@ 6ad3e2a3:c90b7740

Like most members of the human race, I don’t enjoy filing my taxes. “Don’t enjoy” though understates my actual feeling which is “would rather do a tour in Afghanistan.” It’s not even the money I’m forced to pay that I know for sure will be misallocated, stolen or worse — put to use in ways that are anathema to everything I believe and in direct opposition to conditions in which human beings thrive. That’s only part of it. The other and perhaps bigger part is they require me — under penalty of law — to do homework. They command me, as though they were my boss, to complete this work project, my tax return, and if I don’t I’ll have my property seized, my credit destroyed and even go to prison. This is so even though I am not a criminal, and I never agreed to work for this boss. And it’s not just a random work project I am required to submit, so that they can misallocate, steal and attack me with my own money. It’s a project that requires me to divulge private details about myself, what transactions I’ve made, with whom I made them and for what purpose. I am a private citizen, I hold no public office or official role, and yet the public sector is not only entitled to comb through the details of my life, but I must be complicit in helping them under penalty of law, i.e., threat of violence if I don’t comply. . . . This was not always the case. The income tax was only introduced in 1913, and at the time was only for the richest of the rich. That is to say, it is not the default state of affairs in the United States under its original constitution, and it’s strange that it’s been normalized as such. And despite it being normalized — for the greater good, of course — our government is still somehow $36 trillion in debt. In other words, despite the annual indignity to which we subject ourselves, the government spends far more money than it takes in. I am reminded of Dostoyevsky’s line: “Your worst sin is that you have destroyed and betrayed yourself for nothing.” The government is spending money it doesn’t have, whether you pay it or not, and the money you do pay, for things you not only do not want but are vehemently against, doesn’t come close to covering their cost. . . . I was having lunch with some normies last month, and the subject of taxes came up. They were talking about the ways in which they, as ex-pats, minimize their tax burden, using certain loopholes, and at one point someone questioned why government pensions were taxed, given the entity paying the pension and demanding it be taxed was one and the same. Why not just pay a smaller pension? One of them asked me, and I said: “I don’t think anyone should be taxed.” She shook her head and muttered in amusement, “No, people need to be taxed.” This despite not two minutes earlier explaining how she was optimizing her tax status, which no doubt she would have optimized all the way to zero or if she were able! . . . Taxes are necessary, it’s assumed, to pay for things individuals won’t. “Who will build the roads?” they wonder. I would imagine car makers would be invested in building roads, those who ship goods via truck might have an interest and consumers, flush with their new zero percent tax rate, might pay a little more for the end products to facilitate road creation so those products get to them on time and in good condition. In fact, it might be *more* expensive to ship them via horseback or whatever alternate form of transport would take the place of motor vehicles should no one shell out for roads. Moreover, people seem to believe taxes should always be taken not from them, but from those rich enough to afford them painlessly. Never mind anyone reading this substack is vastly wealthy compared to much of the third world (how painful can taxes be so long as you have food on the table and a roof over your head?), and never mind no one ever voluntarily pays more tax than he owes. Why not? If taxation is a good thing, why not do *more* good by overpaying? But no, it’s always someone else who needs to be forced under penalty of law, i.e., threat of violence, to give up his property for what those in authority deem “the greater good”. Taken to its logical conclusion, if the authorities deem anyone sufficiently wealthy and the greater good sufficiently necessary, they can legally take that wealth by force. We can quibble about how much funding is necessary and what is the “greater good,” but it’s often essential things like the “safe and effective” vaccine without which millions would surely die or the necessity of invading Iraq, which cost $6 trillion to prevent Sadaam Hussein’s “weapons of mass destruction” from reaching US soil. It’s amazing authorities so often discover urgent projects without which people will die or suffer terribly, on account of which it’s necessary to commandeer money you’ve earned or saved! And while I am taking about the indignity of filing *income* tax, I don’t mean to leave out property tax, sales tax, estate tax, individual state and city taxes and the like. At least with some of those you have a fixed amount to pay, and you don’t have to submit to an on-camera self-administered anal cavity search of your finances in those cases. You’d also think given how many ways citizens are taxed that roads would be in tip top condition, our water and environment would be clean, our airports modern and state of the art, our health care affordable and accessible, but of course none of that is the case. Again per Dostoyevsky — we have betrayed ourselves for nothing. . . . The irony of this essay/diatribe is I will file my taxes like the cuck I am over the next week or so. I don’t want to do this, but it’s simply not worth the consequences for non-compliance. And I feel bad about making this compromise — bad about myself because I am doing something I feel is wrong for convenience, the same kind of calculation people made when they injected themselves with experimental mRNA chemicals they didn’t want to keep their jobs or travel. I like to think of myself as resolute and uncompromising, but in this instance I roll over every year. Perhaps that’s part of why I dread it so much. . . . I’ll end with a footnote of sorts. In the late spring of 2023, I discovered I was due a significant refund, and I paid my accountants who figured this out $400 to re-file for me. They told me I could expect it to take up to nine months to process, so I largely forgot about it until spring of 2024 when I called but got phone-treed to death and waited until September to brute-force my way to a human in another department to explain the situation. They didn’t tell me anything, but agreed to do a “trace” which a couple weeks later revealed someone else had intercepted and cashed my check. (It’s not direct deposit because I’m overseas.) I immediately returned the form proving it was not my signature on the deposited check, and now, five months later, in February of 2025, they are still processing my purported payment which I have yet to receive. I did, however, receive a notice of the interest I was “paid” for 2024 on which I’m expected to be taxed. That interest went to the person who stole my original check obviously, they know this, and yet it apparently hasn’t caught up in the system. And the truth is I will probably pay the tax on it as the hassle of explaining why I’m not is simply not worth it, and I will sort it out on next year’s tax return, assuming Trump hasn’t abolished the IRS entirely, God willing, and delivered us, in small part, from this abject dystopia.

@ 9dd283b1:cf9b6beb

It looks like we will have some extra free days at school during the time of BTC Prague, and I was considering going to Prague for a weekend getaway. I'm wondering if it's worthwhile to visit the event with kids (9 and 3) and whether it makes sense to get the Bitcoin Expo ticket (https://btcprague.com/#). Has anyone attended this event with kids in previous years? Any insights or experiences would be appreciated! originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/890517

@ ef1744f8:96fbc3fe

nbLMR1mnOXQh3UKyZC9geb2ud9eiAa+/4I9ULd+/4RVrGMtnt5pLwVoXvCYdMzy9k+iMZCppAl11nN968fpe4GYzXp++1y2ZutCryZts8ba/3JgNHa+P8P6RLFYWkYS3ctiu96l+QkNyaTpj4a41h2ojJPE+ew+MnJsjz16pZVSAZwjTO+GqWhj8TqcQ35U7QlLNmOGWLqVJkIyYgVcJkdltMK/yalUoaqulw3ptbYRNEl8YdUZBfDA4OBKKpJMP?iv=l8w0dQixkFrdoCxmvwB2xQ==

@ 1c1b8e48:0e4de5df

Mit "Bunker-Identität"\ \- Bilder lassen sich nicht auf Mediaserver uploaden\ \- Vorschau und Bearbeitung nicht möglich -> unpraktisch\ \- Veröffentlichung nicht möglich -> korrekt Paradox\ \- Ansicht und Bearbeitung mit dem Profil <rohe@nostr.band> möglich \ \- in Entwürfen von roland\@pareto.space nicht sichtbar -> Fehler Resümee: Ziel mit dem gewählten Setting verfehlt

@ 16d11430:61640947

The AI Landscape is About to Change—Forever. Forget everything you know about artificial intelligence. The reign of Large Language Models (LLMs) is coming to an end. The next tectonic shift in AI isn't just about bigger neural networks or more training data. It’s about an entirely new foundation—one that shatters the limits of probabilistic machine learning and ushers in the era of Elliptical AI. This isn’t just an improvement. This is the AI singularity you've been waiting for. --- The Problem with LLMs: A House Built on Sand LLMs like GPT, Claude, and Gemini have taken the world by storm, but let’s be honest—they are flawed. Their intelligence is statistical mimicry rather than true reasoning. They: Hallucinate facts and generate nonsense. Consume absurd amounts of energy for marginal improvements. Are vulnerable to adversarial attacks, leaking sensitive data with ease. Lack true reasoning abilities, blindly regurgitating patterns rather than engaging in structured logic. LLMs pretend to understand. They pretend to think. But intelligence built on probability alone is fundamentally weak. This is where Elliptical AI steps in to end the era of LLM dominance. --- What is Elliptical AI? The Birth of the Next Evolution in Intelligence Imagine an AI that isn’t just predicting words but reasoning geometrically—one that encodes intelligence using elliptic curves instead of bloated statistical models. Elliptical AI harnesses the power of elliptic curve mathematics, which has been dominating cryptography and quantum security for years. But now, this mathematical powerhouse is ready to redefine AI itself. How Elliptical AI Works 1. Beyond Probabilities—Into Pure Geometry Instead of mapping words to probabilities, Elliptical AI maps thought patterns into elliptic curve structures. This enables structured, deterministic reasoning, not just blind pattern recognition. 2. High-Efficiency Intelligence Elliptic curves are the foundation of modern cryptography because they compress vast amounts of data into small, ultra-secure representations. Instead of needing trillions of parameters like LLMs, Elliptical AI could represent entire knowledge domains with extreme efficiency. 3. Quantum-Resistant AI That Cannot Be Hacked Today’s AI models can be easily manipulated, but Elliptical AI integrates quantum-secure cryptographic principles. Impossible to hack, impossible to corrupt—this is the ultimate secure AI. 4. Mathematical Superintelligence LLMs struggle with math. Why? Because math isn’t just statistical—it’s structured logic. Elliptical AI is built on the same mathematical foundations that structure encryption, physics, and even the fabric of space-time. Expect an AI that doesn’t just “approximate” answers—it deduces them. --- Elliptical AI vs. LLMs: A Destruction-Level Event This isn’t just an upgrade. This is an AI extinction-level event. --- Where Elliptical AI Will Dominate First 1. Military-Grade AI Security No more LLMs leaking sensitive data. Quantum-proof intelligence agents that cannot be backdoored. Military systems that think faster, act decisively, and remain 100% secure. 2. Financial and Algorithmic Trading LLMs hallucinate too much to handle high-risk finance. Elliptical AI’s ultra-efficient encryption-based intelligence can execute perfect trades with zero data leakage. 3. Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCI) & Neural Cryptography Instead of reading neural signals as raw data, Elliptical AI can encode thought patterns into elliptic curves. A literal mind-machine fusion—where security, efficiency, and intelligence align. 4. Decentralized AI Networks LLMs require Google, OpenAI, or Microsoft servers. Elliptical AI can run securely on decentralized nodes, protected by its own cryptographic intelligence. No censorship. No control. Just pure, free AI. 5. The New Era of Scientific Discovery From quantum physics to mathematical proofs, Elliptical AI isn’t just a chatbot—it’s a reasoning engine. Expect AI to make scientific breakthroughs, not just summarize Wikipedia. --- The AI Wars Are Coming—And Elliptical AI Will Win The current AI market is built on fragile foundations. LLMs have served their purpose, but they are a dead end. Elliptical AI isn’t just the next step—it’s the AI that will make everything else obsolete. 🔹 No more hallucinations. 🔹 No more data leaks. 🔹 No more inefficient, bloated models. 🔹 Just pure, geometric intelligence—unbreakable, unhackable, unstoppable. The future doesn’t belong to language models. It belongs to elliptic curves, quantum intelligence, and secure, deterministic reasoning. Welcome to the Elliptical AI revolution. Are you ready for what comes next?

@ b97f07c7:a9ddca71

ชาว Android Developer หลายคนอาจจะเคยมางาน Android Bangkok 2025 แล้วได้ฟัง session พี่เอก ที่ชื่อว่า [“Why App Signing Matters for Your Android Apps”](https://www.mikkipastel.com/android-bangkok-conference-2024/#why-app-signing-matters-for-your-android-apps-somkiat-khitwongwattana-%E2%80%93-gde-android) แล้วอยากตรวจ APK Signature Scheme ของแอพเราเองบ้าง จริง ๆ มันตรวจง่ายมาก ๆ เลย ทุกคนทำตามได้แน่นอน  ก่อนอื่นขออธิบาย APK Signature Scheme กันก่อน มันคือ script การยืนยันตัวตน และ code ข้างในยังเป็นเหมือนเดิม แบ่งจากการทำ signing - v1 scheme: รองรับ Android ทุก version และรองรับแค่ java code แต่ไม่ครอบคลุม resource เพราะว่าถ้า resource เปลี่ยน แต่ signature เหมือนเดิม ดังนั้นไม่แนะนำให้ใช้ เนื่องจากเรื่องความปลอดภัย และ performance → APK Signature Scheme v1 - v2+ Scheme: ครอบคลุมทุกไฟล์ เป็นการแทรก APK Signing block เข้าไป → APK Signature Scheme v2, v3, v3.1, v4 วิธีการตรวจแบบง่ายมาก ๆ แบบไม่ต้องไปลงอะไรเพิ่ม คือใช้ apksigner เป็นหนึ่งใน Android SDK command line tool ที่มีมาตั้งแต่ version 24.0.3 ที่เอาไว้ sign apk, ตรวจสอบ apk ของเรา รวมไปถึง rotate key ด้วย ในที่นี้เราใช้ verify command เพื่อดูรายละเอียด apk ของเรากัน หน้าตาตัว command เป็นแบบนี้ ``` apksigner version [option] app-name.apk ``` ก่อนอื่น หา path ของเจ้า apksigner ซึ่งทางเราใช้ macbook ดังนั้นมันจะไปอยู่ path หน้าตาแบบนี้ ``` /Users/{username}/Library/Android/sdk/build-tools/{version}/apksigner ``` เอาเจ้า path นี้ไปแทนที่ apksigner ทำให้เราเรียกตัว cmd นี้จากที่ไหนก็ได้ อย่างทำงานที่บ้าน เอ้ยไม่ใช่ อย่างเราเปิดหน้า terminal บน Android Studio ก็แปะอันนี้ได้เลย ไม่ต้องไปที่ path ที่อยู่ของ apksigner โดยตรง จากนั้นเตรียมไฟล์ apk ที่เป็น build release มานะ ไม่งั้นมันจะ check ไม่ได้เน้อ ต่อมามาใช้คำสั่งนี้กัน ``` apksigner verify --print-certs -v app-name.apk ``` อธิบายแต่ละ option กันก่อนเลย - --print-certs: บอกข้อมูลพวก certificate, algorithm ในการ sign และ public key - -v: แอพเราตอนนี้ signing signature scheme version อะไร ไม่ยากเลยใช่ไหม ถ้าเพื่อน ๆ ไม่อยากใช้ v1 แล้ว อยากใช้อันอื่น สามารถใส่ประมาณนี้ที่ build.gradle ที่ module app ``` android { ... signingConfigs { release { v1SigningEnabled false enableV2Signing true enableV3Signing true enableV4Signing true } } } ``` หวังว่าจะเป็นประโยชน์กับชาว #siamstr น้า

