when considered through the lens of defending ones own personhood. As such, and in consideration of a reality where we as a species have shared valued; a conceptual framework for considerations has been developed upon the principle basis of seeking to consider the implications as they in-turn form a causal relationship to our means to support the needs of dependents.

The point herein being; that if it is the case that humanity, natural persons, continue to develop a realm where human agency is commodified as to form an informatics apparatus whereby support for human agency is ‘out of scope’, then this does not only affect the capacity for a person to manage the definitions of ‘self’, but also our means to support meaningful relations with others; which becomes particularly important, when considering dependents.

A dependent is a person whose agency depends on another; such as a parent/child relationship; or an elderly person and a financial / medical guardian.

Increasingly these forms of relationships are made less important, as is an extension of cyber-infrastructure qualities exhibited more broadly.

If an adult does not have the means to support their own human agency / personhood; how are they are to facilitate that role, to support their dependents.

The Australian Human Rights commission has recently published a discussion paper about AI. Many definitions exist for AI, most are unaware of the underlying technicalities generally whilst seeking ‘commercial opportunities’.

To provide an easily consumable definition; Artificial Intelligence is essentially a software agent. To make it work, it needs informatics-fabric.

Over the course of the last 20 years, an international ecosystem that provides standardised resources for AI has been developed and proliferated online. This ecosystem of technologies were first known as ‘semantic web’ and later ‘rebranded’ to ‘linked data’ which is distinct to ‘linking data’. Linked Data describes a means to define machine and human readable vocabularies, which can be used to support ‘inferencing’ or ‘sense making’ via the web.

Today, the vast majority of webpages incorporate some form of linked data. The back-end systems operated by the major platforms operate ‘semantic web tooling (incorporating ‘linked data’). The informatics standards for many governance systems and platforms are defined using linked-data vocab. Yet the vast majority of this infrastructure has been defined to power a limited group of business models. There is not a great deal of support for humanitarian concepts, concepts of metaphysics in relation to the human condition; other than as may exist as to seek particular ‘purchasing behaviour’, which via todays web — includes attention (time) which becomes more accessible on the basis that people are isolated. AI can be used to define a form of cyber-stockholm syndrome, whilst its curators say its our choice.

Linked data creates a form of database structure using a web-address or URI. Consequentially, the tooling is able to collate all records from across the internet that make use of the same vocabulary as to form a database or dataset. These tools are used for search engines, facebook and much more.

on a secondary basis; Application Program Interfaces that do not use linked-data; alongside traditional databases, can be ‘unified’ by translating the structure of non-linked-data sources to linked-data vocabularies as to form an environment that is able to make use of queries from data-sources across the web. An example of how this can be made to work is shown here;

Whilst the method that has been employed to make use of these tools have resulted in global centralisation of permissions structures; by few operators, this is not the only methodology now available to make use of these tools.

An important point to be made is about international intellectual property. When building or defining software; there is an array of existing works that have attributed to them, patents. The challenge this brings about, when seeking to form unifiable standards, is that if the goal is to have a ‘royalty free’ method; then the methods need to be defined and provided support by way of a patent pool.

W3C is broadly, the applicable global patent-pool governance tenant for the web; with a vast membership, supporting royalty free standards.
Over the past decade (or so) works have been undertaken to forge global standards to provide apparatus that was previously ‘missing’. This included (but are not limited to) an array of modular requirements for the semantic web / linked-data stack (ie: Linked Media Fragments, linked-data platform, linked-data notifications); alongside standards for Payments, Verifiable Claims, Credentials and a means to use non-HTTP data-sources (Blockchains / DLTs), and Internet of Things support (Web of Things).

A community earlier known as ‘read-write web’, where the desire was to bring back the edit function that existed in the first web-browser, mostly made-up of independent and unpaid persons with what is broadly a shared vision of the future; commenced works as to bring about the means to deliver an alternative modality about how the web, is made to function.

My work with this group started around 2013. What we’ve been able to achieve is a set of technical pieces that can be put together in a particular way. The point of it is, about the way data is managed; that the web, was hoped to be defined in such a way that it would serve humanity. There are many ways this is described, and often, its’ easiest to refer back to Tim Berners-Lee who is both a luminary in the field; but also, seems to consolidate the works of many as he presents his particular role and modal on platforms unaccessible to the rest of us. It is important to note, there are — in the context of the human population — a handful of people who’ve devoted their lives to this work, over many years, without payment and in many ways also, acknowledgement. I think it is safe to say, that the vast majority do not care for fame; its been a purposeful endeavour that ‘we’ all hope, ends-up with a good outcome.

More recently, Tim Berners-lee took forth the leadership role and established ‘inrupt’. Whilst some of the method has differences, at this early stage the broader concept is aligned between a group of decoupled people who have a common overall goal. The next steps, requires enterprise engagement.

Principally — this outcome, is one where the data about a person can be collected, curated and employed by the person — or data-subject. Where this becomes more interesting, is that the entire stack is essentially ‘AI’.

Solid: Linked Data for personal data management
_Tim Berners-Lee Ruben Verborgh The Solid ecosystem enables you to use the apps you need, while storing your data…_rubenverborgh.github.io

Bigger than Big Data: Decentralized personal data on the Web
_Ruben Verborgh Ghent University - imec Big Data is a finite competition, where one winner ultimately harvests the most…_rubenverborgh.github.io

Whilst some of the factors that are not represented in solid presently include my considerations about CDN infrastructure, media/AI analytics infrastructure, the means to decentralise ‘commons’ via decentralised ledger technologies (which is made possible using linked-data and DIDs providing a means to resolve issues such as those that exist with traditional HTTP ontological resources) and the means to go through and make a solution that’s compatible with existing APIs for the purpose of creating apps that’ll work with anything; all part of the tech ecosystem that’s been defined; that i’m confident, can protect freedom of thought. The methodology — can uplift humanity from an information age, to a knowledge age and we can do this in a manner that it good for democracy. Critically, its my belief from my first works in 2000 on an ‘ibank’ to my more recent works from 2010–2 (1, 2) on an international ‘knowledge banking industry’, informing this work method; that led to w3c — that it is vitally important to have a marketplace of ‘trusted provider’ (legally, i think its called a ‘principle’/’principle agent’ relationship) which i’ve written about extensively, designed to work with governments.

From a personal basis, my journey on this endeavour started back in 2000, and from my perspective the problems of today are not very different to those of past. There continues to be highly unethical actors who seek to control the means through which others are entitled to think, speak or be heard. There are highly unethical actors who seek to monetise the humanity of others. When push comes to shove, that’s what it gets down to. Back in 2000, the problem was that these works (i didn’t know anything about ‘semantic web’ back then) were sought to become part of an aggregation model; which occurred, and those locally seeking an exploitative method didn’t win — there’s a few major global silos, operating now via USA.

