I think we're going to have to be very careful-intentional in the near future of who we decide to interact with, though an ideological mob won't likely particularly care if they're being manipulated by nefarious actors who aim to weaponized a mob.
I think we're going to have to be very careful-intentional in the near future of who we decide to interact with, though an ideological mob won't likely particularly care if they're being manipulated by nefarious actors who aim to weaponized a mob.
This also heavily addressed the bot issue: if a bot is identified, it is highly likely that most if not all of their invitees are bots, too, and there's a good chance whoever invited them is not a good faith actor, either.
Communities without barriers to entry are always going to be low trust. The trick is striking a balance between trust and isolationism.
Even at $1/month for an account, 5 bots would cost $60 per year, and for most that is arguably increasing the cost too much to run a sophisticated bot net - though there certainly will be domestic and foreign bad actors wanting to infect a system for their censorship-suppression-narrative control apparatus and will be willing to spend $ billions if not $10s of billions annually - as a war-invasion-infiltration cost - but at least then they are paying into the system that their adversary controls.
This is a problem I am going to face system design wise in the next few years as I'll want to launch my solution to many problems. A core value for the network of platforms and central platform with many feature sets, is that it will not have advertising - no ads - as I believe cheap-shallow advertising is very harmful and dangerous to society. Not only do ads capture our attention that has already been, for many if not most, been compromised, it also increases the costs of goods and services - because you're funding their advertising budget when you are manipulated to purchase from them, paying for yourself to be manipulated and perpetuating that system, it also influences design decisions.
It's going to be a very challenging and ongoing cost to strike a balance, as you say, between trust and isolationism - determining what limited "Free" accounts get access to do functionality wise vs. providing a low enough cost and a high enough value to sooner than later have the masses signup, with having a large enough % of paying subscribers to cover or subsidize the cost of the free accounts holders.
I'm most torn at whether free accounts will have any ability to publicly comment, post, etc - but my current intuition is telling me that in most circumstances, no. Doing proper moderation for posts and comments from paid subscribers alone, which will include bad actors-paid shills or uncritical indoctrinated-misguided ideologues party to a mob believing and parroting propaganda-narrative talking points, that will certainly be the most important and overwhelming task from my estimation.
I think we need to rally the awake and most conscious people of the world, who arguably will also be successful in their own right, where say paying $5/month for general access is pocket change in comparison to the importance of a well-designed and desperately needed system for our security-safety and leading the charge or holding the line for peace. Likewise, I wonder then if a version of Reddit's forum, at least one method that can be enabled to limit interference, are introducing mechanisms like say $0.25 to $1/month to be part of that forum. That could then help subsidize the cost of paid moderators, who arguably would be less likely to be bad actors attempting to inject bias, etc.
My greatest concern though is that as the tyrant wannabes with global totalitarian state wet dreams start to lose their grip, as they appear to be in certain parts of the world, that they will go "full tyrant" with major false flag attacks including manufacturing consent to have censorship capabilities for not only internet but private communications; and so then an online platform is moot.
For someone running a bot business, paying $1000/year for some bots doesn't change anything for their business, they're already paying much more than a few bucks per month to people who post with the bots.
On the other hand, that payment will absolutely be a barrier of entry for the genuine users.
Whether the value of allowing a "free" and open wild wild west environment, with its externalized-unpaid for costs, outweighs the limiting of access - filtering through a process before people qualify as trustworthy enough and/or contributing enough to the platform (if unable to pay yet - where bartering with oversight is a possible option, an energy exchange type program for access) would be very difficult to calculate but intuitively I'd argue slowing the actions of potential bad actors or an ideological mob who's arguably less likely to pay for a platform where truth that "hurts" them is allowed due to relatively free speech on the platform, would far outweigh the drowning that bad actors would attempt to do by weaponizing an ideological mob to interfere in critical-adult conversation, attempting to blind people by stirring up emotions, echoing-parroting propaganda narrative talking points to trigger dormant programming, etc.
I'd next propose that government fund each person a stipend to spend at the centralizing platform(s) of their choice, if society as a whole considers access to such communications-systems as a necessity; I'm not one for liberal-excessive spending on social programs, however all-or-nothing thinking isn't useful either - and certain base needs, if we're going to lift everyone up with a rising tide, getting their feedback - allowing them a voice and necessary tools in today's age - and preventing them from drowning, then a certain amount of minimal support is necessary, but no more than that so hard work and merit is what then is rewarded.
Do you think CO2 is an issue? If yes, do you think it's a problem that China's CO2 emissions are skyrocketing, whereas the Western countries have been following an ideology fuelled by climate alarmism-fear mongering?
What are the consequences in your mind, of China being able to increase how much cheap energy they are able to use because they're not constrained by CO2-related policy, whereas the West's energy costs are increasing due to CO2-related policy? How does that positively or negatively effect China and the West?
It looks like we have passed the tipping point where switch to renewables happens not because of policy constraints but simply because it's cheaper now.
What benefits or harms, if any, are there to China for their CO2/climate policy, and what benefits or harms, if any, are there to the West for our CO2/climate policy?
The issue is deeper than you realize or will allude to.
CSIS in Canada, for example, has stated that Canada is a very high target for the CCP - and it's quite clear there is influenced, regulatory capture, between US politicians and the CCP as well - most recently obviously evidenced by Xi's visit to San Francisco; not merely him visiting but all factors related to it.
The above is common knowledge for anyone not indoctrinated into sources of controlled narratives, indoctrinated into propaganda, where actual truthful narratives and logic will be dismissed as "conspiracy theories" etc; mob-suppression tactics as part of the censorship-suppression-narrative control apparatus.
I am however curious what sources, where did you get that understanding that you shared here? Was it from friends/family, colleagues, from newspapers or news channels, etc? If so where do you live?
We seem to have lost the ability to "live and let live", to any reasonable degree. That's what they are actually weaponizing in this case.
Not to say that doing this is easy, but I think it's something we should aspire to.