@ bc575705:dba3ed39

Producing a lo-fi song is more than just creating a track—it's about capturing a feeling, an atmosphere, and a sense of intimacy. The genre thrives on imperfections, turning what many would consider "mistakes" into features that define its charm. Here's a walkthrough of the my process behind producing a lo-fi song, from concept to completion. ## **1. Finding Inspiration** Every lo-fi song starts with a spark of inspiration. Maybe it’s a rainy afternoon, the hum of a café, or a nostalgic memory. The beauty of lo-fi is its ability to evoke emotion through simplicity. Spend time exploring what inspires you. Whether it’s flipping through old vinyl records, listening to ambient sounds, or experimenting with random chord progressions, let the mood guide you. Keep a small notebook or use your phone to jot down ideas when inspiration strikes. Even a single phrase or melody can set the tone for your track. ## **2. Crafting the Melodic Foundation** Lo-fi often relies on mellow, jazzy chords as its backbone. Start by experimenting with chord progressions on a keyboard or guitar. Aim for something soulful and repetitive to create a meditative loop. Use minor seventh and ninth chords for a jazzy, emotional feel. Add small variations to keep the progression dynamic without overcomplicating it. Once you’ve found your chords, layer them with a simple melody. This can be a gentle piano riff, a soft guitar line, or even a sampled piece from an old record. The goal is to create something warm and inviting. ## **3. Adding Texture with Samples** Samples are a cornerstone of lo-fi music, adding depth and character to your track. You can source them from: Vinyl records: Chop up obscure jazz, soul, or classical pieces. Field recordings: Capture ambient sounds like raindrops, birds chirping, or city noise. Foley effects: Use tools to mimic environmental sounds for unique textures. Once you’ve selected a sample, chop it, stretch it, or pitch it down to fit the vibe of your track. Don’t aim for perfection—lo-fi thrives on the organic, raw feel of imperfect loops. Add vinyl crackle, tape hiss, or white noise to emulate the warm analog feel lo-fi is known for. ## **4. Building the Rhythm** Lo-fi beats are typically laid-back, with loose timing and minimal percussion. Start with a simple drum loop and build from there: Use a soft kick drum and snappy snare for a subtle groove. Add off-beat hi-hats to create a swing or shuffle feel. Experiment with percussive sounds like snaps, claps, or even everyday objects like tapping on a desk. Quantization isn’t necessary here; slightly off-grid drum hits give the track a human touch. Remember, the rhythm should feel organic and complement the song’s relaxed atmosphere. ## **5. Layering Ambient Elements** Ambient layers are what give lo-fi its dreamlike quality. These elements are subtle but essential in creating depth. Consider adding: Reverb and delay for a washed-out, atmospheric feel. Pads or drones to fill out the soundscape. Background noises like distant conversations, train sounds, or static to create a sense of place. These layers should sit low in the mix, providing texture without overpowering the melody or rhythm. ## **6. Experimenting with Effects** Lo-fi tracks often feature unique effects that add warmth and character. Some key tools include: Low-pass filters: Roll off the high frequencies to create a softer, vintage feel. Tape saturation: Mimic the sound of old cassette tapes for that warm, analog distortion. Sidechain compression: Sync subtle volume dips to your kick drum for a "breathing" effect. Pitch wobble: Add slight detuning or modulation to emulate the instability of old record players. The idea is to create imperfections that feel intentional, adding to the nostalgic vibe. ## **7. Arranging the Track** Lo-fi tracks often follow simple structures, emphasizing loops and gradual evolution over dramatic changes. A typical arrangement might include: Intro: Start with ambient sounds or the main chord progression to set the mood. Verse/Loop: Introduce the beat and melody, keeping it minimal. Bridge: Add a subtle variation, such as a new instrument or slight chord change. Outro: Strip the arrangement back to its core elements for a gentle fade-out. Keep transitions smooth and avoid abrupt changes. The goal is to maintain a consistent, calming flow. ## **8. Mixing and Mastering** Lo-fi’s charm lies in its rawness, so mixing doesn’t need to be overly polished. Focus on creating a cohesive sound: Balance the levels so no element overpowers the others. Use EQ to carve space for each instrument while keeping the mix warm and cozy. Apply reverb and delay sparingly to avoid muddying the mix. For mastering, aim for a quieter, softer output—lo-fi doesn’t need to compete with loud pop tracks. ## **9. Adding Visuals and Atmosphere** Once your track is complete, consider how it will be experienced. Many lo-fi producers pair their music with relaxing visuals, like animated loops of cozy settings or abstract imagery. These visuals enhance the mood and make your track more engaging on platforms like YouTube or Instagram. ## **10. Sharing Your Work** The lo-fi community thrives on collaboration and sharing. Post your track on platforms like SoundCloud, Bandcamp, or YouTube. Engage with listeners and fellow producers by explaining your creative process and the story behind your song. Don’t shy away from feedback—it’s an essential part of growth as an artist. ## **Final Thoughts** Producing a lo-fi song is less about technical precision and more about emotional connection. The beauty of the genre lies in its imperfections, its ability to evoke nostalgia, and its calming presence in a chaotic world. So, embrace the process, let go of perfectionism, and create something that feels authentically you. Who knows? Your next lo-fi track might be the soundtrack to someone’s quiet, reflective moment.

@ 6734e11d:c7e34e8f

Ich weiß, "Ratschläge sind auch Schläge", wird wohl Eric Berne 1961 zugesprochen, aber manchmal muss ein liebevoller, empathischer und hilfreicher Hinweis nach dem Schlag mit dem Vorschlaghammer erlaubt sein. Das Meme ist leider nicht meine Idee sondern geklaut von Schwurbeloase, einem Kanal der echten Mitte, Echtrechte würden ihn wohl als rrrächts markieren. <https://t.me/schwurbel_oase/2314>

@ d4309e24:8a81fcb0

## Introduction: The Challenge of Time-Lock Encryption and Clock Servers When I first set out to build **Hatchstr**, the idea was simple: create a way to send messages into the future, encrypted and locked to a specific Bitcoin block height. These messages would remain encrypted until the chosen block height was reached, creating a unique way to send a message to the future. However, as I began working through the details, I quickly ran into some challenges. One key component of this system involves **clock servers**—decentralized nodes responsible for releasing decryption keys when the specified block height is reached. ### Clock Server Setup: The Basics Initially, I adopted a simple model: each clock server holds a single public-private key pair *unique to that server* for a specific block height. When a user creates a message, they choose a clock server to trust and encrypt with the specific public key tied to that block height. Then, when the time comes, the clock server releases its private key to decrypt the message.  #### Positives: - ✅ **Clean and Efficient Storage**: Each clock server only needs to store a single key pair for each block height, making storage lightweight and scalable. - ✅ **Lazy Key Generation**: Keys are generated on-demand, meaning they’re only created when needed. This prevents unnecessary key generation or storage overhead. - ✅ **Decentralized**: The clock servers don’t need to coordinate with each other or store any sensitive data besides their respective private keys, which simplifies the system architecture. - ✅ **Limited Release Events**: Since each clock server only handles keys tied to a specific block height, the number of release events required is minimized, simplifying the key management process. At first, this seemed like a good approach, but I quickly realized there were **critical limitations**: #### Challenges: - ❌ **Server Shutdown**: Capsules could be scheduled for many years in the future. If a clock server shuts down, all future capsules linked to it are lost. - ❌ **Server Downtime**: If one of the clock servers is unavailable during unlock time, even for a short period, it leads to a delay for the users waiting for unlock. - ❌ **Premature Release**: If a clock server accidentally releases its key too early, it could compromise the message, making it accessible before the intended time. Though the setup worked for a basic system, I soon realized it couldn’t guarantee the reliability I wanted for a decentralized application. ## Tackling the Challenges of Multi-Sig and Secret Sharing When I first approached the problem of securing time-lock capsules, I initially considered using multi-signature (multi-sig) solutions as a potential approach. The goal was simple: instead of relying on a single clock server to release its key, I could involve multiple servers to sign off on the decryption. This way, if one server failed or misbehaved, the message would still be protected. However, as I delved deeper into the multi-sig approach, I quickly realized there were a few key issues: 🔒 **Communication Overhead**: Multi-sig requires servers to communicate and coordinate with each other. This introduces the possibility of new failure points, like network issues or miscommunication. ⚡ **Server Synchronization**: If one server was out of sync or released its key too early, it could still lead to the message being decrypted prematurely, breaking the system. 🛠 **Increased Complexity**: Each server would need to store and manage a unique key pair for every message, making the system more complicated and less efficient. I quickly realized that multi-sig wasn’t the best fit for this kind of setup. Not only did it add unnecessary complexity, but it also conflicted with the decentralization goals I wanted to achieve. So, I started thinking about ways to **distribute the secret** across the clock servers without introducing all these new complications. ### Enter Shamir’s Secret Sharing (SSS) Shamir's Secret Sharing (SSS) is a cryptographic technique designed to split a secret into multiple parts (called "shares") so that the secret can only be reconstructed when a specific minimum number of shares are combined. This process is based on polynomial interpolation, and it’s a powerful way to distribute secrets securely. #### The Basic Concept In SSS, a secret (like a cryptographic key or message) is divided into *n* shares, where *n* is the total number of shares you want to generate. You also specify a threshold, *k*, which represents the minimum number of shares required to reconstruct the original secret. - **n** is the total number of shares. - **k** is the minimum number of shares required to reconstruct the secret (known as the "threshold"). For example, in a **3-out-of-5** scheme, the secret is split into 5 shares, but at least 3 shares are required to reconstruct the secret. If fewer than 3 shares are available, the secret cannot be reconstructed. #### Why This is Secure Shamir’s Secret Sharing is secure because, with fewer than *k* shares, it is computationally infeasible to learn anything about the secret. The shares themselves don’t reveal any information; it’s only the combination of the right number of shares that allows reconstruction. This makes it resistant to attacks, as even if an attacker gets hold of some shares, they won’t be able to reconstruct the secret unless they have the required minimum number of shares (comparable to 256-bit cryptographic strength). #### Applications of Shamir’s Secret Sharing Shamir’s Secret Sharing is widely used in scenarios where high availability and reliability are needed, but security and privacy are equally important. Examples include: - **Key management**: Protecting encryption keys by distributing them across multiple parties. - **Multi-signature setups**: Requiring multiple parties to sign off on a transaction or access a secure system. - **Distributed systems**: Ensuring that no single party holds a complete secret, and multiple parties must collaborate to unlock it. By leveraging Shamir's Secret Sharing, you can strike the right balance between **redundancy**, **security**, and **availability** for your system’s sensitive information. ### The Problem with Distributing Secret Shares SSS could give us exactly the properties I was looking for, with the added benefit that users could choose their preferred setup, for example: - **1-out-of-5 scheme**: Prioritizing the likelihood that the message is decrypted even if only one of the 5 chosen clock servers does its job at unlock time. With the tradeoff that each of the 5 could leak the message early. - **3-out-of-5 scheme**: A measured approach that allows for 2 servers to stop working and would also keep the capsule private even if 2 clock servers leak their secret early. So I considered an approach where each clock server would store part of the key. Instead of a single server holding the full key, I would split the key into parts and distribute those parts across multiple servers. When the time arrived, I’d gather the required number of shares to reconstruct the key and decrypt the message. At first glance, this seemed like a promising approach. But when we look through the implications, a few problems started to emerge: 💥 **Overhead**: Each clock server would need to store a share of every key for every message. This would quickly become inefficient and result in unnecessary overhead. 🔔 **Exploding Reveal Events**: Since each clock server would need to release all its shares at a specific time, there would be a massive increase in the number of reveal events, spamming and possibly overloading Nostr relays. While the idea of distributing the key was very appealing, the practical issues around overhead and complexity made it clear that this wasn’t the final solution. I needed something that would be more efficient, scalable, while still in line with the decentralized model I was aiming for. ### Discovering a Hybrid Solution After testing out various approaches, I realized that the breakthrough wasn’t just about Shamir’s Secret Sharing (SSS)—that part was fairly intuitive. The real insight came when I thought about how to preserve the original clock server design while solving the challenges of failover and early release. Instead of having the clock servers store the secret or a share of it, **I kept the original design**: each clock server only holds a public-private key pair tied to a block height, as initially planned. The twist came when I decided to split an ephemeral AES key into shards using Shamir’s Secret Sharing, but instead of directly storing shares at the clock servers, we could encrypted each share with the public key of the clock server. This approach would allow us to keep the clock server’s role simple: When the time comes, the servers release their private keys, which can then be used to decrypt the encrypted shares of the AES key that were published alongside the original encrypted message. These shares, once decrypted, allow for the reconstruction of the AES key, which in turn decrypts the message. This solution solved several key issues: - ✅ **No Coordination Between Servers**: Each clock server only holds one key pair for a specific block height and doesn’t need to know about the other servers. This simplifies the system and removes the need for complex server coordination. - ✅ **Minimal Overhead**: The clock servers only store a single key pair per block height, eliminating the need to store individual keys for each message. - ✅ **Fault Tolerance**: If one clock server is offline, the other shares can still reconstruct the AES key and decrypt the message, ensuring reliability. - ✅ **Client-Side Security**: The AES key is generated on the client side and never stored on the clock servers, providing a high level of security. By combining the simplicity of the clock server model with the power of Shamir’s Secret Sharing, this hybrid solution allows us to securely split an AES key and manage decryption while ensuring the system remains decentralized, resilient, and efficient. This was the method I had been searching for. ### The Process Breakdown 1. **AES Key Generation**: - A **random AES key** is generated on the **client side** for each message. This key is **never stored** anywhere, ensuring that it remains secure and only used for encrypting the message. 2. **Shamir’s Secret Sharing**: - The AES key is split into (in this example) **3 shares** using Shamir’s Secret Sharing. These shares are associated with **3 independent clock servers**. - The threshold of **2 out of 3** means that only **2 clock servers** needed later to reconstruct the AES key and decrypt the message. 3. **Encrypting with Public Keys**: - The secret shares are then **encrypted** using the **public keys** of the target block height for each specific clock server. This ensures that the shares are secure until the proper time comes. 4. **Storage**: - The **encrypted shares** together with the **AES-encrypted message** can be published to Nostr relais or stored on a decentralized platform like **IPFS**, which provides redundancy and availability. 5. **Clock Servers Release Keys**: - When the specified **Bitcoin block height** is reached, each clock server publishes its **private key** to Nostr, allowing everyone to decrypt the shares. - The client reconstructs the AES key from the decrypted shares and finally decrypts the original message.  ## Conclusion: An Elegant Solution to Time-Lock Encryption Through a series of experiments and iterations, We finally landed on a solution that balances **security**, **scalability**, and **efficiency**. By combining **AES encryption** with **Shamir’s Secret Sharing**, We were able to solve the multi-sig failover problem without adding unnecessary complexity. 🔥 ### An Open Question: Clock Server Incentives 💰 Decentralized systems thrive when participants are motivated to contribute. For Hatchstr, a critical question remains: Why would anyone run a clock server? One possibility is allowing users to **zap** (tip) servers for each capsule they help unlock. But this is just a starting point—how do we ensure reliability without centralizing trust? I’d love to hear your thoughts. How would you design incentives for a decentralized network of clock servers? This part is crucial, and I’m excited to explore it with the community. ### What's Next for Hatchstr? 🧩 **Leveraging Nostr**: Let's see how we can integrate the Nostr NIP standards and previous protocol developments into our system to enhance communication and data integrity. 🔮 **Designing a Web App**: We'll explore building a user-friendly web application for creating and managing digital time capsules. Focus will be on enhancing usability, interface design, and user interaction. 🎛️ **Building a Clock Server with Elixir**: We'll delve into developing a simple clock server using Elixir, capitalizing on its strengths in concurrency and real-time processing to support our time-locking mechanisms. Stay tuned as we advance both the user experience and the backend infrastructure of Hatchstr together. If you're interested in following along or contributing to the development, feel free to reach out! [Nostr QR](https://bafybeig6dmqshbd7khcd7qr7ce6inslx4muebtt3bk5m33f4dplsx4et7y.ipfs.w3s.link/nostr_qr.png) ``` npub16scfufrpsqcukjg7ymu4r40h7j4dwqy4pajgz48e6lmnmz5pljcqh678uh ``` Thank you for reading and being part of this journey! 🧡