The problem today, is that people are ‘waking up’, and whilst they’ve not done the hard work; are now looking for ways to make money, without thinking about the broader consequences or real-difficulties in forging an appropriate design paradigm. Many of these operators want royalty fees, ideally forever.

My research, which was highly influenced from the start by family fables about my grandfathers cousins John Carew Eccles — work, leads me to believe the stakes are very, very high. I’ve tried to describe this in 2018 whereby considerations about ‘causality’ were illustrated. Initially, i was ridiculed for raising the possible link between how the human mind illicit consciousness and forms a basis for decision making; and the way our information system, the way AI is made to work, its impacts…

“the distinction between reality and our knowledge of reality, between reality and information, cannot be made” Anton Zeilinger

Later, the relationships have become far more defensible.

That the problem i’ve been contending with continually, is about bad actors who seek to ‘lash out’, with impunity, seeking to get a ‘clip of the ticket’ on the ability for human persons to have a trustworthy framework to observe reality.

Often times, these bad actors are not technical experts rather, their professional bullies. The problem that’s then brought about is that they’ve got no idea how the technology actually works, because they didn’t spend the time (unpaid) to study it. There’s a belief, that AI should be judged by how it operates in relation to the functional qualities of humans.

I don’t know of a human who can respond to a question with as many resources sourced from around the world in seconds as demonstrated by a simple google search; but logic doesn’t work, as their expertise is about bullying people into submission as to foster their need, to get the right role.

These bad actors seek to lash out, and then when it doesn’t work for them; run away — and be left alone, as though they’ve got the authority to act violently towards others as to cause injury; and then, be awarded for doing so.

Therein — it’s exhibited that their effort, in seeking to make money — is in some way, ok. Frankly, its not, yet the problem today — is that society doesn’t have the tools to make better distinctions between those who’ve been injured by bad actors; and those who’ve been slighted by bad actors — to be incapacitated, as a means to protect wrong-doers from any unwanted repercussion, unto rule of law. Yet a consequential problem is, we’ve not made the tools to be equipped domestically; to easily identify and distinguish the good actors from the bad ones, whilst the bad ones are busy making a mess.

Making matters slightly more complicated — there’s also a problem about the very nature of the topic; as the tooling, in-effect deals with identity, causality, entity analysis and the underlying material resource for any type of STEM.

knowledge.

The operation of ‘knowledge’, is distinct to ‘information’ or data. listening to a person speak a foreign language you don’t understand, is data. Reading the news-paper or consuming ‘news’ on facebook, is information; there’s no good way to easily tell what aspects of their stories are reliable.

Knowledge, whether it be ‘situational awareness’ about a situation or circumstance; the knowledge of how to navigate ships, or how to cure disease or identify biological agents that may eradicate food-sources; that’s different, its knowledge. Today, there’s a desire by some, to stymie the availability of knowledge. I believe, this is an enormous existential threat; that the ‘knowledge’ of others who care less for those who remain to be kept hidden, will be the core set of socioeconomic ingredients that will define who rules the world. I think there is a difficulty exhibited by those who are paid to work on behalf of the people and our systems of democracy are being consumed.

I see various strategies employed by nations including the USA, considerations of an ‘information fiduciary’, seemingly in an attempt to retain AI power within US Domestic shores; and in the UK ‘data trusts’, which i don’t think actually means you can trust as ‘knowledge’, what comes out of them.

What i’ve seen and experienced over the years; is a quite, back-channel acknowledgement of problems by persons who are working at high levels within the system, but feel silenced as to keep their roles; whilst a ‘headless’ agenda that’s in-effect, curated madness — trudges on without opposition. What i’ve been doing is both pragmatic (tools) and fairly confrontational, which both acts to eradicate my ability to participate in a form bad actors would consider ‘trust-worthy’ (i got ministerial consent to register ‘trust factory’, bad actors called it ‘rust factory’, and whilst there’s been changes to money laundering rules alongside other stuff — there’s been an alliance with bad agents within the public service who did the wrong thing and want no repercussions — i’m not sure who is worse, the organised crime professional or the public service worker who provides that operator impunity from harm caused to others for the purpose of ensuring they’re not held accountable for their actions — its a fairly incredible thing to try to process lawfully…)

In todays marketplace bad actors can create noise as a distraction for the purpose of slowing down any progress that would yeild accountability. In my case, after 20 years — now the tech is able to be clearly described and implemented by people around the world including the inventors of ‘the web’.

The other constituent is to eradicate communications and cease development on the basis of being equipped to undertake unlawful attacks, that are equally also unable to be addressed by law due to systemic issues (by all means, send me a legal bounty — i’ll happily go through and prove my point, but the problem is that even then it’ll still be a distraction) which in-turn require a ‘mission model framework’ to define an organisational / commercial strategy to address. This means, finding the best people in the world — to get it done.

on that basis; there is neither the means for people to undermine the proposed organisational strategy on a basis of ‘personalities’ not technical basis on some projected consideration that technically, it couldn’t work.

This in-turn means that those with particular roles in society who are therefore bound to act dutifully; can be required to do so — illustratively.

So with that in mind, what i want to see is real-world action that accelerates our means, our capacities as a league of nations; to ensure the people get the opportunity to make a choice, to have agency, in this very different fora of international diplomacy and warfare. There are systems that provide better sense making; than our ‘systems of democracy’ are able to bring about today, and this is a problem.

Some have suggested i just ‘walk away’, which is hard to hear, as the consideration becomes — why and upon what basis do they suggest this…

My problem is that these issues of ‘fairness’ in society, is not being addressed in a manner that exemplifies a level of moral integrity by those seeking to be auspiced to do it. In fact, its outright demonstrating alliances with crooks.

My problem is also, that excluding any considerations for my personhood or agency; I don’t see a ‘fit for purpose’ outfit designed to execute a plan that has some probability is appropriately equipped to meet the challenges.

So, before i entirely ‘give up’ and go make something that’s much easier to deploy with a payment gateway — satisfied in my own heritage of service to humanity; i want to see clearly the decision that’s wilfully made, to sell democracy down the river. I want to see the names attributed to ‘informed decision makers’ making ‘clear and decisive choices’, that i think will lead to the magnetic poles of the world changing politically, perhaps far more quickly than earths. I want to see a clear and defensive statement that says those who believe they have power over others are entitled to injure their ‘victims’, and i want to pair that off with the fact that my family started a pathology company. therein — there’s a few ways of looking at it, imho.

One way is to consider that i’d like to have it demonstrated by ‘authorities’ on a defensible basis; that my life has been caused injury by others wilfully on the basis to do so is fair game; and upon that basis, make decisions.

Another way of looking at it — is to say, there’s billions of people, i’m fairly sure my work has contributed towards an outcome that’s going to benefit alot of them. Yet another way of looking at it is,

‘walking with footsteps in the presence of god’.

I want to see how our societal leaders have intentionally sought to make a choice to build infrastructure systems that employ adults with public funds to undertake activities that will knowingly harm the human rights of children.

I want to see a clear choice being made, to commodify ‘sense making’ of human beings on a wilful and purposeful basis; as will intrinsically mean, that our system of democracy is so broken, alternatives from other regions may actually be better for humanity overall.

I want to see it declared, in writing, for future reference; how there’s been a decisive series of decisions made to make the role of ‘fathers’ entirely optional; and upon that basis, to commercially target and commodify the role of mothers. That they’re aware, fertility is employed to engage in acts of slavery on the basis that some people still believe in rule of law.

Or — as is moreover the tenant of faith — that this is in fact a falsehood propagated by bad actors; and a cooperative unit capable of addressing both the needs of an international protect to build ‘fit for purpose’ cyber foundations; and deal with the bad-actors along the path, can & will be done.

Building a web to support the needs of kids

In an attempt to consider the underlying barriers to forming improved technological outcomes that support the needs of children (in particular) and other dependents; whereby present-day technology generally supports relationships between persons and institutions, but not relations between persons — who may in-turn cooperatively improve advocacy for a vulnerable person.

The implication is that systems are ‘institutionalising’ relationships as to form preference for ‘economic relationships’ over and above non-economic relationships. Where this becomes particularly worrying, is dependents. Yet there are a few parts to this equastion, at least theoretically, which i am in-turn making an attempt to address.

This article attempts to consider factors relating to this predicament.

Technically, there is an underlying solutions framework based on standards that can deliver a vastly improved socioeconomic technology framework; but the socio-economic means to deliver this apparatus as to provide an alternative does not currently exist. In-effect, there’s no known ‘demand’.

The implications are costly, whilst the ‘status quo’ incrementally continues to develop and manifest systemic issues.

The means to address these problems is considered a possibility by way of forming some sort of international alliance & public-private partnership; to undertake not-insignificant works, that could in-turn deliver fit-for-purpose outcomes; including but not limited to, support for existing global silos to make changes to become ‘compatible’ with some future form of international standard for AI, informatics & economic instruments.

Yet as this is not making sufficient progress in a timely manner; it appears solutions are likely to emerge from China in a manner that is extremely competitive for enhancing the quality of life for much of the worlds population. As is seemingly an extensible part of the underlying problem, a concept of ‘cyber-nations’ is considered — alongside the qualities these frameworks bring about in societies; and a preface to the question about whether or not they support liberalism. The argument overall, is that we need to ‘get back to basics’, if we are going to define the critical infrastructure required for the 21st century.

Over the past century the growth of rule of law and human rights ideologies have spread throughout the world. As the industrial era has emerged and progressed towards an information age, that’s arguably going to birth a knowledge age — there are reasons to be very worried about the newly defined foundations we now seek to employ to so that some can use to identify and influence; in an internationally competitive environment.

There are many known flaws, that we’re told we should ignore.

Yet worldwide — Systems of democracy are seemingly struggling in many ways, whilst other regions such as China that declaratively operates differently rapidly grow. The western worlds answer for “identity systems” today are global, what are the consequential costs of this infrastructure in this way; and what is the economic benefit for making available a more diverse marketplace of solutions.

Most of all, how can we define tooling for the future that protects & serves the best interests of todays children; and, who gets to decide and influence what that is?

In a world where liars are aplenty whilst provided impunity, what are the sorts of things, other than santa clause and the tooth fairy, that children should trust and when that trust is broken, how and by whom — are they protected?

What should they learn from their experiences as to define how they’re encouraged to make decisions into the future, about their future; and, How can we help young thinkers, flourish.

Herein — are an array of deceptively simple considerations. The problem underneath all of this ‘rapid technological progress’, is a situation where there’s a lack of economic instruments for natural persons; a global undertaking to rapidly harvest ‘data’, deployed for ‘experimentation’ by global actors seeking to find and foster new markets to generate profits; and, a bunch of underlying dependents who due to a lack of having agency on an independent basis; whilst those who care for them also lack such tooling, alongside the time it would take to overcome barriers — are made resources.

Profits can be acquired through new types of usury with no consequence at all; and it has seemingly been incrementally yet intentionally designed to work that way.

Yet the inconvenient truth — is that it doesn’t actually work that way.

Physics gets in the way, and the issue of causality means that where systems are not properly designed to work factually; they merely act to acquire profits that are in-fact obtained via an ecosystem, that’s incurring additional costs by others elsewhere in the ecosystem; in-turn becoming a productivity problem.

So the problem when applied to vulnerable people is that the costs incurred become substantive over the long-term. When this method is employed on an extractive basis, the destructive implications upon societies can be historically illustrated to be bad, over thousands of years.

In todays landscape — key enablers for these radical social changes incorporate business systems to federate access to trust-worthy knowledge, identity and identifier frameworks; alongside coupled economic instruments, to support payments and commerce. In almost any market historically, there have been ‘brands’ or specific products and services that have ‘risen to the top’. As has been applied globally via the web, this means there’s a few new ‘things’ — that are hard to describe well, that act somewhat like a new type of nation with an effective population; that is,

Far bigger than most traditional nation states;
Far more engaged than is otherwise the case with traditional nation states
Forms a greater dependency model than is the case with any government.
Attributing significant economic activity, world-wide
Fostering new economic markets (‘knowledge based assets’) globally.

The design of these components requires international interoperability as to furnish tools that can be interoperable worldwide. Today, there are significant drivers that act to ‘push back’ the availability of domestic, internationally interoperable alternative solutions; that could easily be made interoperable with existing global solutions, and the reasons why this is considered ‘ok’, is defended by some leading minds to be on the basis of economic rationalism.

Therein, there are an array of concept about how cyber tooling are going to provide artefacts of the natural world, a ‘digital twin’, that is in-turn coupled with systems for purposes relating to economic and state governance.

For the most-part; works are undertaken through the lens of considering ‘consumers’ as capable and fully independent consumers who sign a ‘terms of service’ agreement or are engaged on a direct basis by a service provider.

Thereafter, ‘work arounds’ are defined in relation to dependents.