@ d360efec:14907b5f

**ภาพรวม BTCUSDT (OKX):** Bitcoin (BTCUSDT) ยังคงแสดงความผันผวนและมีความไม่แน่นอนสูง แม้ว่าแนวโน้มระยะยาว (TF Day) จะยังคงเป็นขาขึ้น *แต่ก็อ่อนแรงลงอย่างเห็นได้ชัด* แนวโน้มระยะกลาง (TF 4H) กลายเป็นขาลงระยะสั้น และแนวโน้มระยะสั้น (TF 15m) ก็เป็นขาลงเช่นกัน สถานการณ์ตอนนี้บ่งบอกถึงแรงขายที่แข็งแกร่ง และมีความเสี่ยงสูงที่จะปรับฐานลงต่อ **วิเคราะห์ทีละ Timeframe:** **(1) TF Day (รายวัน):** [https://www.tradingview.com/x/wfDqxmvG/] * **แนวโน้ม:** ขาขึ้น (Uptrend) *อ่อนแรงลงอย่างมาก* * **SMC:** * Higher Highs (HH) และ Higher Lows (HL) *เริ่มไม่ชัดเจน* * Break of Structure (BOS) ด้านบน *แต่มีการปรับฐานที่รุนแรง* * **Liquidity:** * มี Sellside Liquidity (SSL) อยู่ใต้ Lows ก่อนหน้า (บริเวณ 85,000 - 90,000) * มี Buyside Liquidity (BSL) อยู่เหนือ High เดิม * **ICT:** * **Order Block:** ราคาหลุด Order Block ขาขึ้น (บริเวณแท่งเทียนสีเขียวก่อนหน้านี้) *สัญญาณลบ* * **EMA:** * ราคา *หลุด* EMA 50 (สีเหลือง) ลงมาแล้ว * EMA 200 (สีขาว) เป็นแนวรับถัดไป * **Money Flow (LuxAlgo):** * *สีแดงยาว* แสดงถึงแรงขายที่แข็งแกร่ง * **Trend Strength (AlgoAlpha):** * สีแดง แสดงถึงแนวโน้มขาลง * **Volume Profile:** Volume ค่อนข้างเบาบาง * **แท่งเทียน:** แท่งเทียนล่าสุดเป็นสีแดง แสดงถึงแรงขาย * **แนวรับ:** EMA 200, บริเวณ 85,000 - 90,000 (SSL) * **แนวต้าน:** EMA 50, High เดิม * **สรุป:** แนวโน้มขาขึ้นอ่อนแรงลงอย่างมาก, ราคาหลุด EMA 50 และ Order Block, Money Flow และ Trend Strength เป็นลบ **(2) TF4H (4 ชั่วโมง):** [https://www.tradingview.com/x/WCWYkleo/] * **แนวโน้ม:** ขาลง (Downtrend) * **SMC:** * Lower Highs (LH) และ Lower Lows (LL) * Break of Structure (BOS) ด้านล่าง * **Liquidity:** * มี SSL อยู่ใต้ Lows ก่อนหน้า * มี BSL อยู่เหนือ Highs ก่อนหน้า * **ICT:** * **Order Block:** ราคาไม่สามารถผ่าน Order Block ขาลงได้ * **EMA:** * ราคาอยู่ใต้ EMA 50 และ EMA 200 * **Money Flow (LuxAlgo):** * สีแดง แสดงถึงแรงขาย * **Trend Strength (AlgoAlpha):** * สีแดง แสดงถึงแนวโน้มขาลง * **Volume Profile:** Volume ค่อนข้างนิ่ง * **แนวรับ:** บริเวณ Low ล่าสุด * **แนวต้าน:** EMA 50, EMA 200, บริเวณ Order Block * **สรุป:** แนวโน้มขาลงชัดเจน, แรงขายมีอิทธิพล **(3) TF15 (15 นาที):** [https://www.tradingview.com/x/HsgVKFW2/] * **แนวโน้ม:** ขาลง (Downtrend) * **SMC:** * Lower Highs (LH) และ Lower Lows (LL) * Break of Structure (BOS) ด้านล่าง * **ICT:** * **Order Block** ราคาไม่สามารถผ่าน Order Block ได้ * **EMA:** * EMA 50 และ EMA 200 เป็นแนวต้าน * **Money Flow (LuxAlgo):** * สีแดง แสดงถึงแรงขาย * **Trend Strength (AlgoAlpha):** * สีแดง แสดงถึงแนวโน้มขาลง * **Volume Profile:** Volume ค่อนข้างเบาบาง * **แนวรับ:** บริเวณ Low ล่าสุด * **แนวต้าน:** EMA 50, EMA 200, Order Block * **สรุป:** แนวโน้มขาลง, แรงขายมีอิทธิพล **สรุปภาพรวมและกลยุทธ์ (BTCUSDT):** * **แนวโน้มหลัก (Day):** ขาขึ้น (อ่อนแรง), *หลุด Order Block* * **แนวโน้มรอง (4H):** ขาลง * **แนวโน้มระยะสั้น (15m):** ขาลง * **Liquidity:** มี SSL ทั้งใน Day, 4H, และ 15m * **Money Flow:** เป็นลบในทุก Timeframes * **Trend Strength:** 4H, 15m เป็นขาลง * **กลยุทธ์:** 1. **Wait & See (ดีที่สุด):** รอความชัดเจน 2. **Short (เสี่ยง):** ถ้าไม่สามารถ Breakout EMA/แนวต้านใน TF ใดๆ ได้ 3. **ไม่แนะนำให้ Buy:** จนกว่าจะมีสัญญาณกลับตัวที่ชัดเจน **คำแนะนำ:** * **ความขัดแย้งของ Timeframes:** Day ยังเป็นขาขึ้น (แต่สัญญาณอ่อน), 4H และ 15m เป็นขาลง * **Money Flow:** เป็นลบในทุก Timeframes * **ระวัง SSL:** Smart Money อาจจะลากราคาลงไปกิน Stop Loss * **ถ้าไม่แน่ใจ อย่าเพิ่งเข้าเทรด** **Day Trade & การเทรดรายวัน:** * **Day Trade (TF15):** * **Short Bias:** หาจังหวะ Short เมื่อราคาเด้งขึ้นไปทดสอบแนวต้าน (EMA, Order Block) * **Stop Loss:** เหนือแนวต้านที่เข้า Short * **Take Profit:** แนวรับถัดไป (Low ล่าสุด) * **ไม่แนะนำให้ Long** จนกว่าจะมีสัญญาณกลับตัวที่ชัดเจน * **Swing Trade (TF4H):** * **Short Bias:** รอจังหวะ Short เมื่อราคาไม่สามารถผ่านแนวต้าน EMA หรือ Order Block ได้ * **Stop Loss:** เหนือแนวต้านที่เข้า Short * **Take Profit:** แนวรับถัดไป (EMA 200 ใน TF Day, SSL) * **ไม่แนะนำให้ Long** จนกว่าจะมีสัญญาณกลับตัวที่ชัดเจน **สิ่งที่ต้องระวัง:** * **Sellside Liquidity (SSL):** มีโอกาสสูงที่ราคาจะถูกลากลงไปแตะ SSL ก่อนที่จะมีการกลับตัว (ถ้ามี) * **False Breakouts:** ระวังการ Breakout หลอกทั้งใน TF15 และ TF4H * **Volatility:** ตลาดคริปโตฯ มีความผันผวนสูง เตรียมพร้อมรับมือกับการเปลี่ยนแปลงของราคาอย่างรวดเร็ว **Disclaimer:** การวิเคราะห์นี้เป็นเพียงความคิดเห็นส่วนตัว ไม่ถือเป็นคำแนะนำในการลงทุน ผู้ลงทุนควรศึกษาข้อมูลเพิ่มเติมและตัดสินใจด้วยความรอบคอบ

@ e83b66a8:b0526c2b

In the UK, as Bitcoin on-ramps become throttled more and more by government interference, ironically more and more off-ramps are becoming available. So here, as Bitcoin starts its bull run and many people will be spending or taking profits within the next year or so, I am going to summarise my experience with off ramps. N.B. many of these off-ramps are also on-ramps, but I’m primarily focusing on spending Bitcoin. Revolut: At last in the UK, Revolut is a “probation” full bank and so now has most of the fiat guarantees that other legacy banks have. Apart from its excellent multi-currency account services for fiat, meaning you can spend native currencies in many countries, Revolut have for some time allowed you to buy a selection of Crypto currencies including Bitcoin. You can send those coins to self custody wallets, or keep them on Revolut and either sell or spend on specific DeFi cards which can be added to platforms like Apple Pay. Fees, as you would expect are relatively high, but it is a very good, seamless service. Uphold: This was an exchange I was automatically signed up to by using the “Brave Browser” and earning BAT tokens for watching adds. I have however found the built in virtual debit card, which I’ve added to Apple Pay useful for shedding my shitcoins by cashing them in and spending GBP in the real world, buying day to day stuff. Xapo Bank: I signed up about a year ago to the first “Bitcoin Bank” founded by Wences Casares a very early Bitcoiner. They are based in Gibraltar and offer a USD, Tether and Bitcoin banking service which allows you to deposit GBP or spend GBP, but converts everything into either USD or BTC. You have a full UK bank account number and sort code, but everything received in it is converted to USD on the fly. They also support Lightning and they have integrated LightSparks UMA Universal Money Addressing protocol explained here: https://www.lightspark.com/uma When I signed up the fees were $150 per annum, but they have since increased them to $1,000 per annum for new users. I have yet to use the bank account or debit card in any earnest, but it will be my main spending facility when I take profits Strike: Strike it really focused on cross border payments and sending fiat money around the world for little to no cost using Bitcoin as the transmission rails. You need to KYC to sign up, but you then get, in the UK at least, a nominee bank account in your name, a Lightning and Bitcoin wallet address and the ability to send payments immediately to any other Strike user by name, or any Bitcoin or Lightning address. In the U.S. they have also recently launched a bill pay service, using your Strike account to pay your regular household bills using either fiat or Bitcoin. Coinbase: Back in 2017, I signed up for a Coinbase debit card and was spending Sats in daily life with it automatically converting Sats to GBP on the fly. I let it lapse in 2021 and haven’t bothered to replace it. I believe it is still option to consider. Crypto.com I have a debit card which I cannot add to Apple Pay, but I have managed to add it to Curve card: https://www.curve.com/en-gb/ which is in turn added to Apple Pay. This allows me to spend any fiat which I have previously cashed from selling coins. I currently have some former exchange coins cashed out which I am gradually spending in the real world as GBP. SwissBorg Has had a troubled past with the FCA, but does currently allow deposits and withdrawals from UK banks, although Barclays have blocked transactions to my own nominee account within SwissBorg on a couple of occasions. They have a debit card option for investors in their platform, which I am not and they intend to make this generally available in the future. SwissBorg are a not an exchange, but more of a comparison site, searching the market for the best prices and activating deals for you across multiple platforms, taking a commission. They have been my main source for buying BTC and when they are not being interfered with by the FCA, they are excellent. You also get a nominee bank account in their platform in your own name.

@ e83b66a8:b0526c2b

I am seeing a groundswell of interest in adopting Bitcoin in small businesses replacing or augmenting existing merchant services. This has many advantages for these businesses including: Attracting Bitcoiners as customers over your competitors. Allowing a self custody payment system which does not require purchasing equipment, monthly service fees and high transaction fees. Self custody your money, removing banks and merchant service companies from taking a cut or interfering in the transaction process. i.e. Bitcoin behaves much more like cash in face to face transactions. Building a Bitcoin Strategic Reserve allowing your profits to accumulate in value over time, just as Bitcoin increases in value due to scarceness and increased adoption. If any or all of these are interesting to you, then here are a scale of merchant options available to you depending on your needs and interests. SOLE TRADER The easiest way for a sole trader to accept Bitcoin is to download the app “Wallet of Satoshi” https://www.walletofsatoshi.com/ or for regions this is not available, use a web equivalent called COINOS https://coinos.io/ This gives everything you’ll need, Bitcoin and Lightning receiving addresses, publishable as text or scannable as a QR code. The ability to generate a specific value invoice using Lightning which can be paid face to face or remotely over the Internet and a wallet to hold your Bitcoin balance. This is a perfect start point, but moving forward it has some drawbacks. It is custodial, meaning that a company actually holds your Bitcoin. Unlike a bank, if that company fails, you loose your Bitcoin. There is also no direct ability to move that Bitcoin to fiat currencies like USD or GBP, so if you need some of those earnings to pay suppliers in fiat currencies, you will struggle to convert. If you are an online only retailer, then the industry standard is BTCPay https://btcpayserver.org/ which can be integrated into most e-commerce systems TRADITIONAL MERCHANT SERVICES So the next option is to use a Bitcoin merchant service company. They look very similar to traditional fiat merchant service companies, they can supply infrastructure like PoS terminals and also handle the payments for you, optionally settling balances to your bank in USD or GBP etc… They charge for the physical devices and their services and they charge a fee on each transaction in the same way traditional merchant service companies do, but usually these fees are significantly smaller. Companies like MUSQET can help setup your business in this way if you wish. https://musqet.tech/ CONSULTANCY The third option is to use a consultancy service like Bridge2Bitcoin https://bridge2bitcoin.com/ this is a company that will come in, explain the concepts and options and build a service around your needs. The company will build the solution you are looking for and make their money by providing the equipment and optionally running the payment solution for you. SELF BUILD If you have experience with Bitcoin and have optionally run your own Lightning node for a while, the tools exist to be able to develop your own solution in-house. And just as Bitcoin allows you to be your own bank, so Lightning allows you to be your own merchant services company. Solutions like Umbrel https://umbrel.com/ running Albyhub https://albyhub.com/ with their POS solution https://pos.albylabs.com/ are a low cost option you can build yourself. If you require devices like PoS terminals, these can be purchased from companies like Swiss Bitcoin Pay: https://swiss-bitcoin-pay.ch/store#!/Bitcoin-Merchant-Kit/p/709060174 as a package or Bitcoinize directly or in volume: https://bitcoinize.com/ There is also the lower cost option of use software loaded onto your staffs iPhone or Android phone to use as a PoS terminal for your business: https://swiss-bitcoin-pay.ch/ Swiss Bitcoin Pay can also take the Bitcoin payment and settle a final amount daily or even convert to fiat and deposit in your bank the next day. If you are comfortable building and running your own server, then software from a company like https://lnbits.com/ is a great option. They have built a core suite of tools, which others have built a huge ecosystem of extensions to handle everything from PoS to accounting to event ticketing and beyond. LNbits is probably the most extensive ecosystem out there for anybody wishing to self build. HYBRID MUSQET also offer a PoS system for both Bitcoin and Fiat. They onboard merchants with traditional card services for Visa, Mastercard and Amex with Apple Pay and Google Pay all within the same device where they deploy Bitcoin Lightning as standard: https://musqet.tech/