Consequentially, articles often focus on the needs of independent adults; whilst considerations relating to ‘dependents’ is to some-degree considered ‘taboo’. Few articles, as far i am aware, consider the implications of advanced technology on dependents — yet the implications are now exhibited by manifest cases relating to the critical institutions of nation states / banks; as it is made to be publicly demonstrable that democratic nation states do not have the independent capacity to manage their own affairs and responsibilities.

'Contraventions too voluminous to quantify': Westpac accused of facilitating money laundering
_Updated November 20, 2019 16:57:01 AUSTRAC has applied to the Federal Court for civil penalty orders against Westpac…_www.abc.net.au

If i were to guess why this is seemingly the case: I would speculate the reason to be about sales and a simplification of economics; as todays mediums of communication exhibit an array of traits that have repercussive ripple effects, yet are moreover designed in such a way that acts to exclude support for ‘non-economic dependents’ relations. Therein, by employing the term and concept of ‘non-economic dependents’; I am trying to discern the difference between a social relation of a dependent entity as is distinct to those who are gainfully employed to provide care. Employees are less likely to care about long-term wellbeing of dependents — as its most likely not going to affect them so much. Yet ‘non-economic guardians’ do not have cyber-economic infrastructure to support their own agency let alone agency related considerations of dependents. The means to articulate ‘biometrics’ of children to ensure appropriate intelligence capabilities to rapidly identify and prosecute child-abusers is straight forward; but the systems to do this are governed by institutional actors who seek to ensure non-economic guardians (ie: parents) are not equipped to prosecute instances of child-abuse that they may be held responsible for having facilitated and/or any related acts of negligence. This is not solely about children, rather the problem is characteristically pervasive

Therein; there’s a distinction between,

A parental guardian of a child; and a teacher or child-care worker.
An adult child of an elderly person; and, a nursing home aged care worker.
A Citizen; and politician or public servant.
A Forest; and a farm

The informatics provided by society to support the non-economic relationships are far lesser supported by cyber-socioeconomic frameworks than is the case for economic relationships.

In considering ‘why’, it seems that Companies either need to sell products to independent adults or companies & Government / Civic entities, who are increasingly taking over responsibility for social dependants as work-hours increase for adults, incorporating an array of ‘jobs’ that are in-turn defined to create ‘workers’.

Therein, the socio-economic paradigm of liberalism, built upon liberal democracies operating capitalism as an economic modality; migrating from a resource based economy defined throughout the industrial era, to a knowledge based economy which is underpinned by the economic utility of informatics in the form of trust-worthy evidentiary knowledge artefacts; is seemingly failing to produce the apparatus required to support non-economic dependent relationships of nationhood — in regions governed by liberal democracies.

As has been part of underlying works to form a view, i’ve been taking another look at media that provides me a little more insight into what’s now happening in China. What is apparent to me are some big differences that appear to reflect the differences in how a communist, capitalism framework is able to be applied to rapidly yield significant knowledge economy growth; and through that, significant, underlying; ‘resource economy’ growth.

What i found to be illustrated; is that a nation state that is not at all a liberal democracy, whilst still operating a capitalist economic framework is producing remarkable outcomes at a radical pace; by comparison to the broader world.

It is now illustrated how china is rapidly developing a ‘knowledge economy’ framework that is built upon ‘identity framework’ tools that are seemingly now in place; my considerations extended to thinking about what the definition or concept of ‘nationhood’ means today. When this is extended to considerations about children; in the field of education, the Chinese political and economic structural frameworks are well down the track of providing ‘precision education’ via AI.

China has started a grand experiment in AI education. It could reshape how the world learns.
_Zhou Yi was terrible at math. He risked never getting into college. Then a company called Squirrel AI came to his…_www.technologyreview.com

Therein the need for ‘qualified teachers’ in these models, is becoming significantly less important; whilst noting, that there is an underlying capability that is able to produce new products much faster and cheaper than is possible elsewhere. This capability is thought to be an important underlying driver; much like the cost of energy, food, shelter, clothing, medicine ‘work tools’ anywhere.

The production of this capability did not happen overnight.

Liberalism and Cyber Nationhood

Professor John Mearsheimer discusses in this video, a series of concepts relating liberalism, nationalism and realism. What i got out of that video, was a means to think about the broader ‘identity’ fabric in a way that thought about the idea of ‘cyber nations’; likening online platforms to nationalism.

Traditional considerations of ‘nationhood’ related to the place where a person lives, and through that lens the workings of international affairs by way of the united nations, et.al.

Before the widespread proliferation of our Cyber medium; The operation of international corporations were subject to domestic laws in each physical territory. Whilst the introduction of shipping containers had an impact on world-trade, this is unlike cyber in many ways.

Visual Capitalist: Top 100 Websites in the world

The ‘problem domain’ today is defined by a circumstance that’s grown to become exponentially significant after only a few decades, that have brought about changes at a global scale. These changes have a longer incubation period than proliferation period and are both highly concentrated (at that global scale) and powerful. There are a few parts to it. The first is about hardware, the ability to make devices that are interconnected with informatics services world-wide.

These systems require identifiers; which are ‘baked’ into the second level, which is the software services; and the third level, is the communications services which form massive influences on persons and communities.

There is a forth level to it all — and that’s the social informatics layer, where AI enhanced environments solicits a new form of ‘commodities’, built upon systems that in-effect have ‘nationhood’ on a cyber basis; which in-turn stimulate binding relations that have punitive repercussions for those who either do not participate, or choose to leave. This is a form of ‘cyber refugee’ issue that on its own independent basis, is a massive complex issue.

If someone decided they did not want to use Californians products for some reason; perhaps due to protest, i’m not entirely sure how they would be able to function in society with agency as a person with socio-economic needs.

The way this infrastructure has been produced means that there’s a few international corporations who are operating ‘cyber nations’ that incorporate billions of people, world-wide. Many of these solutions are vended from entities that are domiciled in California — which has an impact today, both on the applications and the resources produced as a consequence of using those applications. its now a fairly well known concept, that using ‘digital ink’ requires the end-user to provide a copy of their work to what is in-effect the ‘ink supplier’ and that often this copy provided to them, is the only copy of it.

Therein — whilst it is true that a person could leave a cyber-nation like ‘facebook’; the implications upon their lives would have ripple effects that may not be resolved unless they rejoined ‘facebook’. The same is to be said for Google, Apple, Microsoft (inc. X Box, ) linkedin, Amazon, AirBnB, Uber and other ‘silo providers’ that are increasingly bound to our lives as we become dependents. Without these services, our means to communicate would be compromised. These systems, as are often provided by ‘cyber nations’ are now powering our ‘smart homes’ and the devices we use in life every day. We are provided identifiers, yet there’s increasingly insecure.

Indeed this is not only a problem for online portals, but also broad-ranging personal information as may be used to create accounts (and make representations) in addition to ‘caller id spoofing’ & ‘private’ callers.

IQ Squared: Mark Zuckerberg on Trial: Facebook is Damaging Society

It is fairly well established and accepted that our societies, world-wide, are now operating infrastructure that delivers pervasive surveillance capabilities that is in-turn employed for specified purposes; as defined by platform providers, whilst also facilitating particular requirements of nation states.

These systems change the nature of relationship & identity development.

As part of my exploration of this topic, i found myself researching the idea of self-hating jews.

Debate: Anti-Zionism is Anti-Semitism

Therein — a fairly fierce debate about the linkage of political ideology and personal agency; or something of that nature, that appears to be about linkages. The relationship between these two topics relates to ‘identity instruments’ and the means through which agency is furnished universally.

A person who works mostly online, will have meaningful relationships with people around the world; that would be lost, if they disconnected from the platform provider. This is not unlikely the probable impact should a person migrate from one country, to another. Platform providers have rules, culture and increasingly also an array of different sorts of currency.

Some relate to financial payments; ‘payments’ incorporates two factors, the first being the transmission and receipt of currency; the second being, information about that transaction (ie: who is involved, and for what purpose) — this knowledge economy infrastructure is vitally important.

The second is about ‘reputation’ and provenance / history — the ability to form informatics fabric that relates to whether and how a person is able to be easily considered by others to be trust-worthy; in addition to financial metrics.

Today, these systems are increasingly provided on a global basis — principally via companies that have their international domicile in California; Yet the international ‘cyber nations’ are not democratic; indeed, the operation of these ‘cyber nations’ is much like china in many ways as their terms are applied via an ‘accept’ button, as they in-effect — act like a communist state; whilst commercialising influence, as capitalists.

Their influence leads consequentially also; to the same sorts of infrastructure being provided to multi-national corporations; as to improve operational coherence and deliver a means for sophisticated entities to act as a form of legal nation state.

Therein — the consequential consideration is; that concepts of nationalism could be considered to have grown as to include,

1. State Nations (geographic regions recognised as ‘states’ by the UN)

Whereby the existence of the concept of ‘liberal democracies’ exists; yet the relationship to ‘cyber-platforms’ is somewhat limited to ‘sales tax’ and law-enforcement access (where deemed to be in the interests of governments).

2. Legal Nations: Multi-national corporations & Organisations

Which are founded upon legal frameworks designed for international trade in association to ‘liberal democracies’ and can now curate international affairs far more effectively than they were able to do before; including, the means to power international cyber-platforms.

3. Cyber Nations : ‘Platform providers’ (“cyber-nations”)

Which are most-often commercialised via employment of both the resources of a liberal democracy somewhere in the world; in addition to a multinational corporation; as to form an ecosystem to attract ‘cyber-citizenship’, worldwide.

Therein — from a construct point of view, Whilst it is ‘true’ someone could stop using the environments provided in relation to their identifiers that are owned an operated by platform providers; the reality is, that the underlying ‘knowledge equity’ would remain with that platform provider and a self-excluded individual would be disadvantaged. People today have their lives (and businesses) inter-twined via platforms like Facebook, Uber, Skype, AirBnB and platform services such as Google or Apple; which, if they ‘left’, would likely be quite costly, and also — impractical, as some have found out.

I Cut The 'Big Five' Tech Giants From My Life. It Was Hell
_A couple of months ago, I set out to answer the question of whether it's possible to avoid the tech giants. Over the…_www.gizmodo.com.au

The knowledge equity operated by these global silos incorporates the knowledge about that persons life, their social interactions, the log & exclusive ability to operate it all as a commercial service provider. Whilst the data could be downloaded, without investment there is no alternative to these exclusive international platform providers; as to decouple support for the underlying identifiers in relation to people (“Consumers”).

In places such as china, it doesn’t appear to be so much of a problem; as the state can define how things are to work, and they’re not dealing with what some may consider to be ‘legacy issues’; yet, how does this affect the meaningful growth of liberal democracies throughout the world?

both, in its means to effectively govern identity related economic instruments in relation to its citizens; and by extension, dependents?

Considerations are often considered taboo. We know that there’s information that could save and/or deliver significantly better outcomes for people who are made to be victims of corruption, because reliable information that does otherwise exist — is not made available to protect those made to be consumable.

So, what if considerations were made to think about how we want our online platforms to provide meaningful support for those we’d consider to be dependents. What if we evaluate the merits of ‘how stuff works’, via methods that extends across the vast constituencies of society that in-turn forms a much broader stakeholder group of dependents whose needs must be met.

What happens if people work together on the simple principle that they enrol in a joint commitment to ensure their tax payer dollars are not being spent on people who want to clock-in to start a work-day to knowingly assault the human rights of children for gainful employment income, with impunity.

Who wants to support a notion of ‘nationhood’ that wilfully funds child abuse?

So assuming that’s not the case; what do we need to ensure we’re actually producing accountability frameworks to ensure we’re able to identify those who are engaged in wilful acts of child-abuse, and those who are otherwise expected to work with them without their differentiated character-traits being considered to be of any importance what so ever, with respect to their qualifications and suitability for the job.

If wrong-doers get a cheaper outcome for the ‘department’ or publicly funded ‘activity’— does that make it better?

Why would they support ‘lifecycle evaluations’, availability of statistics or ability to perform social-sciences research?

So, in seeking to dissect the way systems are being deployed and the rationale around the consequential considerations for areas that are made void. Today, the employed methodology seemingly seeks to produce linkages between the roles of paid employees through the extension of more traditional roles; and the means through which the needs of societal dependents are met.

In Australia, this is largely funded via export revenues sourced from mineral exports, alongside additional revenues sequestered from property sales to international buyers; which is increasingly spread around ‘services’ sectors, to fund underlying costs such as the cost of living / housing. Yet, this is not just about the economic flows but also about the legal defensibility of persons actions in complex ecosystems.

The problem that has seemingly been permitted to flourish is that whilst natural persons are generally not provided sufficient / adequate informatics tooling to protect their own rights unto law; acts of wrong-doing are permitted to have a far greater effect when applied to dependents; many of whom, would traditionally depend upon — primary carers to protect and defend their rights and needs.

It is often considered the responsibility of employees to protect both themselves and their employer from costly legal accountability. Companies themselves as a group agent, seek to protect themselves from legal liability — therein — whilst very bad situations are sometimes communicated, the repercussive impacts on the organisations can often be very limited — as blame may be put upon a single person who may loose their job consequentially; and a new employee acquired to continue on. This seemingly exhibits a set of traits that seek to leverage off the means to cause injury or threaten to do so as to extract additional revenue within these ‘human services’ services markets that have rapidly expanded over the past few decades; and Part of the problem is that the amount of effort required to abuse a person is far less than the amount of effort required to seek lawful remedy.