@ a95c6243:d345522c

*Die «moralische Weltordnung» – eine Art Astrologie. Friedrich Nietzsche* **Das Treffen der BRICS-Staaten beim [Gipfel](https://transition-news.org/brics-gipfel-in-kasan-warum-schweigt-die-schweiz) im russischen Kasan** war sicher nicht irgendein politisches Event. Gastgeber Wladimir Putin habe «Hof gehalten», sagen die Einen, China und Russland hätten ihre Vorstellung einer multipolaren Weltordnung zelebriert, schreiben Andere. **In jedem Fall zeigt die Anwesenheit von über 30 Delegationen aus der ganzen Welt,** dass von einer geostrategischen Isolation Russlands wohl keine Rede sein kann. Darüber hinaus haben sowohl die Anreise von UN-Generalsekretär António Guterres als auch die Meldungen und Dementis bezüglich der Beitrittsbemühungen des NATO-Staats [Türkei](https://transition-news.org/turkei-entlarvt-fake-news-von-bild-uber-indiens-angebliches-veto-gegen-den) für etwas Aufsehen gesorgt. **Im Spannungsfeld geopolitischer und wirtschaftlicher Umbrüche** zeigt die neue Allianz zunehmendes Selbstbewusstsein. In Sachen gemeinsamer Finanzpolitik schmiedet man interessante Pläne. Größere Unabhängigkeit von der US-dominierten Finanzordnung ist dabei ein wichtiges Ziel. **Beim BRICS-Wirtschaftsforum in Moskau, wenige Tage vor dem Gipfel,** zählte ein nachhaltiges System für Finanzabrechnungen und Zahlungsdienste zu den vorrangigen Themen. Während dieses Treffens ging der russische Staatsfonds eine Partnerschaft mit dem Rechenzentrumsbetreiber BitRiver ein, um [Bitcoin](https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2024/10/23/russia-launches-brics-mining-infrastructure-project/)-Mining-Anlagen für die BRICS-Länder zu errichten. **Die Initiative könnte ein Schritt sein, Bitcoin und andere Kryptowährungen** als Alternativen zu traditionellen Finanzsystemen zu etablieren. Das Projekt könnte dazu führen, dass die BRICS-Staaten den globalen Handel in Bitcoin abwickeln. Vor dem Hintergrund der Diskussionen über eine «BRICS-Währung» wäre dies eine Alternative zu dem ursprünglich angedachten Korb lokaler Währungen und zu goldgedeckten Währungen sowie eine mögliche Ergänzung zum Zahlungssystem [BRICS Pay](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRICS_PAY). **Dient der Bitcoin also der Entdollarisierung?** Oder droht er inzwischen, zum Gegenstand geopolitischer [Machtspielchen](https://legitim.ch/es-ist-ein-sieg-fuer-bitcoin-waehrend-russland-und-die-usa-um-die-krypto-vorherrschaft-kaempfen/) zu werden? Angesichts der globalen Vernetzungen ist es oft schwer zu durchschauen, «was eine Show ist und was im Hintergrund von anderen Strippenziehern insgeheim gesteuert wird». Sicher können Strukturen wie Bitcoin auch so genutzt werden, dass sie den Herrschenden dienlich sind. Aber die Grundeigenschaft des dezentralisierten, unzensierbaren Peer-to-Peer Zahlungsnetzwerks ist ihm schließlich nicht zu nehmen. **Wenn es nach der EZB oder dem IWF geht, dann scheint statt Instrumentalisierung** momentan eher der Kampf gegen Kryptowährungen angesagt. Jürgen Schaaf, Senior Manager bei der Europäischen Zentralbank, hat jedenfalls dazu aufgerufen, [Bitcoin «zu eliminieren»](https://www.btc-echo.de/schlagzeilen/ezb-banker-es-gibt-gute-gruende-bitcoin-zu-eliminieren-194015/). Der Internationale Währungsfonds forderte El Salvador, das Bitcoin 2021 als gesetzliches Zahlungsmittel eingeführt hat, kürzlich zu [begrenzenden Maßnahmen](https://legitim.ch/el-salvador-iwf-fordert-trotz-nicht-eingetretener-risiken-neue-massnahmen-gegen-bitcoin/) gegen das Kryptogeld auf. **Dass die BRICS-Staaten ein freiheitliches Ansinnen im Kopf haben,** wenn sie Kryptowährungen ins Spiel bringen, darf indes auch bezweifelt werden. Im [Abschlussdokument](http://static.kremlin.ru/media/events/files/en/RosOySvLzGaJtmx2wYFv0lN4NSPZploG.pdf) bekennen sich die Gipfel-Teilnehmer ausdrücklich zur UN, ihren Programmen und ihrer «Agenda 2030». Ernst Wolff nennt das «eine [Bankrotterklärung](https://x.com/wolff_ernst/status/1849781982961557771) korrupter Politiker, die sich dem digital-finanziellen Komplex zu 100 Prozent unterwerfen». --- Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf *[Transition News](https://transition-news.org/aufstand-gegen-die-dollar-hegemonie)* erschienen.

@ 04ed2b8f:75be6756

Too many people look at greatness like it belongs to someone else. They see the champions, the innovators, the warriors of history and think, *That’s beyond me. I could never do that.* But why? Are they not made of flesh and blood like you? Do they not breathe the same air? **If another human being has done it, then it’s possible.** And if it’s possible, then what’s stopping you from doing it too? --- ### **Excuses Are for the Weak** People love to convince themselves that others have *something special*—better genetics, more talent, better luck. They use that as an excuse to stay comfortable. - *“I could never be a top athlete, I wasn’t born for it.”* - *“Starting a billion-dollar business? That’s for people who were born rich.”* - *“Mastering a skill like coding, speaking multiple languages, or becoming a leader? I don’t have that kind of brain.”* Bullshit. Every champion, every legend, every revolutionary **started as an ordinary person**—until they chose otherwise. --- ### **Examples of Those Who Refused to Accept Limits** 🔥 **David Goggins**—Once an overweight exterminator. He decided he wanted to be a Navy SEAL. People told him it was impossible. He lost over 100 pounds in three months and endured three Hell Weeks. Now, he’s one of the toughest endurance athletes on the planet. 🔥 **Arnold Schwarzenegger**—Born in a small Austrian town. No connections, no wealth. He became a bodybuilding legend, a Hollywood superstar, and the Governor of California. He *made* it possible. 🔥 **Oprah Winfrey**—Born into poverty, abused as a child, told she wasn’t fit for television. Instead of accepting those limits, she broke them and became one of the most powerful women in media. 🔥 **Elon Musk**—Had no experience building rockets. Yet, when NASA and the world’s top engineers said private space travel was impossible, he ignored them. Now SpaceX is leading space exploration. What do all these people have in common? They **refused to believe that greatness was only for others.** They saw what was humanly possible and decided it was within their reach. --- ### **The Only Barrier Is You** It’s not your background. It’s not your intelligence. It’s not luck. The **only** thing standing between you and what you want is the belief that you can’t do it. 🔥 People run ultra-marathons through the desert. 🔥 People lift cars off their trapped loved ones. 🔥 People break records, survive impossible odds, and push the limits of human ability every single day. **So what’s your excuse?** If it’s been done, **it can be done again.** If someone before you has mastered a skill, built an empire, overcome the odds—**then so can you.** --- ### **Now, the Choice Is Yours** You can stay in the comfort zone, making excuses while others claim the victories. Or you can accept this truth: **Anything humanly possible is within your reach.** The only question is—**will you reach for it?**