This in-turn interacts with ‘privacy law’ which can act to protect wrong-doers.

Shocking footage of restrained aged care residents prompts new regulations | 7.30

Most of the time, it is simply not economically viable to seek legal remedy; whilst it can also be made simultaneously socially impossible to communicate ‘real-world facts’ as a consequence of ‘privacy’ considerations; even though, there’s increasingly a vast amount of qualifiable evidentiary information available from a trusted source somewhere on the network about situations.

Even when issues are resolved, compensation is most often not available; This is in-turn delivering a series of manifest characteristics about how our society is being engineered in connection to cyber infrastructure, which have particularly marked obstructively harmful effects on ‘dependent’ social groups. The net result being illustrated herein is a situation where informatics environments are being engineered to allow abuse in connection to the formation of AI systems — as a form of internationally employable ‘knowledge based asset’ class; that is to some-degree geared to consume those who are most vulnerable; which includes,

Children

What is the role of parental guardians for children in relation to cyber infrastructure?

Part of the consideration includes considerations that as it is the case that parents often do not have informatics systems to support their own personhood / agency; how is it that AI systems govern childhood development, identity development; and their formation of agency?

HealthCare Informatics
Academic / Learning Informatics
Biometric Signatures
Sports and Recreation
Social Informatics

One of the interesting use-cases i heard about, was that a person approached a young person online asking them to create ad’s on facebook for which they’d be paid to do. but there was a problem with the ad’s which resulted in the young-persons account being disaffected by facebook. Facebook didn’t care if someone else asked them to do it — which presents a new form of exploit, that i didn’t previously even consider.

There are many, so who and how are children protected?

Severe Disability and/or impairment

Those with severe disability are potentially enormous beneficiaries of advanced technology; and also simultaneously, put at risk because of it.

Part of the consideration is how identity services can provide;

The ability to communicate at all (through assistive devices)
The ability to vastly improve quality of life
The ability to improve ‘dignity’
The ability to be provided by society scientific solutions for improved outcomes (ie: medical innovation, etc.)

And/or — the decision making process surrounding any rationale not to provide the infrastructure to them, or to do so conditionally on an unreasonable (perhaps fundamentally unlawful) basis.

Herein also; within this category, it is suggested every person consider the implications should they be unconsciousness and in need of care.

How is it that choices you may have already sought to have declared — be considered, what if they’re not — should someone without clinical training be equipped to have a voice, what if a second clinical (independent) clinical opinion is required; what if your elected ‘civil advocate’ has different views?

What if it is cheaper to deliver a worse outcome for you; that may be better for others? What if your pathology results are wrong, and because you haven’t got access to the imaging / diagnostics materials; there is no way to get a second opinion, and you’ll find out that you’ll be dead soon, once its too late to do anything about it — and if you want good end of life care; please ensure you smile and think firstly about the well being of the doctors.

Therein — dealing with Impairment is not just about whether or not we’ve got ‘self driving wheelchairs’ and/or useful interfaces for those who cannot easily communicate. Impairment can also relate to circumstances and the environmental environments through which decisions are made.

This is seemingly becoming increasingly evident in areas where ‘access to justice’ is made to be mute; yet economically costly when evaluated in relation to an overall lifecycle, that may be attributed to the repercussive effects of a few decisions made by a few people provided impunity by systems / others.

Elderly

Our societies elderly are increasingly challenged by ICT, which many still have never really used nor seek to learn how to use. Many qualities of their challenges are similar & linked with those of people suffering from severe disability and/or impairment.

Healthcare informatics
Communication aids
Means to improve Independence & Quality of Life
Maintaining / improving ‘human dignity’
Means to retain access to traditional economic & communications tools

As traditional phone lines are replaced by broadband; none of it works if there’s a power-outage. Often, news-paper subscriptions, utility bills and the like seek to engage with their customers using online tools, like email and online accounts.

For those seeking to learn, how does a senior get the help they need if their critical tools aren’t working — whether it be their internet connection; or the knowledge of some online tools that could help them.

Environment

Ability to respond to biosphere challenges affecting flora, fauna, biodiversity and sustainability

Recently in Australia, there’s been an array of fires. Sadly, many have been intentionally lit — whilst this does not lesson the impacts. Additionally, there’s been problems with drought and water resource management; and generally, it is hoped that we could and/or should, do better.

These problems isn’t just about getting more firemen; as the fires themselves devastate biodiversity as the enormous fires leave no place for fauna to go.

Whilst there’s alot of unemployed persons; our ‘platform providers’ are not providing the economic instruments we need to pay those unemployed persons to go out into the forests to destroy the introduced flora from the mining era — to care for our environment, as has been done for tens of thousands of years.

The biggest estate on earth: how Aborigines made Australia
_Aboriginal people worked hard to make plants and animals abundant, convenient and predictable. By distributing plants…_theconversation.com

Yet it appears the conversation only comes up nearing a particular part of the solar cycle alongside other factors relating both — to how we manage our environment, alongside broader factors like ‘space weather’.

System of Democracy

The Will of the People

If we live in a state that is a system of democracy, then its important that we have the means to participate as citizens; this means we need to,

Retaining the ability to make informed choices
participate in affairs of consequence to society
to make use of the role of being a member of an electorate; on behalf of both ones-self and others (ie: for those who cannot vote)

AusCivics Introductory Content

In-order for any of this to act in a manner that provides the capacity for persons to grow and flourish; the economics of how it works needs to be addressed. Yet, in doing so — there is a clear requirement for economic instruments and currently those economic instruments are either global; or poorly support ‘informed decision making’ and enforceability of ‘rights’ by non-economic guardians.

How is support for ‘civil dependent relationships’ provided the necessary instruments to ensure citizens are equipped to better engage with our system of democracy?

How are the elderly, those with disability/impairment and children provided identifiers and suitably equipped to make use them safely.

Which brings forth the issue of how civil dependent relationships are to be appropriately employed as to materially assist others to be safe.

Conversely — as to put these considerations in a blunt, illustrative way; it appears some people believe that it is economically beneficial to make use of children as an economic resource.

Therein, if both natural parents are made impaired; by way of 3rd party employees whose actions are provided impunity, which results in services being required by more paid employees to care for the child as a consequence of the acts of others; which may then incur additional economic yield, as the parents may work tirelessly as to gain income to pay people to service a complaint about the issue of their relationship with their child having been retired, economically; which is overall, a means to employ a bunch of people, who may all in-turn require mortgages; and it can be claimed that its no ones fault.

Therein — if there are ‘informatics systems’ that improve the means for natural parents to attend to a threat matrix that looks something like that in a timely manner; then it could be considered that it would ‘threaten jobs’, and underlying that — factors relating to the cost of property (mortgages) could be disaffected as a result — and so, there’s an economic driver to consume kids.

Is this sort of consideration at the very least, simplistic?

AFAIK a basic principle to economics is about the ability for persons to produce works of value that can result in income from customers who pay for the derivative work (or resource) for more than it cost to produce.

Whilst this can be poorly applied, the broader consideration is about ‘gross domestic product’ or GDP; which is in-turn linked to the cost of production; even if drivers seek to forge frameworks for inter-generational debt as a foundation for short-term income and related ‘acts of financial buggery’.

Therein, ‘Cyber Nations’ seemingly act as a form of non-democratic state; whilst harvesting the resources (thought ware) of those in most jurisdiction, whilst simultaneously engineered to drive more demand. This additional layer of complexity, in the western world, has an effect, causality of some sort.

The problems illustrated exist within the nuanced economic frameworks for knowledge based capital, which is essentially about knowledge based assets.

I find that this OECD report on knowledge based capital to be useful to provide a basic overview.

Essentially, a constituent of ‘credit’ in knowledge economy markets is provided via trustworthy knowledge infrastructure; which form constituents of an ecosystem required for the operation of economic instruments that are ‘fit for purpose’ within a knowledge economy.

Therein, critical instrumentation include;

Human/Machine Readable informatics (particularly commons — ie: biosphere artefacts, law, language, etc.)
Trust Instruments (ie: Verifiable Claims, Credentials, etc.)
Financial Instruments (ability to send & receive currency (inc. micropayments)
Authentication instruments (provision of agency infrastructure, ie: IdP)

In combination; there’s an ability to assert legal agency in relation to the description of something that is able to be made attributable economically.

In ‘nation state’ environments such as china, i imagine that it is far easier to wire all this ‘stuff’ together; and provide ‘insights’ in a manner that can prosecute the interests of the nation state differently; to territories governed by liberal democracies.

Yet in the limited way this infrastructure is currently deployed within liberal democracies world-wide seemingly fail to provide ‘agency’ for natural persons (ie: support for ‘rule of law’ and ‘rights’) and whilst physics / causality dictates that there must be an effect; rendering significant social drivers that are not actually resulting in an internationally competitive & beneficial productivity yield, the supposition put forth is that ‘it doesn’t matter’.

The problem appears to be a lack of available alternatives which is closely linked to the problem of defining a means to create this new infrastructure in a manner that might be made to operate in a ‘fit for purpose’ manner, that’s also able to provide interoperability both between legacy western systems, and those being created elsewhere in the world.

Mission Model Canvas Playlist

It is believed this can be done via some sort of ‘alliance’ / ‘public private partnership’ model — making use of a ‘mission model canvas’ as to provide a solution for the critical infrastructure our liberal democracies require, to flourish in this new age that requires knowledge to grow, but is currently controlled by ‘fake news’ and broken & malfeasant economic modelling.

Today: If some people wanted to use a solution that was able to be provided to them via domestic providers — what options have been produced to serve their needs? the problem is, there isn’t any. This not only impacts those who are equipped as independent adults, but moreover impacts dependents.

CONSIDERATIONS: What ‘functional parts’ of platforms like facebook, twitter, uber, Airbnb and the others; would be better made available optionally as a nuanced form of ‘informatics protocol’ that is standardised, and able to be supported by regulations and systems of government within traditional ‘nation states’; and what parts of the applications provided by those illustrated above, are their unique products, their competitive advantage — and opportunity to grow upon as foundations.

Therein, a great deal of work has technically been done. The problem today appears to be a lack of coherence of explaining the importance of undertaking the broader scope of works in a timely manner, as global alternatives proliferate without any well developed market-place of interoperable alternative offerings.

Notionally, it seems reasonable to consider that the purpose of economics in liberal democracies to provide distribution of economic instruments & ‘wealth’. The means through which this has traditionally been done, has been curated by nation states whose success is measured via the curation of activities that engender positive growth of revenue via inter-jurisdictional sales (GDP).

Societal benefits are only realised if domestic work activities are supported by a system of justice that supports the core principles of a liberal democracy; without that being in place, the system falls apart and is vulnerable to useful exploitation by bad / foreign actors; Therefore, the means for populations of nation states to engage in activities that deliver meaningful results in the form of exportable derivatives — that can be sold for more than the production value of having created it.

This forms dependencies upon an underlying, contextual concept,

The cost of production incorporates the cost of caring for the needs of a worker; alongside their means to support their custodianship roles for others.

Increasing the effective cost of production now also incorporates increased risk of disabling reliability of obtaining a ‘return on investment’, via increasingly complex means. This in-turn leads to increased debt and natural resource consumption whilst acting as a disabling force for productivity drivers.

Increasingly the greatest productivity driver is ‘situational awareness’ which is knowingly adversarial to systems designed to provide impunity for wrongdoers.

It is impossible to effectively perform ‘opportunity analysis’ on false information and the problems caused as an implication of these issues cannot be solved by quantitative easing. The problem is structural, relating to ‘web slavery’.

Therein —where the modelling becomes increasingly more complex; longer-term debts cycles as to procure short-term revenues; do not over their lifecycle, yield positive returns. So when these problems are applied to the concept of considering the needs and desirable attributes for the benefit of dependents, the argument is that it becomes fairly clear that todays infrastructure for the advancement of our liberal democratic league of nations; is not fit for purpose. The arguments made to defend the status quo is noting more than noise; as the reality is, we’ve got better tech to support ‘rule of law’ notionally, than has ever been the case of any time in history.

Yet when these considerations are raised; it’s often responded to with punitive attacks. So, the question becomes — how should technology serve those who are dependent upon us, to do something to support their needs.

Some examples of the consequential failures that are now presenting ripple effects in regions such as Australia alongside elsewhere overseas (most often in different / nuanced ways);

So, the implications of how our information systems are now being made to work; is in-turn shown to be incurring significant social costs in areas that do not support productivity, in-fact, it is reasonable to assume it does the opposite.

A relatively straight forward example is the ‘robodebt’ figures; as would likely have never happened if machine-readable payslips had been introduced, noting the underlying technology to make it has existed for many years.