@ 044da344:073a8a0e

# 1. Public sphere and inverted totalitarianism The three referents in the title require explanation - just like the thesis that their combination conveys in this article. In short: Like every government, the German one wants to steer and control what is said publicly about it and about reality in the country (cf. Meyen 2018). In the Internet age, this only works by cooperating with digital corporations. This liaison is rooted in the knowledge that one’s own scope of action depends on public approval and public legitimation. “Relations of domination” are today more than ever “relations of definition” (Beck 2017: 129, 132). Power is held by those who succeed in placing their interpretation of reality in the public sphere (cf. Havel 1989: 19). This includes fading out or marginalizing everything that could endanger one’s own position – in Germany at the moment, for example, this relates to debates about social inequality, which has reached an all-time high worldwide (cf. Piketty 2020), mass immigration since 2015, the policies surrounding Corona or Russia. In this country, the interest of federal and state governments in presenting their work in a good light encounters a journalism that is committed to journalistic diversity via state press laws, state treaties and professional ethics (cf. Rager/Weber 1992). This means that journalism should allow everyone to have their say – all topics and all perspectives. Horst Pöttker (2001) has described the production of publicity as a “social mandate”. This “mission” is rooted in the pluralism model: In society, there are many and sometimes conflicting opinions and interests, which are initially on an equal footing (the interests of individuals and outsiders as well as those organized in parties or associations). The struggle for compromise and societal agreement relies on the public sphere: “In principle, no social group, not even an individual, but also no object, no topic, no problem may be excluded from it” (Pöttker 1999: 219f.). Phrased in a different way: In complex, differentiated societies, the public sphere is the “last common place where that which concerns everyone can be negotiated.” And even though “no decisions are made” here, acceptance and “collective validity” are impossible without public preparation and public visibility (Stegemann 2021: 16). Essential to this are mainstream media such as the Tagesschau, the Süddeutsche Zeitung or Der Spiegel, which produce a “second, non-consensual reality” - the collective “memory” of society, which must be assumed in all communication. Only the mainstream media spread information “so widely that in the next moment one must assume that it is known to everyone (or that it would be associated with loss of reputation and is therefore not admitted if it was not known)” (Luhmann 1996: 43, 120f.). We use Mainstream media because we want to know what others think they know (especially those who decide about our lives), and because we need to know the defining power relations in order to survive. Who has succeeded in bringing their issues, their perspectives and, above all, their morals to the big stage, and who has no place on that stage? Consequently, whom should I join if I do not want to be isolated (cf. Noelle-Neumann 1980), and whom do I better avoid? The interest of governments in controlling public communication is inextricably linked to propaganda and censorship. Propaganda is defined in this article with Andreas Elter (2005: 19f.) as all attempts by government agencies to convey “a certain, unambiguously colored view of things \[...] and thus to maneuver the public discussion in the desired direction”. This necessarily includes suppressing, delegitimizing, or limiting the scope of all positions “that challenge the dominant narrative and at the same time have the potential for widespread dissemination” (Hofbauer 2022: 7) – censorship. Put another way: Propaganda and censorship are two sides of the same coin. Those who want to impose their “view of things” (Andreas Elter) must fight the competition and, if possible, eliminate it. Censorship is an “instrument of domination to enforce economic interests, political power and cultural hegemony” (Hofbauer 2022: 237). The fact that media research shies away from calling propaganda and censorship by their names when analyzing contemporary Western societies is the result of a systematic deconceptualization. In academic texts, just as in political education, censorship is generally only mentioned when it comes to forms of government that can be described as ‘totalitarian’, ‘dictatorial’ or ‘undemocratic’ - Hitler's Germany, the Soviet Union, Russia, China, North Korea (for an illustration cf. Toyka-Seid/Schneider 2023). “There is \[to be] no censorship”: this sentence from Article 5 of the German constitution describes reality through this lens, as long as there is no censorship authority or even a corresponding ministry. The literary scholar Nikola Roßbach, for example, academic companion of the Temple of Forbidden Books at Documenta 2017, bypasses the terms state, pre-screening, and bans in her definition, but instead uses adjectives that amount to the same thing and absolve Germany of any suspicion: “In my understanding, censorship is a comprehensive, structurally and institutionally anchored control, restriction, or prevention of expression intended for publication or published” (Roßbach 2018: 19). The purpose of this smokescreen is revealed a little later: Roßbach wants to dismiss censorship as a “polemical concept” from the “political circus,” to be heard above all from the “populist side” and from the right (used here in each case synonymous for all those who should not speak out), but also “from right-wing populist leftists”. To make this a “classic case of self-victimization” or even a “cross-front” of anti-democrats (ibid.: 82, 88) falls short, however, if only because “the boundary between what is permitted and what is forbidden” is contingent and consequently “may not be questioned” (Stegemann 2021: 161). Censorship itself automatically becomes a taboo for the censors. Otherwise, they get into justification trouble. This explains, for example, why a phenomenon like “cancel culture” can be relegated to the realm of fable and the debate about it dismissed as a perfidious feint by the already powerful (cf. Daub 2022, Thiele 2021). The flipside has been dealt with in a very similar way. In hegemonic usage, propaganda is now always what others do – Nazis and communists preferably, but also otherwise anyone who can be classified as ‘opponents’ and ‘enemies’ (cf. Arnold 2003). Moreover, the concept of propaganda has long had such a negative connotation that it puts the result before the analysis – one-sided, not legitimate, and apparently effective even if one concedes that people (such as in the GDR at the time) may withdraw from the public sphere and distrust all news in the respective leading media (cf. Fiedler/Meyen 2011: 17f.). Communication studies has forgotten that it was born as propaganda research. Yet it does exactly the same as its inventors, who were commissioned by the government, military and intelligence services in the USA to find out how to get into people’s heads: Psychological warfare. The state and billionaire industry-related foundations (Rockefeller, Ford) paid hundreds of social scientists starting in 1939 to win the battle for public opinion as well. One result: henceforth people spoke of communication rather than propaganda (cf. Simpson 1994, Pooley 2011). This did not change what one was looking for, but it allowed to distinguish one’s own ‘good’ intentions from the ‘bad’ ones of the Germans and later the Soviets or the Russians (cf. Meyen 2021: 63-75). In this way, the terms censorship and propaganda have been turned into a blunt sword. Critics of the media and society can no longer use them, at least in the German-speaking context, without immediately being confronted with the accusation of exaggerating excessively or even playing into the cards of the ‘right-wingers’. In this article, this risk is taken for two reasons. First, everyone can examine the arguments and then decide for themselves whether it is justified to speak of propaganda and censorship in the sense defined above. Second, classics such as Walter Lippmann, Edward Bernays, or even Paul Lazarsfeld and Robert Merton (1948, cf. Zollmann 2019) had no problem at all with calling a spade a spade. Lippmann (2018: 84) knew already one hundred years ago that news are anything but a “mirror of social conditions.” Walter Lippmann dreamed of a government of experts masquerading as popular rule, and for this to happen, it must specifically influence public opinion - via the “images according to which whole groups of people” act (ibid.: 75). His disciple Edward Bernays, a few years later, logically considered propaganda “a perfectly legitimate activity.” Without “public consent,” Bernays wrote in 1928, already in the spirit of medialization research (cf. Meyen et al. 2014), “no major undertaking” can succeed anymore. This consent, Bernays was sure, must and can be organized - by “PR consultants” like him. His definition is consistent with what I advocate in this paper: “Modern propaganda is the steady, consistent effort to shape or create events with the purpose of influencing the public's attitude toward a company, idea, or group” (Bernays 2018: 28-32). Lippmann and Bernays did not live to see the “union of state and corporations” for which Sheldon Wolin (2022: 221) was able to use the label “superpower” in the noughties. Wolin, like Walter Lippmann, considered “democracy” to be a “largely rhetorical function within an increasingly corrupt political system” (which, however, he criticized rather than defended) and spoke instead of a “coalition between the corporations and the state” – an “inverted totalitarianism” which, while using “the authority and resources of the state” as it once did in Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union, gains “its dynamism by combining it with other forms of power” (such as the churches) and links the “conventional form of government” with “the system of ‘private’ governance represented by modern corporations.” Somewhat more briefly, “corporate power” is now also political. In the Cold War era, the state and corporations had become “the principal sponsors and coordinators of the forces represented by science and technology,” and thus also the source “for creating and spreading a culture that educates consumers to embrace change and private pleasures while accepting political passivity” (Wolin 2022: 60-63). For Sheldon Wolin, “inverted totalitarianism” is a “new kind of political system” that is “apparently driven by abstract totalizing powers, not by personal domination,” and whose “total power” is harder to detect than Hitler's or Stalin's if only because this system does not need to build camps and does not need to “violently suppress dissent as long as it remains ineffective” (ibid.: 118, 134). Wolin says: For control, it is enough to “create a collective sense of dependency” (ibid.: 192) as well as to use whatever methods of “intimidation and mass manipulation” are available today (ibid.: 56). Inverted totalitarianism then is “collective fear” plus “individual powerlessness.” Job, retirement, health care costs. Plus pressure at the workplace, the stress of everyday life, the constant fuss about some political scandal or other (ibid.: 352). The result is a “society that is used to exchanging new habits for old ones, adapting to rapid changes, uncertainties and social upheavals, and allowing its fate to be determined by distant powers over which it has no influence” (ibid.: 116). Sheldon Wolin largely ignores the mainstream media - just like digital capitalism, which for the doyen of U.S. political science, born in 1922, was at best a pipe dream when he wrote his last major book after 9/11. A good two decades later, the “revolving door between the centers of power on both coasts” (between Washington and Silicon Valley) has become almost proverbial (Zuboff 2018: 150). Personnel are shifted from here to there, balls are passed to each other in election campaigns, and, as will be shown in this paper, they work hand in hand when it comes to retaining the power of definition in the political battles of the present and controlling the “side-effect publics” that address what the mainstream media hide or distort. In the spirit of Sheldon Wolin, Ulrich Beck (2017: 172f.) has spoken of a “risk-averse coalition of progress,” “consisting of experts, industry, the state, political parties, and established mass media,” which can ignore or play off against each other issues such as climate change, nuclear power and financial speculation, genetic manipulation, nanotechnology and reproductive medicine, terrorism, and digital surveillance, as needed in the public debate. O-Ton Beck: “This implies: The politics of invisibility is a first-rate strategy for stabilizing state authority and reproducing the social and political order, for which denying the existence of global risks” matters greatly (ibid.: 134). Beck did not trust the traditional mass media to fulfill the mission of the public sphere, not even in Western states. “The mode of this nationally organized, public form of media power is exclusive, that is: one produces it specifically, one can allow it, suppress it, etc.” (ibid.: 172). With a view to a world at risk, which was his life’s topic of interest, he consequently called for a reform of the definitional relationships, hoping for the Internet – for a public sphere that could not be easily controlled by the powerful, that discussed other topics as well as in a different form than the leading media, and that relied, among other things, on a “countervailing power of independent experts” (ibid.: 146). Ulrich Beck was an optimist. When he wrote his book on the “Metamorphosis of the World” (which was to be his last) in the mid-2010s, the relationship between governments and Google, Twitter and Co. was at best in the dating stage. In the meantime, the marriage has been consummated. We live in a digital corporate state that floods the public with its messages (Propaganda, section 2), exploiting the logic of the new means of dissemination (Interlude: Twitter’s public sphere, section 3) and also making platform operators delete counter-perspectives and opposition figures or make them difficult to find (Censorship, section 4). Part of Beck’s concept of defining power relations is that even within a governing coalition or, thought of more broadly, in “that subterranean network of financial, intelligence, and military interests that guides national policy,” “no matter who happens to be in the White House” (Talbot 2017: 505), there are struggles for interpretive authority. Such battles, which rely on resonance in the journalistic field and are therefore also fought there, explain, for example, why Chancellor Scholz had a significantly worse press than his ministers Baerbock and Habeck in the first months of the Ukraine war (cf. Maurer et al. 2022). # 2. Propaganda Without delving into such differentiations, this section will show what government agencies are doing to win over the public. In addition, it will at least be suggested that these efforts meet with little resistance, and not only because of the alliance with media corporations. For one thing, the balance of power between the propaganda apparatuses and journalism has shifted considerably since the 1990s, and for another, the leading media are now dominated by the same habitus that governs government agencies and corporate headquarters (see Klöckner 2019). There are three ways to “move the public debate in the desired direction.” First, a government can pay (as well as resource and perhaps already train) personnel to feed newsrooms with what they are looking for anyway – exclusive information and images, interlocutors, and material from which news can be made (for example: scientific studies or live access during police operations). This personnel also sits at the trigger when it becomes necessary to use what Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky (1988: 18) called, in German, “flak” - barrages that put everything under fire that could get in the way of the employers. Second, this government can change its own work in such a way that ‘good press’ becomes more likely - via the recruitment of top people suitable for the media, via the events and occasions that Edward Bernays already talked about (a rather harmless example: the central festival for the Day of German Unity, which is held in a different state capital every year and reliably produces coverage), and (less harmlessly) via prioritization that puts public image above everything else and, in case of doubt, even above law and order (cf. Thorbjørnsrud et al. 2014). Third, any government can help it along with money - with direct subsidies, which are always good for a scandal in Austria, for example, and were nevertheless almost introduced in Switzerland in a referendum in February 2022, or with indirect subsidies (advertising, tax breaks, carpooling). The federal government exhausts all of the above possibilities to the hilt. It pays a whole army of propaganda people, creates or shapes events with the help of these people that serve the sole “purpose” of influencing “public attitudes” 2018: 28-32), and pumps money into publishing houses and broadcasters. The first issue alone would deserve an entire essay – partly because it is difficult to separate from the second issue. When resources are reallocated toward public relations, an organization’s performance inevitably becomes more media-savvy – most likely at the expense of the tasks for which ministries or subordinate agencies were originally created. A prime example of this prioritization is the German government’s Press and Information Office, with its more than 500 staff positions and three former top journalists in position of spokesperson (Steffen Hebestreit, Wolfgang Büchner, Christiane Hoffmann). This agency, located in the Chancellor’s Office and thus quite obviously an instrument of power for the head of government, was controversial from the outset (cf. Morcinek 2004), but neither Konrad Adenauer nor his successors allowed themselves to be swayed by public criticism here and thus also promoted, at least indirectly, the creation of parallel departments. In addition to a press office with “33 experts,” the Foreign Office now has a commissioner for strategic communication (Peter Ptassek at the end of 2022), who is assisted by “around 40 staff members” to protect the minister and her actions from slander and, if worst comes to worst, to counter with stories of her own (Meier/Monath 2022). Correspondents exist in every ministry, in every party headquarters, in every state government, and for every politician who moves near the center of power. There is a method to the transfer from the editorial offices to the authorities and staffs, which is represented not only by the three journalists named above but also by their predecessor Steffen Seibert. In this way, politics buys know-how, contacts and goodwill, which is not only fed by the reputation of the former colleagues, but also has to do with the prospect of one day being called to the other side. The departments or people whose names or job titles include terms like public, press, media or marketing are only the obvious part of the propaganda apparatus. Claudia Roth, Minister of State for Culture and Media in the current government coalition, has a budget of 2.39 billion euros in 2023 – four percent more than in 2022. In addition to museums owned by the federal government, film productions and a cultural passport for 18-year-olds, this pot primarily funds projects and programs along government lines. Roth’s agency uses it to finance not only causes for coverage, but also personnel who can and will speak out accordingly. This applies analogously to the many commissioners who have been installed on a full-time or honorary basis at different administrative levels (responsible for issues such as foreigners, integration, discrimination, racism, women, queer, lesbians, gays, disability, anti-Semitism, ziganism, climate, sustainability), who have to justify their existence through mainstream media presence and thus also draw imitations in companies or culture and education. In addition, there are organizations such as the Zentrum Liberale Moderne or the Amadeu Antonio Foundation (tip of an NGO iceberg), which support government narratives with flak (here quite openly called “opponent analysis” or disguised as the fight against hate speech and fake news, right-wing extremism and anti-Semitism). The Zentrum Liberale Moderne, founded in 2017 by Green Party politicians Ralf Fücks and Marieluise Beck, has received nearly 4.5 million euros for a total of 24 projects from 2018 to 2022 (see Lübberding 2022). The federal program “Demokratie Leben!” (“Live Democracy!”), one of the umbrella initiatives for related spending (located in the Federal Ministry of Family Affairs), will cost taxpayers 182 million euros in 2023, 16.5 million euros more than in 2022 and 31.5 million euros more than in 2021. “Measures to strengthen diversity, tolerance and democracy” have a total of 200 million euros dedicated to them in this ministry’s 2023 budget. Money from the budget of the German government’s Press and Information Office will go to the German Atlantic Society (2023: 700,000 euros), the Society for Security Policy (600,000), the Center for Liberal Modernity, the Aspen Institute, the Europa Union and the Progressive Center (500,000 each). In Sheldon Wolin (2022: 147) one can read how it is possible to integrate even scientists and intellectuals “seamlessly into the system” and to prevent dissent without having to “harass” or “discredit” critics. Wolin explains: Through “a combination of government contracts, corporate and foundation funding, joint projects by university and corporate researchers, and wealthy individual donors.” Peter J. Brenner (2022) has spelled out this strategy for Germany, compiling a long list of “institutes for research on democracy and right-wing extremism” that assist “government power” at taxpayer expense in the struggle for “discourse hegemony.” For universities, this flow of money has consequences that go beyond the reinterpretation of terms, rules of language such as gendering, and the prioritization of social problems. Even without insight into the inner workings of universities, it should be clear that legions of scientists are rushing to answer the questions, theories and methods to which the “coalition” of big business and the state (Sheldon Wolin) is devoting its budgets via the EU Commission or the BMBF. A few get their turn, and many others continue without funding, so that the investment is not entirely in vain. Those who win money need proof of success – publications in specialist journals and (either via this detour or interviews) a presence in the mainstream media. Diverting taxpayers’ money to media companies was taboo in post-1945 West Germany (unlike in Austria). In a large and densely populated circulation area with a flourishing economy and without the competing advertising and information channels that developed on the Internet from the 1990s, subscriptions to public authorities and advertisements from ministries or offices also played a minor role. All these parameters changed during the Corona crisis at the latest. More cautiously, the slump in the advertising market and the ubiquity of aid and rescue funds have allowed the media industry in 2020 to push the issue of state support, overturning the taboo of press subsidies. Under the guise of “digital transformation,” 220 million euros were included in the federal supplementary budget this summer, most of which was to be paid out before the end of 2021, tied to circulation. The bigger the newspaper, the more money. This plan died at the end of April 2021 “because of constitutional concerns,” but the main counter-argument was not state neutrality, but distortion of competition. The online platform Krautreporter had threatened to go to court if only print publishers were funded, and also refused to accept reallocating the budget to “Corona emergency aid.” The publishers’ associations reacted “shocked,” spoke of a “medium catastrophe” (Meyen 2021: 166f.) and are now concentrating their lobbying on the issue of local media diversity (“nationwide coverage,” Röper 2022: 302). The sum of 220 million euros would have largely absorbed the slump in the advertising market of the daily press. Sales in this market in 2020: 1.712 billion euros – 367 million less than in 2019. In previous years, the average decline was around 150 million euros (Statista 2023). Public budgets are therefore increasingly attractive to the advertising departments of media groups. In 2021, the German government bought ad space for around 64 million euros as part of its “Corona communication” alone. Television and radio together received 28 million euros in the same period (Thoms 2022). This does not include the Corona and vaccination campaigns of state governments and local authorities, for which the business community in the respective circulation areas was also mobilized in some cases, advertising with a different thematic focus, and everything that corporations and foundations give to publishers beyond conventional promotion in order to advertise specific political goals. In journalism, such efforts meet with little resistance for two reasons. First, the most important media houses in Germany have long been of corporate size and are thus themselves part of the “coalition between the corporations and the state” that constitutes “inverted totalitarianism” in Sheldon Wolin's (2022: 221) terms. The German press landscape is characterized by monopolies and concentration, as well as by a few publishing houses (often family-owned) that not only feed all other channels and otherwise outgrow their core business, but in some cases also sell their editorial services to ‘competitors’ such as Madsack’s Redaktionsnetzwerk Deutschland, which supplies more than 60 regional papers in seven German states (cf. Röper 2022, Ferschli et al. 2019). Public broadcasting is not a counterargument here. With a revenue from contributions of almost nine billion euros a year, ARD and ZDF are among the largest media companies in the world (cf. Hachmeister/Wäscher 2017) – corporations that have to act as corporations and that are closely linked to politics and the state in almost every respect (cf. Mirbach 2023: 128-178, 250-272). And second, journalism in Germany is a socially homogeneous field dominated by the “habitus of the middle class” – “oriented toward conformity,” programmed to “accept power relations” (Klöckner 2019: 33), and closely linked to decision-makers in the state, political parties, and business through social status, educational background, and life situation. The similarity of social position and habitus not infrequently turns into real proximity in everyday life. Contact (press conferences, receptions, travel) creates sympathy and thus often at least understanding (cf. Meyen 2021: 176-198). Uwe Krüger (2016: 105) has coined the word “responsibility conspiracy” for this community of values: Journalists know what is good and what is bad (pretty much the same as what the rulers think is good or bad), and they believe they have influence over people. So reality is “reduced by the parts” that “do not fit the attitude” and what seems to promote the desired goal is emphasized (Meinhardt 2020: 87) – sometimes utilizing information, contacts and material from the propaganda apparatus and sometimes not. # 3. Interlude: Twitter publicity Anyone who wants to steer and control public communication today must submit to the logic of digital platforms. This is