At some stage machine readable payslips will be produced so more was spent on engendering an a series of activities that were funded and later abandoned as is likely to be costly, and after all of that; more expenditure on a solution that actually considers the needs of those for whom a liberal democracy should serve. is the problem that ‘machine readable payslips’ is not currently supported by Google, Apple, Facebook and others; or is it a ‘banking related’ problem, how does the lack of solutions, that act to cause such problems — disaffect kids? In other areas as is nominally noted by the ‘sugar daddies’ article above; illustrates problems that appear to be linked to a significant proportion of university aged girls, in an economic environment that provides few economic options to fund the means for young people to get a tertiary education; which is known to be a significant determinate (& discriminating) factor, to improved quality of life.

Do we really want a system of pervasive surveillance that is wilfully designed to support the means for some; who in the course of their activities in their roles as ‘gainfully employed’ persons, seek impunity for harming vulnerable persons? is that how our economy is going to do better to compete for world domination against competitors such as china?

UK Population: 66.44 million (2018)
USA Population: 327.2 million (2018 )
EU Population: 512.4 million (2018)
AU Population: 24.6 million (2017)
NZ Population: 4.794 million (2017)
CA Population: 37.59 million (2019)

Population of population in Asia is: 4.463 billion (2016) and moreover — what people want are solutions that improve their quality of life and their means to care for those who are — their dependents.

Without providing solutions that deliver a meaningful competitive advantage; i can see how UK, USA, EU, AU, CA, NZ might ‘stick with facebook’,

SDG 16.9

I would find it difficult to believe the delivery of UN Sustainability Goals would be considered best delivered via internationally controlled ‘cyber-nation infrastructure’, as to support improvements to quality of life and the delivery of means to support the human rights of children, world-wide. This in-turn relates to addressing poverty and financial inclusion which is seemingly again — the creation of a series of dependent relationship models that need to be considered in a manner that supports human agency in ways other than providing new medium to automate the consumption of it.

CONCLUSION

So, IF there was an alternative methodology that changed the way ‘digital stuff’ worked for you and beyond that — for children, how would you want to make that work?

From a tech perspective, Tim Berners-lee amongst others is making progress. Below is a demo, but they’ve since made progress… Whilst this is one constituent of many that forms a more complex ‘ecosystem’ there are an array of other ‘technical people’ who can illustrate fairly clearly how to make the ‘tech stuff’ work — today, other than investment and time, thats not really the problem

The problem seemingly is that we’re not sure what sort of world we want to build to support the needs of kids or vulnerable persons and the means to help them grow /thrive, as best as we’re able to, is seemingly hindered by what appear to be false economic belief’s that addressing real-world problems is bad.

My Concern is that if we don’t start doing that soon, perhaps the responsibility for managing those sorts of decisions, will be outsourced and made to be a service of some sort that is commodified. We have some choices to make about the way in which children and other vulnerable dependent groups are equipped to learn and grow to their fullest potential; in an environment that is made to be ‘safer’ or unsafe.

We can define environments that provides reliable information, knowledge, to help them develop; or teaches them fictions as non-fictions as though the categories don’t matter.
We could decide that those sorts of options are only important for the people who have the money to pay for the opportunity to make a choice, and the others can be made resources to feed new types of web-slavery, worldwide.
We could make crispr based biomarkers which are built into the genetics for children born via specialised ‘cyber-nationhood’ like ways; empowered with a subscription plan to make them unlike all the others, from birth.

or not. but what are the intergenerational decisions made and by whom; when one region goes about producing advanced bio-technology that may have unknown or unforeseen or even hostile qualities baked into it.

CRISPR babies: when will the world be ready?
_Efforts to make heritable changes to the human genome are fraught with uncertainty. Here's what it would take to make…_www.nature.com

New Details About The Infamous 'CRISPR Babies' Experiment Have Just Been Revealed
_More than a year ago, the world was shocked by Chinese biophysicist He Jiankui's attempt to use CRISPR technology to…_www.sciencealert.com

The point is — i’m not sure people have thought about it comprehensively, and I’m fairly sure there should be more thought put into it. In doing so, it appears straight-forward to note that a great deal of productivity enhancements can be brought about, with a plan to solve the basic endemic issues that are exhibiting means to stifle & harm our societies.

China's Digital Currency Is a 'Wake-Up Call' for the U.S.
_Blockchain-powered digital currencies are the next frontier in the U.S.-China tech rivalry._fortune.com

The radical growth of china is likely to deliver to international markets, an alternative to the global offerings provided by silicon valley, to the world. Beyond the digital currency and the previously noted super-advanced systems; The Chinese government is reported to be ‘locking down the hatches’, with respect to the use of foreign technology by its government and has at least one operating system Kylin, It appears to me, their ecosystem is almost complete providing an alternative to what’s otherwise on offer by Google (ie: Android), Apple (ie: iOS, OSX) and Microsoft (Windows) that may well be supplied to developing nations far ‘cheaper’, than western alternatives. The only real difference, appears to be about ideology.

So, there is an underlying conversation that needs to occur about the concept of our ‘social contract’ as is considered an essential ingredient to a liberal democracy and underpinning these considerations; should be a series of quantifiable considerations that relate to the needs of vulnerable persons and in-turn both their needs of ‘agency’, and the role of non-economic guardians or custodians whom harbour vital roles in the development and support of their lives and means to navigate through increasingly complex issues relating to the modal environments through which they form lived experiences.

It seems reasonable to suggest that amongst the beneficial outcomes sought; some would include the means to protect the safety of children, as they develop an ever increasingly high-resolution recording of themselves via digital infrastructure; both personally, and consequentially due to their existence.

That their means to employ our vast technical capabilities to learn and improve their capacity to strive to their fullest potential into life, is made available to them in the best way humanity knows how; in a liberal democracy, and that they are protected from the not-insignificant threats.

It would also be reasonable to assume that those who were formerly unable to communicate well due to severe disability may be provided the tools to do so; and perhaps therein, provided means to economically participate in ways that were previously impossible for them to do so.

That elderly citizens might be provided tools to both care for their own needs independently; and perhaps also, economically participate via things they can do online, that might help them make money and improve their circumstances even after retirement.
That those who are homeless or financially destitute; can more easily find a job to do — and more simply go about getting that job done, to get paid.
That those who are mothers do not need to work 80 hours a week, as to provide shelter for their children, whilst others provide quality time & care; and
That the AI systems involved in those children's lives, have a means to consider family heritage and cultural attributes; rather than more simply ‘normalising’ children, as may form issues of discrimination, that may not be picked-up or made easily addressable by those who harbour a duty of care as a parent.

Yet moreover, the question becomes — whether or not we end-up with systems that can materially support these notions that are seemingly tied to the concept of a liberal democracy; or whether, they’re made to be redundant via international solutions whether they’re commercialised as a force of capitalism from America or China — seemingly, the problems relate to our means to communicate and process; how it is we can improve human dignity.

Edit this page

Last updated on 1/18/2023

Categories