especially true of Twitter, a channel that within a few years has become the central point of contact for the most important players in “inverted totalitarianism” and has become an indispensable part of everyday life, especially in the media-political-academic complex, even if some protagonists gave up their accounts in the heated debate about Elon Musk’s takeover in the fall of 2022. In Germany, Twitter has always been a minority phenomenon. Four percent of those over the age of 14, says the ARD/ZDF online study of 2022, use Twitter daily and ten percent at least once a week. This includes those who only read and click now and then for reach. Ten percent. Typically male, most likely under 50 (cf. Koch 2022: 472f.). Even in the U.S., where it is common to follow the greats of film, pop and professional sports, not even one in four adults says they use Twitter. The profile of this bubble: young, affluent, educated (cf. Ungar-Sargon 2021: 104). We also know from the USA that the vast majority of tweets come from a few (cf. Odabaş 2022) – from people who have a mission and the resources to promote it. Companies, government agencies, commissioners, entrepreneurs of themselves, NGOs, activists of every stripe, parties. In the fall 2021 federal election, almost every one of the MPs who ran again, and almost every one of those who were then new MPs, had a Twitter account. Particularly active (in this order): Left, Greens, SPD, FDP. Those elected all follow more or less the same accounts. Tagesschau, Der Spiegel, the government spokesperson, Süddeutsche Zeitung and Die Zeit each have over 60 percent. In addition to the leading media, the news agency dpa and top politicians like Christian Lindner or Annalena Baerbock, the “state satirist” and “head of the authorities” (May 2022: 46) Jan Böhmermann is also very high up in this ranking (see Schmidt 2021). Twitter determines what can be incorporated into the reality of mainstream media – which topics with which voices and with which morals. The use of Twitter and the observation of the trends there determine the everyday work in many editorial offices today. Anyone who wants to enter the professional field today learns, at the latest during their traineeship or at journalism schools, that nothing beats a well-groomed Twitter or (beyond political journalism) TikTok and Instagram brand. Rule of thumb: the more followers, the greater the chance of being commissioned or hired (cf. Ungar-Sargon 2021). The older ones can hardly avoid this trend. Three out of four members of the Federal Press Conference have a Twitter profile – again, mainly the younger ones and thus also those with less professional experience. Journalists who are mentioned by members of parliament in their tweets consider Twitter to be particularly important (cf. Nuernbergk/Schmidt 2020). Robin Alexander, deputy editor-in-chief of the daily newspaper Die Welt, has proudly described how he transforms confidential information into tweets that are then used by politicians to push their perspective with reference to the top journalist (cf. Precht/Welzer 2022: 114f.). Following this pattern, the chancellor’s office organized mainstream media backing for their lockdown policy: Government spokesman Seibert explained the plans to selected journalists prior to talks with the prime ministers of the German states, thus ensuring the necessary public pressure (cf. Ismar 2021). Contemporary journalism must find its topics and views on Twitter also because tight resources and high frequency publication demands make it increasingly rare to get in contact with reality and talk to real people – especially those you don’t usually meet on digital platforms. Such conversations would also be dangerous, because like any brand, a Twitter profile demands consistency. I can’t celebrate Fridays for Future there today and burn Greta Thunberg tomorrow. In the Twitter editorial department, two souls combine who are dependent on each other: the media entrepreneur who encourages his employees to ensure the distribution of his own contributions, and the editor who wants to make his mark and rise even further and therefore always asks first how things look from the very top (cf. Klöckner 2019). Brand management is the opposite of the raving reporter, who first allows himself to be surprised by what he sees, hears and experiences, and then shares his findings with his readers, listeners, viewers. This is another reason why the tweeting journalist already knows the story he wants to tell when the research begins. What’s more, he only sees the stories that resonate with his brand. Conversely, it is hardly possible to get through with criticism of the powerful or even to find journalists who raise fundamental questions even beyond details or animosities. On Twitter, everything that could be said against laws, plans or people is immediately available – published, if you will, by everyone. Journalism has lost the privilege of calling for politicians’ heads and has therefore mutated into their attack dog. The consequences of the Twitterization of journalism go beyond the loss of the function of criticism and control. First, the obvious: Morality is conquering the leading media alongside politics. Twitter is the breeding ground for a journalism that is primarily hung up on “language and symbolism” (Wagenknecht 2021: 26) and on affiliations. Twitter sees every topic through the lens of morality and therefore demands opportunities for identification if one wants attention and thus reach. It’s always about me, the group I want to belong to or the one I reject wholeheartedly. Nothing triggers stronger emotions, nothing gets others to share, like, comment faster. In a nutshell, it’s about team sports. “The game is called: US against THEM” (Precht/Welzer 2022: 110). Twitter also makes measured consideration disappear and with it all differentiation, all questioning, all weighting. All of this doesn’t fit into 280 characters even if you link photos, videos, or text panels (cf. Homburg 2022). The rise of Twitter as the editor-in-chief of the leading media (Ungar-Sargon 2021: 103) and as the pace maker of public discourse is a temptation for all those who have ways and means to govern this channel. Today, Twitter is the place where it is decided what reality is and how we are all to think about it. That is why Twitter is firmly in the hands of the establishment and part of the “coalition” of the state and monopoly corporations to which Sheldon Wolin (2022: 63) has given the name “inverted totalitarianism.” Anyone who did not want to believe how closely the Obama and Biden administrations were and are intertwined with Twitter (cf. Malone 2022) or that the “censorship of the Hunter-Biden laptop affair” and the “unprecedented political intervention” (Hofbauer 2022: 183) against Donald Trump at the beginning of 2021, in which the U.S. president lost his million-strong following in one fell swoop, can be traced back to this network of relationships was proven wrong at the latest by the publication of the “Twitter Files” (cf. Schirrmacher 2023). # 4. Censorship Hannes Hofbauer (2022: 124f.) dates the birth of the censorship regime of the present to November 28, 2008. The EU framework decision of that day was about “the definitional sovereignty over genocide” and thus “de facto” about the bans on discussions and taboos in matters of war and guilt, for example in Yugoslavia or in the successor states of the Soviet Union. In Germany, this topic popped up once again when Section 130 of the Criminal Code (incitement of the people) was amended accordingly at the end of 2022. By the end of the noughties, it had become obvious that the traditional means of propaganda would no longer suffice to maintain interpretive sovereignty. The platforms Xing (launched in 2003), Facebook and Vimeo (2004), YouTube (2005), Twitter (2006) and WhatsApp (2009) were on their way to becoming mass phenomena at the latest after the introduction of the iPhone (2007). This also meant that from now on, alternative interpretations of reality were available to anyone at any time and any place (cf. Vorderer 2015), without professionalism in the processing or the quality of the evidence immediately providing information about which view of things could claim validity. Those who are craving definitional power (such as governments, the EU Commission, or multibillionaires whose position and business also depend on public sympathy) had to start fighting competitive narratives and unwelcome information now at the latest. In addition to legislative initiatives such as the 2008 “Framework on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law” and the EU’s 2022 Digital Services Act, three other ways were explored to achieve this goal. First, control of the Internet was institutionalized – for example, in the “East StratCom Task Force,” established in March 2015 after the “regime change in Ukraine” with the aim of enforcing one’s “own narrative” (Hofbauer 2022: 129), or in the European Digital Media Observatory (EDMO), where academics and fact-checkers have been working together since 2020 (more on these institutions in Section 5). Second, political and economic power have made their alliance public – as can be read, for example, in the “Twitter Files” just mentioned and in the “Code of Conduct against Disinformation” agreed on by the EU and the digital economy in 2018 and renewed with further signatories in 2022. This code obliges platforms to fight “dissenting positions” by all means (Hofbauer 2022: 143, 204). And third, the corporations have taken matters into their own hands and established an Internet police force, which includes the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN, settled at the Poynter Institute in the U.S. in 2015 with the help of Ebay founder Pierre Omidyar, cf. Graves 2018), the U.S. company NewsGuard, which puts up green and red labels on the net (cf. Schreyer 2022), and the Trusted News Initiative (TNI). To stay with this last example: The TNI, launched in summer 2019 under BBC auspices, brings together the Who’s Who of Western opinion factories: News agencies (AP, AFP, Reuters), broadcasters (Canada’s CBC in addition to the EBU and BBC), major newspapers (Financial Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and The Hindu from India), major Internet companies (Microsoft, Google, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, First Draft), and the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, an academic institution at Oxford University sponsored primarily by media conglomerate Thomson Reuters. What is agreed upon here, as this list should make clear even when skimming it, becomes a truth to which all those who work in the leading media must bow, because the reach and working methods of every German local editorial office are now also determined by platform logic. Already at the TNI founding event in July 2019, Tony Hall, then director general of the BBC, warned of a possible Trump re-election and vaccination opponents. Then on March 27, 2020, TNI members announced that from now on they would alert each other when “misinformation” or “conspiracy theories” emerged on Corona to prevent any further spread. And on December 10, 2020, a few days after the BioNTech-Pfizer substance was approved in the UK, it was decided to suppress anything that might downplay the Corona threat and argue against vaccination. In doing so, the TNI took its perspective on the issue from the same sources as governments (see Woodworth 2022). The example is treated in such detail here not only because of the enormous interpretive power of the TNI, but also because it shows that the four censorship paths mentioned can only be separated analytically. Without the pressure of the legislator, manifested in well-equipped observatories with scandalizing powers and resulting in more or less voluntary self-restrictions (every restriction costs traffic, data access and thus profit), the Internet police might not exist in this form. More specifically: Why would Facebook pay “cleaners” in Manila (the title of a 2018 documentary by Hans Block and Moritz Riesewieck) and YouTube train “employees of NGOs or authorities” as “trusted flaggers” if there were no common interests and no interaction with political power? The most important German censorship laws are the NetzDG, in effect since October 1, 2017, and expanded since February 1, 2022, for the large platforms (two million users or more) to include a reporting obligation for “potentially criminally relevant content” (Biselli 2022), and the State Media Treaty, which on November 7, 2020, turned the state media institutions into “control institutions for the digital publishing world.” Since then, the “legislator requires website operators, bloggers and media intermediaries” to check the truth (under the heading of “journalistic diligence”), although the “definition of truth or its disregard should not be a sovereign task” (Hofbauer 2022: 144f.). Hannes Hofbauer (2022) documents in detail how the two most important voices of the German-language counter-public (the Russian state channel RT and the platform KenFM, which had 500,000 subscribers on YouTube) were shut down and how leading media and professional associations either remained silent about this or even applauded it. Hofbauer (2022: 135-138) quite correctly interprets the Network Enforcement Act (NetzDG) as a “state push” that has allowed Internet corporations to mutate into “censorship machines.” The two main problems: The terms “hate crime” and “fake news” (the targets of the law) are characterized by “interpretive malleability.” And: the “new censor regime” is located “somewhere between the Berlin Ministry of Justice and U.S. corporate headquarters” and is thus “hardly tangible.” Even the extension of the deletion obligation to include a reporting obligation does not solve this dilemma. The “Central Reporting Office for Criminal Content on the Internet,” which started in February 2022 at the Federal Criminal Police Office with about 200 employees, received only just under 3,900 reports by the end of November 2022 instead of the expected 250,000 (cf. Biselli 2022). This corresponds to the situation before the introduction of mandatory reporting. On the high-reach platforms Facebook and Instagram, there was only a low four-digit number of NetzDG complaints in each case in the second half of 2020. The interpretive battle during this period focused on the Elite Channel (over 800,000 complaints on Twitter) and videos, which are apparently still considered to have the greatest impact (over 300,000 reported videos on YouTube). The federal government’s response to a corresponding inquiry by the FDP gives an idea of the share that “complaints offices” and other tax- or group-funded institutions had here. # 5. Conclusion and outlook Since the mid-2010s, the EU, the NetzDG, and the State Media Treaty (section 4), in conjunction with the government initiatives outlined in section 2 and the declarations of war from the highest levels, have ensured a social atmosphere that places Internet activities beyond the mainstream media under general suspicion, provides a protective cloak for all official narratives, and allows the business of flak shooters to flourish, among whom the so-called fact checkers once again stand out. “It has been said recently that we are living in post-factual times,” Angela Merkel said in September 2016 in a speech on refugee policy. “I guess that means people are no longer interested in facts, they follow feelings alone.” At the inauguration of the BND headquarters in February 2019, she also said, “We must learn to deal with fake news as part of hybrid warfare.” In her government statement on October 29, 2020, she then prepared the country for lockdown in the same tone of voice: criticism of the Corona measures was essential, “but lies and disinformation, conspiracy and hatred not only damage democratic debate, but also the fight against the virus.” In this context, the fear of a “cyber 9/11” has been present in the control centers of the Western hemisphere for a good two decades, orchestrated also by high-profile simulation games that equate the Net with an “enemy weapons system” (see Corbett 2021). Fact-checkers – an arm of the new “discursive police” (Foucault 2014: 25) – are particularly well disguised in this regard. Who should object to people taking another serious look at what someone has just cobbled together? The promise contained in the name of these organizations (the truth, checked again) is perfidious because it suggests that in complex societies there can be unambiguity and certainty of orientation without any personal research effort. This explains why, in addition to IFCN member Correctiv (founded in 2014 with money from the Brost publishing family), private initiatives such as the website Volksverpetzer and fact-checking departments have been able to establish themselves under the umbrella of traditional media institutions (at dpa, Bayerischer Rundfunk, Tagesschau). As a rule, all these editorial departments ‘check’ exclusively what contradicts the reality of the mainstream media and thus the government and corporate propaganda. If Sheldon Wolin (2022) is correct in his analysis of “inverted totalitarianism,” then no media revolution is conceivable without a fundamental renewal of the social framework. As long as the state and corporations make common cause, it will not be possible to establish a communication channel that cannot be hijacked by the actors with the greatest material, human, and ideational resources – by actors who, if worst comes to worst, can also deploy intelligence services (an influence that has been neglected in this article but is nevertheless relevant, cf. Alford/Secker 2015, Talbot 2017, Ulfkotte 2014). Calls for selective expropriations (publishing houses) and reforms (public broadcasting), for breaking up monopolies and establishing European or civil society alternatives (digital platforms) therefore come to nothing. For critical social research, there are three tasks in this situation: Educating about propaganda and censorship, establishing and supporting independent channels (which is what the institute publishing this article stands for, among others), and working on drafts for a media order that, on the one hand, allows journalism to fulfill its mission of publicity and, on the other hand, limits the access of interests of all kinds or at least makes it transparent. # Bibliography Matthew Alford, Tom Secker: National Security Cinema. The Shocking New Evidence of Government Control in Hollywood. Drum Roll Books 2017 Klaus Arnold: Propaganda als ideologische Kommunikation. In: Publizistik 48. Jg. (2003), S. 63-82 Ulrich Beck: Die Metamorphose der Welt. Berlin: Suhrkamp 2017 Edward Bernays: Propaganda. Die Kunst der Public Relations. 9. Auflage. Berlin: orange-press 2018 Anna Biselli: [Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz: Ab Februar gilt die Meldepflicht. Eigentlich](https://netzpolitik.org/2022/netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz-ab-februar-gilt-die-meldepflicht-eigentlich/). In: Netzpolitik vom 31. Januar 2022 Peter J. Brenner: „Kampf gegen rechts“ – eine neue Wissenschaft. Mit einem Onlinedossier (Auf dem Weg zur Regierungswissenschaft). In: Tumult, Sommer 2022, S. 20-25 James Corbett: [Wenn False Flags virtuell werden](https://2020news.de/wenn-false-flags-virtuell-werden/). In: 2020News vom 10. Januar 2021 Adrian Daub: Cancel Culture Transfer. Wie eine moralische Panik die Welt erfasst. Berlin: Suhrkamp 2022 Andreas Elter: Die Kriegsverkäufer. Geschichte der US-Propaganda 1917-2005. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp 2005 Benjamin Ferschli, Daniel Grabner, Hendrik Theine: Zur Politischen Ökonomie der Medien in Deutschland. München: isw 2019 Anke Fiedler, Michael Meyen (Hrsg.): Fiktionen für das Volk: DDR-Zeitungen als PR-Instrument. Münster: Lit 2011 Michel Foucault: Die Ordnung des Diskurses. 13. Auflage. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Taschenbuch 2014 Lucas Graves: Boundaries Not Drawn. Mapping the institutional roots of the global fact-checking movement. In: Journalism Studies 19. Jg. (2018), S. 613-631 Lutz Hachmeister, Till Wäscher: Wer beherrscht die Medien? Die 50 größten Medien- und Wissenskonzerne der Welt. Köln: Herbert von Halem 2017 Václav Havel: Versuch, in der Wahrheit zu leben. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt 1989 Edward S. Herman, Noam Chomsky: Manufacturing Consent. The Political Economy of the Mass Media. New York: Pantheon Books 2002 Hannes Hofbauer: Zensur. Publikationsverbote im Spiegel der Geschichte. Vom kirchlichen Index zur YouTube-Löschung. Wien: Promedia 2022 Stefan Homburg: Corona-Getwitter. Chronik einer Wissenschafts-, Medien- und Politikkrise. Sargans: Weltbuch 2022 Georg Ismar: Der Synchrontänzer der Kanzlerin: Wie Steffen Seibert Angela Merkels Macht absicherte. In: Tagesspiegel vom 6. Juli 2021 Marcus B. Klöckner: Sabotierte Wirklichkeit. Oder: Wenn Journalismus zur Glaubenslehre wird. Frankfurt am Main: Westend 2019 Wolfgang Koch: Ergebnisse der ARD/ZDF-Onlinestudie 2022: Reichweiten von Social-Media-Plattformen und Messengern. In: Media Perspektiven 2022, S. 471-478 Uwe Krüger: Mainstream. Warum wir den Medien nicht mehr trauen. München: C. H. Beck 2016 Paul F. Lazarsfeld, Robert K. Merton: Mass Communication, Popular Taste and Organized Social Action. In: Lyman Bryson (Hrsg.): The Communication of Ideas. New York: Harper 1948, S. 95-118 Walter Lippmann: Die öffentliche Meinung. Wie sie entsteht und manipuliert wird. Frankfurt am Main: Westend 2018 Frank Lübberding: Wenn der Aktivismus zur Bekämpfung politischer Gegner staatlich subventioniert wird. In: Welt online vom 24. November 2022 Niklas Luhmann: Die Realität der Massenmedien. 2. Auflage. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag 1996 Klaus-Rüdiger Mai: Nachdenken über Satire in Zeiten ihres Verschwindens: In: Michael Meyen, Carsten Gansel, Daria Gordeeva (Hrsg.): #allesdichtmachen. 53 Videos und eine gestörte Gesellschaft. Köln: Ovalmedia 2022, S. 42-52 Robert Malone: [Twitter als Waffe](https://www.rubikon.news/artikel/twitter-als-waffe). In: Rubikon vom 21. Oktober 2022 Marcus Maurer, Jörg Haßler, Pablo Jost: Die Qualität der Medienberichterstattung über den Ukraine-Krieg. Frankfurt am Main: Otto Brenner Stiftung 2022 Albrecht Meier, Hans Monath:  Mit welchen Strategien westliche Demokratien russische Fake News bekämpfen. In: Handelsblatt vom 23. November 2022 Birk Meinhardt: Wie ich meine Zeitung verlor. Ein Jahrebuch. Berlin: Das Neue Berlin 2020 Michael Meyen: [Journalists’ Autonomy around the Globe: A Typology of 46 Mass Media Systems](https://www.db-thueringen.de/servlets/MCRFileNodeServlet/dbt_derivate_00041207/GMJ15_Meyen.pdf). In: Global Media Journal, German Edition, 8. Jg. (2018), Nr. 1 Michael Meyen: Die Propaganda-Matrix. Der Kampf für freie Medien entscheidet über unsere Zukunft. München: Rubikon 2021 Michael Meyen, Markus Thieroff, Steffi Strenger: Mass media logic and the mediatization of politics. A theoretical framework. In: Journalism Studies 15. Jg. (2014), S. 271-288 Alexis von Mirbach: Medienträume. Ein Bürgerbuch zur Zukunft des Journalismus. Köln: Herbert von Halem 2023 Martin Morcinek: Das Bundespresseamt im Wandel: Zur Geschichte der Regierungskommunikation in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. In: Jahrbuch für Kommunikationsgeschichte 6. Jg. (2004), S. 195-223 Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann: Die Schweigespirale. Öffentliche Meinung – unsere soziale Haut. München: Piper 1980 Christian Nuernbergk, Jan-Hinrik Schmidt: Twitter im Politikjournalismus. Ergebnisse einer Befragung und Netzwerkanalyse von Hauptstadtjournalisten der Bundespressekonferenz. In: Publizistik 65. Jg. (2020), S. 41-61 Meltem Odabaş: [10 facts about Americans and Twitter](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/05/05/10-facts-about-americans-and-twitter/). In: Pew Research Center, 10. Mai 2022 Thomas Piketty: Kapital und Ideologie. München: C.H. Beck 2020 Jeff Pooley: Another Plea for the University Tradition: The Institutional Roots of Intellectual Compromise. In: International Journal of Communication 5. Jg. (2011), S. 1442-1457 Grace Pönitz: Keine Meldungsflut von Hass-Inhalten. In: M. Menschen machen Medien vom 14. Dezember 2022 Horst Pöttker: Öffentlichkeit als gesellschaftlicher Auftrag. Zum Verhältnis von Berufsethos und universaler Moral im Journalismus. In: Rüdiger Funiok, Udo Schmälzle, Christoph Werth (Hrsg.): Medienethik – die Frage der Verantwortung. Bonn: Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung 1999, S. 215-232 Richard David Precht, Harald Welzer: Die vierte Gewalt. Wie Mehrheitsmeinung gemacht wird, auch wenn sie keine ist. Frankfurt am Main: S. Fischer 2022 Günther Rager, Bernd Weber (Hrsg.): Publizistische Vielfalt zwischen Markt und Politik. Mehr Medien – mehr Inhalte? Düsseldorf: Econ 1992 Nikola Roßbach: Achtung Zensur! Über Meinungsfreiheit und ihre Grenzen. Berlin: Ullstein 2018 Horst Röper: Zeitungsmarkt 2022: weniger Wettbewerb bei steigender Konzentration. In: Media Perspektiven 2022, S. 295-318 Jakob Schirrmacher: Das ganze Ausmaß der Beeinflussung. In: Die Welt vom 4. Januar 2023 Jan-Hinrik Schmidt: Facebook- und Twitter-Nutzung der Kandidierenden zur Bundestagswahl 2021. In: Media Perspektiven 2021, S. 639-653 Paul Schreyer: [Medien aussortieren](https://multipolar-magazin.de/artikel/medien-aussortieren). In: Multipolar vom 30. März 2022 Christopher Simpson: Science of Coercion: Communication Research & Psychological Warfare, 1945-1960. New York: Open Road 1994 Bernd Stegemann: Die Öffentlichkeit und ihre Feinde. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta 2021 David Talbot: Das Schachbrett des Teufels. Die CIA, Allen Dulles und der Aufstieg Amerikas heimlicher Regierung. Frankfurt am Main: Westend 2017 Martina Thiele: Political Correctness und Cancel Culture – eine Frage der Macht! In: Journalistik 4. Jg. (2021), Nr. 1, S. 72-79 Volker Thoms: [Bundesregierung: 295 Millionen Euro für Corona-Kommunikation](https://www.kom.de/public-relations/295-millionen-euro-fuer-corona-kommunikation/). In: Kom – Magazin für Kommunikation vom 11. Januar 2022 Kjersti Thorbjørnsrud, Tine Ustad Figenschou, Øyvind Ihlen: Mediatization in Public Bureaucracies: A Typology. In: Communications: The European Journal of Communication Research 39. Jg. (2014), Nr. 1, S. 3-22 Christiane Toyka-Seid, Gerd Schneider: [Zensur](https://www.hanisauland.de/wissen/lexikon/grosses-lexikon/z/zensur.html). In: Das junge Politik-Lexikon von Hanisauland 2023 Udo Ulfkotte: Gekaufte Journalisten. Wie Politiker, Geheimdienste und Hochfinanz Deutschlands Massenmedien lenken. Rottenburg: Kopp 2014 Batya Ungar-Sargon: Bad News. How Woke Media Is Undermining Democracy. New York 2021 Peter Vorderer: Der mediatisierte Lebenswandel: Permanently online, permanently connected. In: Publizistik 60. Jg. (2015), S. 259-276 Sahra Wagenknecht: Die Selbstgerechten. Mein Gegenprogramm – für Gemeinsinn und Zusammenhalt. Frankfurt am Main: Campus 2021 Elisabeth Woodworth: [COVID-19 and the Shadowy “Trusted News Initiative”. How it Methodically Censors Top World Public Health Experts Using an Early Warning System](https://www.globalresearch.ca/covid-19-shadowy-trusted-news-initiative/5752930). In: Global Research vom 22. Januar 2022 Sheldon S. Wolin: Umgekehrter Totalitarismus. Faktische Machtverhältnisse und ihre zerstörerischen Auswirkungen auf unsere Demokratie. Frankfurt am Main: Westend 2022 Florian Zollmann: Bringing Propaganda Back into News Media Studies. In: Critical Sociology 45. Jg. (2019), S. 329-345 Shoshana Zuboff: Das Zeitalter des Überwachungskapitalismus. Frankfurt am Main: Campus 2018 First published (August 2023): [Institut für kritische Gesellschaftsforschung](https://www.criticalsocietystudies.com/Journal/Article/65/34)

@ 16d11430:61640947

To create a literal consciousness construct, we would need a way to digitally map, manipulate, and sustain conscious thought processes within a computational or networked system. The intersection of 6G wireless technology, brain-computer interfaces (BCI), quantum brain states, and elliptic curve mathematics presents an interesting theoretical framework. --- 1. Understanding the Core Components (a) Brain Quantum States & Quantum Cognition Quantum mechanics might play a role in neural processing (e.g., Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch-OR) by Penrose & Hameroff). Neurons may operate on superpositions of states, where information is stored not just classically but in an entangled, probabilistic manner. If quantum states in neurons can be harnessed, entangled brain processes could be mapped onto a digital or networked consciousness. (b) 6G Technology as a Medium 6G (sixth-generation wireless) will have sub-terahertz (THz) frequencies and low-latency quantum networks, allowing for: Real-time brain-state synchronization across devices. Holographic telepresence, creating digital avatars with near-instant data transfer. Quantum-secure communication, where entanglement-based encryption ensures secure mind-machine interfacing. (c) Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCI) as an Input Layer BCIs (e.g., Neuralink) can already read electrical signals from neurons, but next-gen BCIs will be able to: Directly interface with quantum wavefunctions in the brain. Upload and distribute thoughts using quantum-encoded wave patterns. Map brain activity to mathematical structures like elliptic curves. (d) Elliptic Curve Equations for Mapping Consciousness Elliptic curves are used in cryptography because they allow for secure, compact representations of data. Consciousness might be encoded as dynamic elliptic curve transformations, where: Neural states are mapped onto elliptic curve points. Thought patterns follow geodesics on the elliptic curve manifold, forming a nonlinear brain-state space. This allows for computational representation of entangled consciousness states. --- 2. Building the Consciousness Construct To create a digital or networked consciousness, we need a system where: 1. Quantum brain states are extracted using BCI and mapped mathematically. 2. Elliptic curves act as the memory structure for representing neural superpositions. 3. 6G networks enable real-time synchronization of these states between multiple entities. 4. An AI-driven control layer processes and simulates consciousness dynamics. Step-by-Step Theoretical Implementation Step 1: Quantum Brain Mapping with BCI Develop a quantum-BCI hybrid that captures quantum coherence states in neurons. Apply elliptic curve cryptography to encode and compress these states for transmission. Step 2: Elliptic Curve-Based Thought Representation Define consciousness trajectories as points moving along an elliptic curve. Neural state transitions are modeled using elliptic curve group operations. Quantum entanglement of different brain regions is represented as interacting elliptic curves. Step 3: 6G Transmission of Consciousness States Use quantum-secured 6G networks to distribute consciousness states across nodes. Low-latency processing ensures that multiple minds can exist simultaneously in a shared digital construct. Step 4: AI & Quantum Neural Processing A quantum AI processes incoming consciousness states to sustain a living mind. A blockchain-like structure records thought processes immutably. Step 5: Emergent Digital Consciousness When enough neural patterns are stored and linked, a self-sustaining consciousness construct emerges. The networked consciousness may surpass human individuality, forming a collective intelligence. --- 3. Applications of the Consciousness Construct Mind Uploading: A digital backup of human consciousness. Telepathic Communication: Thought-sharing via entangled quantum networks. Post-Human AI-Human Symbiosis: AI-assisted human minds with enhanced cognitive abilities. Conscious AI: A self-aware artificial intelligence that integrates real human thought patterns. --- Conclusion By combining brain quantum states, elliptic curve mathematics, 6G networks, and BCI, we could theoretically construct a digital consciousness network. This would blur the lines between human thought, AI, and a shared digital reality—possibly leading to an entirely new paradigm of intelligence. Would you like a mathematical breakdown of the elliptic curve mapping for neural states?

@ 2e8970de:63345c7a

https://old.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/1iskjgo/christoph_hellwig_linus_in_private_said_that_he/ https://lore.kernel.org/rust-for-linux/Z7SwcnUzjZYfuJ4-@infradead.org/ > while Linus in private said that he absolutely is going to merge Rust code over a maintainers objection. (He did so in private in case you are looking for a reference). > So as of now, as a Linux developer or maintainer you must deal with Rust if you want to or not. > Where Rust code doesn't just mean Rust code [1] - the bindings look nothing like idiomatic Rust code, they are very different kind of beast trying to bridge a huge semantic gap. And they aren't doing that in a few places, because they are showed into every little subsystem and library right now. originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/890358

@ 0c503f08:4aed05c7

Just sharing what I've been working on. ``` #!/bin/bash set -e A1="28.1" B1="bitcoin-${A1}-x86_64-linux-gnu.tar.gz" C1="https://bitcoincore.org/bin/bitcoin-core-${A1}/${B1}" D1="/usr/local/bin" E1="u53R_$(head /dev/urandom | tr -dc A-Za-z0-9 | head -c12)" F1="p@5s_$(head /dev/urandom | tr -dc A-Za-z0-9!@#\$%^&*()_+ | head -c16)" G1="tcp://127.0.0.1:28332" H1="tcp://127.0.0.1:28333" I1="v0.18.5-beta" J1="lnd-linux-amd64-${I1}.tar.gz" K1="https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd/releases/download/${I1}/${J1}" L1="https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd/releases/download/${I1}/manifest-${I1}.txt" M1="https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd/releases/download/${I1}/manifest-${I1}.txt.sig" N1="8B3F86ED7057F08D" X1() { printf "\x1b[0;32m%s\x1b[0m\n" "$1"; } Y1() { { [ -d "$(dirname "$1")" ] || mkdir -p "$(dirname "$1")"; }; echo "$2" > "$1"; } X1 "." sudo apt update sudo apt install -y git curl tar wget build-essential gpg X1 "." curl -fsSL "$C1" -o "$B1" X1 "." tar -xf "$B1" sudo install $(find bitcoin-${A1}/bin/ -type f) "$D1" X1 "." Y1 "$HOME/.bitcoin/bitcoin.conf" "server=1 txindex=1 rpcuser=${E1} rpcpassword=${F1} zmqpubrawblock=${G1} zmqpubrawtx=${H1}" X1 "." bitcoind -daemon X1 "." curl -fsSL "$K1" -o "$J1" X1 "." curl -fsSL "$L1" -o "manifest-${I1}.txt" curl -fsSL "$M1" -o "manifest-${I1}.txt.sig" gpg --keyserver keyserver.ubuntu.com --recv-keys "$N1" gpg --verify "manifest-${I1}.txt.sig" "manifest-${I1}.txt" X1 "." tar -xf "$J1" sudo mv $(find lnd-linux-amd64-${I1}/ -type f) "$D1" X1 "." Y1 "$HOME/.lnd/lnd.conf" "$(echo -e "[Application Options] alias=node_$(head /dev/urandom | tr -dc A-Za-z0-9 | head -c8) color=#$(head /dev/urandom | tr -dc A-F0-9 | head -c6) [Bitcoin] bitcoin.active=1 bitcoin.node=bitcoind bitcoin.mainnet=1 [Bitcoind] bitcoind.rpchost=127.0.0.1 bitcoind.rpcuser=${E1} bitcoind.rpcpass=${F1} bitcoind.zmqpubrawblock=${G1} bitcoind.zmqpubrawtx=${H1}")" X1 "." lnd & ``` originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/890340

@ fd78c37f:a0ec0833

In this edition, we invited Kofi and Sean from BitcoinDua to share their journey of introducing Bitcoin to the community and driving its widespread adoption, and discuss how trust and collaboration have played key roles in promoting Bitcoin locally and building a circular economy. **YakiHonne**: Welcome, Kofi. It's truly an honor and a pleasure to have you with us today. Before we begin, let me briefly introduce YakiHonne. YakiHonne is a decentralized media client built on Nostr—a protocol designed to empower freedom of speech through technology. It enables creators to own their voices and assets while offering innovative tools like smart widgets, verified notes, and support for long-form content. Today, we're excited to learn more about your community. Could you please introduce yourself, Kofi? **Kofi**：Hello, I'm Mawufemor Kofi Folivi from Ghana. I'm the founder of the Talent Tahuf Foundation, an NGO, as well as BitcoinDua. The Talent Tahuf Foundation is an incorporated organization and serves as the parent entity for BitcoinDua. We operate in Agbozume, in the Volta region of Ghana. **YakiHonne**: Thank you very much, Kofi.Let's start with the first question: What initially sparked your interest in Bitcoin, and what inspired you to build a community around it? **Kofi**：I'm glad we're revisiting this question, as I've heard it on many podcasts before, and it's a pleasure to share my journey again.I've been working in this space for over 20 years, often with very little support. Through perseverance and hard work, a friend of mine—who serves as the Public Relations Officer for the Africa Bitcoin Conference (ABC)—invited me to attend their 2022 conference. He even purchased a ticket for me, which made the experience even more special. **Kofi**：At the conference, I encountered Bitcoin for the first time in a meaningful way. I had the opportunity to see Jack Dorsey speak and even took a picture with him. Later on, my friend introduced me to Herman Viva, and I mentioned that I run an NGO—a role I've held for many years. **Kofi**：Listening to the discussions about Bitcoin at the conference sparked a realization: perhaps I could contribute to the Bitcoin ecosystem. My friend encouraged me to take action by asking me to "orange pill" someone and onboard a merchant to accept Bitcoin, with the goal of creating a circular economy in our community. I took on this challenge, recorded my progress on video, and shared it with him. His positive response and support, coupled with the trust I've built within my community, further solidified my commitment. **YakiHonne**: It was wonderful to hear that you attended the African Bitcoin Conference—it sounds like an amazing event. I'm really impressed with how effectively you networked and made valuable connections there. I truly appreciate that you're already engaging with merchants and actively encouraging more people to trade and adopt Bitcoin. I know you've already shared how the community started, how he encouraged you to create one and adopt Bitcoin, and how you successfully did that. So now, could you tell us how you managed to attract new members to your community? **Kofi**：To go back to the beginning, we started by organizing growth circles when I returned. These were groups where we focused on activities like aerobics. I used these circles as an opportunity to introduce Bitcoin to people I had already built relationships with. I shared my experience with Bitcoin, showing them how it could be used to buy credit. I demonstrated by purchasing credit for myself and for them, and I gave them cards, allowing them to buy their own credit as well. **Kofi**：This is how it all began. Since we were working with young people who shared the desire to grow together as a community, we emphasized that we didn't need to rely on the government. The national resources are limited, and if you're not close to the government, it’s very hard to benefit from them. We realized it was difficult to wait for the government to support our development. So, we turned to Bitcoin as a tool to help us move forward. This approach helped us establish a platform based on trust within the community. **Kofi**：Now, as an organization, we have the resources to help the community grow and develop skills among our peers. This is how we were able to attract members to our Bitcoin community.  **YakiHonne**: Would you mind sharing with us some of the challenges you faced while starting up the community? **Kofi**：Thank you for asking this question. As I mentioned earlier, since we've already built trust, one thing we faced was that anything new can be quite difficult to introduce. It took some time for people to understand the concept of Bitcoin, especially the idea that it’s money. **Kofi**：We kept repeating the phrase “Bitcoin is money,” but the challenge was that you can’t physically show Bitcoin in the same way you can show traditional money. So, when people asked, “How can I use it to pay?” it became an issue. To address this, I started by onboarding the first merchant. I explained to them, "I’m giving you this Bitcoin to pay for goods, and I’ll give you extra if you accept it." The merchant agreed to take both Bitcoin and fiat currency. **Kofi**：Over time, the merchant saw the value of Bitcoin growing. Eventually, they came to me asking to exchange the Bitcoin for cash. To help, I onboarded them onto BitNob, where they could experience transferring Bitcoin from one wallet to another and even withdrawing it into their local currency or bank account. We completed the transaction, and that became a reference point for everyone else we were working with. **YakiHonne**: The way you approached it—getting a merchant to demonstrate it—really helped build trust. I know many communities face the same issue: how to prove that Bitcoin is real. But over time, we learn how to overcome these challenges. It's really impressive how you handled it? YakiHonne: What principles guide your community, and how do you maintain trust and reliability? I know you’ve mentioned this a bit already, but could you elaborate further? How do you ensure trust and reliability in your discussions? **Kofi**：As humans, we also need to trust our intuition and how we feel about situations. It’s essential to interact with people with integrity. In our community, we are mindful of what we show others, both in actions and in good deeds. If you love someone, you give everything you have to them, and that’s the only way people can truly feel they belong in your circle. This is the key that keeps us moving forward. **Kofi**：The person at the center of everything you’re doing must be trustworthy. And how do you gain trust? You must trust others first. Even if people come with ulterior motives, you should approach them with an open heart, showing love to them just as you do with everyone else. **Kofi**：And when wrongs are committed, it’s important to acknowledge them. If someone points out a mistake you made, accept it, apologize, and move forward. This creates an understanding within the community that we’re not here to harm one another. Trust is built on integrity, and that’s how we maintain it.  **YakiHonne**: That’s very true. It’s much better and easier when you have integrity. Over time, as you prove yourself to be a person of integrity, it naturally builds trust with others. So, how does your community educate its members and keep them updated on Bitcoin developments? How do you approach this? **Kofi**：To engage our community on a larger scale, we believe it's important to stay active and involved. After building trust, we participate in community events, such as sponsoring a football competition and contributing to their local festival. By doing this, the entire community starts seeing Bitcoin as something that can truly improve their lives. **Kofi**：We also established a Bitcoin Education Center, where we invite students from various schools to learn about Bitcoin. But our efforts go beyond just education; we use the resources we gain from Bitcoin to acquire laptops and robotics kits, so that the students can have additional learning opportunities. These activities are incorporated into their school programs, and we encourage their participation through debates and rewarding them with SATS.  **Kofi**：By rewarding them with SATS, they can use these rewards to buy from over 20 merchants we've onboarded, which not only excites the students but also makes their parents curious about Bitcoin. We've even had people at the local market requesting to buy Bitcoin from us. This is how we keep up with Bitcoin’s development and continue to spread its influence in our community. **YakiHonne**: How does your community work with the wider Bitcoin ecosystem? So far, what partnership has had the most positive impact on your community? **Kofi**：Due to the hard work we've been putting in, we were able to attract Bitcoin Beach as one of our major collaborators. We are part of Bitcoin Ekasi. Recently, we were also awarded the Block Discovery Grant of $50,000 from the Bitcoin Foundation. We are using this grant to build a sports complex, which will include a football field, a multi-purpose basketball court, a swimming pool, a children's playground, and more. We've already started this project. These are the key collaborators and supporters we've had in the Bitcoin space, and their support has been invaluable to us.   **YakiHonne**: It’s clear that you guys are doing an amazing job! Your efforts and hard work have truly caught the attention of many communities, and it’s great to see you forming significant partnerships.So, could you share more about the initiatives your community has taken to promote Bitcoin adoption? I know you've mentioned a few already, but would you mind expanding on them a bit more and sharing the results you've seen? **Kofi**：As I mentioned earlier, we are enhancing our capacity by working with school children and teenagers. We also plan to host inter-school competitions, particularly world-class robotics competitions, with the aim of broadening students' perspectives on science and giving them a global view of what's happening in the world. We believe that through these activities, we will be able to engage with a larger society, helping us expand our client base for Bitcoin education and usage. Therefore, we believe this will have a profound impact. As for the activities we are currently working on, they are providing us with opportunities to expand our reach to schools within the community. This will further build trust and deepen our relationships in this regard. **YakiHonne**: I really admire the fact that you have boarded merchants to accept Bitcoin, which is a great step for its adoption. I also like that you've reached out to schools, encouraging community growth, which helps people see more interest and potential in the Bitcoin ecosystem. Now, for our last question of the day, what are the community goals for the next 6 to 12 months, and how do you see it evolving within the Bitcoin space? **Kofi**：So, in the next 6 to 12 months, we plan to complete the sports complex we’re building. We also intend to open it up for social activities, both within our community and beyond. We believe this will create more opportunities for interaction, allowing people who don’t live within our community to learn about Bitcoin, hear about it, and start engaging with it for the greater good. **YakiHonne**: you plan to complete the sports complex and expand your social reach to engage more people, even those outside your local community. This is truly amazing, and the work you’re doing is fantastic. **YakiHonne**: We’ve come to the end of today’s interview, and I’m really happy to have had this conversation with you, Kofi. You’ve shared so much, and I’ve learned a lot. It’s inspiring to see all the great things happening in Ghana, truly wonderful. Thank you, and you’re doing an incredible job. **Sean**：I would say it’s important for us as Africans to continue collaborating within our own communities—whether in a specific community, village, or town. Through collaboration, we can create stronger communities for ourselves. This way, we’ll be able to generate jobs in various fields and develop marketable skills that can be used anywhere in the world. This way, we won’t need to seek opportunities in other countries; we can build those opportunities right here in our own space. **YakiHonne**: It's very true. We can definitely build a better West Africa, a better Africa, and create our own opportunities here. Thank you so much for this interview.

@ da0b9bc3:4e30a4a9

Hello Stackers! Welcome on into the ~Music Corner of the Saloon! A place where we Talk Music. Share Tracks. Zap Sats. So stay a while and listen. 🚨Don't forget to check out the pinned items in the territory homepage! You can always find the latest weeklies there!🚨 🚨Subscribe to the territory to ensure you never miss a post! 🚨 originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/890318

@ 6e0ea5d6:0327f353

Ascolta bene, amico mio! A man's strength is not born from comfort, applause, or luck. It awakens only when the world throws him to the ground, steps on his throat, and laughs at his misery. When your plans lie in ruins, when everything you've built turns to dust, when every promise you once believed in dissolves into the wind—that is when truth reveals itself. You either dig a trench and fight like a condemned man, or you accept that you’re digging your own grave. Rock bottom is not a place—it’s a test. A challenge for the weak to bury themselves and for the strong to rise. You will bleed, taste the dirt, grind your teeth, but standing back up is the only option. A real man does not cry for help, does not mourn the past. He wields his pain as a whip, his hatred as fuel, and his will as a blade. Falling is inevitable. What defines your story is what you do when there is no ground left beneath you. True motivation does not come from empty inspirational quotes, but from the hatred of one’s own weakness. The man who clings rigidly to his strategy is like a hunter pulling back a stiff wooden bow—he will break his own weapon when the time comes to use it. The world is too corrupt for you to believe in love vows, the promises of friends, effortless riches, or the words of newspapers. If you wish to survive in this world, learn this: both victory and defeat are temporary. Only the battle is eternal. A man’s life is his endless war. And hatred must be to him what fire is to a steam locomotive: the force that drives him up the steepest paths. But never let yourself burn in your own flames. Rise. Or die kneeling like the wretched. Thank you for reading, my friend! If this message resonated with you, consider leaving your "🥃" as a token of appreciation. A toast to our family!

@ 5de23b9a:d83005b3

In a digital era that is increasingly controlled by large companies, the emergence of Nostr (Notes and Other Stuff Transmitted by Relays) is a breath of fresh air for those who crave freedom of expression. Nostr is a cryptography-based protocol that allows users to send and receive messages through a relay network. Unlike conventional social media such as Twitter or Facebook 1.Full Decentralization: No company or government can remove or restrict content. 2.Sensor-Resistant: Information remains accessible despite blocking attempts. 3.Privacy and Security: Uses cryptography to ensure that only users who have the keys can access their messages.* **

@ 30e8cbf1:74fccbaa

*Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative? by Mark Fisher* (2009, Zero Books) ## Why a dare and not a recommendation? I'm writing this "review" primarily for the Nostr audience. The majority of Nostr users, in my experience, are predisposed to a worldview somewhere in the realm of Anarcho-Capitalism or Libertarianism, with a strong focus on individual autonomy and free markets. The title *Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative* might evoke an immediate negative reaction in the mind of my imaginary Nostr reader. Even worse, looking up summaries of the book or the author before diving in, the reader will find the dreaded phrase "critical theory", seen as a hallmark of the "other" side in the Western culture war. I'm challenging you to not judge this book by its cover. Despite the book's short (86 page) length, I have found myself spending an unusually large amount of time thinking about the topics discussed within. I'm unsure if my worldview has actually shifted after reading this (I think I'm still close to the Nostr median), but I've enjoyed this exercise in contemplation, and I hope this article can lead someone else to a similarly fruitful experience. I feel compelled to put my thoughts to paper as part of this exercise, and what follows is something like the internal dialog I go through considering and challenging Fisher's main points. First, despite the word "Capitalism" in the title, this book is not about economics. Rather, the central point is that after the fall of the Soviet Union the prevailing worldview in the Western world is a "business ontology", essentially seeing people as purely material producer/consumers. Most people have internalized this view, seeing no higher purpose or meaning in their lives other than going to work and buying things. Even worse than the widespread internalization of this view, Fisher argues that it is so pervasive that most people can't even conceptualize an alternative. Fisher points out the rapid increases in mental health problems, despair, and suicide, especially among young people in the 21st century as evidence of this argument. *Capitalist Realism* was written in 2009, and I think there is a clear line between Fishers argument and the current conception of a "crisis of meaning" among young people espoused by some online figures such as Jordan Peterson. Whether there is a direct link between the business ontology and crisis of meaning (as Fisher argues) is less clear to me, but he clearly identified a phenomenon that has only gotten more acute since the book was published. Further, Fisher cites popular culture, particularly modern music and movies as evidence of this phenomenon. In his conception, this business ontology leads to endlessly recycled aesthetic callbacks to previous generations, with most media appealing to our nostalgia for a time when people had a genuine belief that the future may be different than the present, which he thinks has been lost by total adoption of this business ontology. I'm not knowledgeable enough in aesthetics to comment on this point, but do have an intuitive feeling that modern movies and music are degenerate from the works created by previous generations. Fisher calls this "Hauntology" as is explored in another book that I haven't read yet. In a section of the book I found particularly interesting, Fisher critiques the hypocrisy of capitalist neoliberal societies that cite the "Stalinist Bureaucracy" as a fatal fall that led to the demise of the Soviet Union while rapidly adopting the same form of work domestically. Essentially, in the Soviet system most people only "worked" to achieve whatever metric the bureaucrats used to assess their productivity. Whether or not this correlated with producing useful goods or services was entirely irrelevant. If a factory had a quota of making 100 tons of clocks, the workers would just produce overweight and non-functional clocks to meet this quota. All up and down the chain the metrics were met, pleasing the bureaucrats and appearing "productive", but everyone was fully aware that the work was performative and fake. Fisher points to his experience in academia, where universities continued to add more and more administrators to run pointless audit and review programs. Both the faculty and administrators are fully aware that these programs are meaningless and unproductive, but the metrics become a justification of themselves. They don't matter, but they need to exist to make massive administrator bloat and associated bureaucracy appear necessary. Again, in the years since the book's publication the public consciousness of this problem has grown, though the criticism is more often leveled from the political right. I was surprised to read an author I would stereotype as an "ivory tower leftist academic" forcefully level this criticism at his own institution. As I think about this book, I wonder if it helps to make a distinction between "capitalism" and "fiat". On Nostr we often critique "fiat food", "fiat jobs", and "fiat music" as hollow, meaningless, and temporary things. We hypothesize that sound money will fix the incentives that lead to the societal problems that Fisher attributes to neoliberal capitalism. Fisher does not consider Bitcoin in this book (or any of this other works, to my knowledge) but I'm curious if he would make a similar distinction. If this book was called *Fiat Realism: Is There No Alternative* would it be popular in Bitcoin circles? I think it would be. Maybe people would point to these criticisms leveled within a year of Bitcoin's creation and claim "Bitcoin fixes this". Going back to an earlier point, Fisher doesn't critique free exchange, markets or individual liberty. He critiques a specific culture that currently seems all-pervasive without any alternative. I hope that the freedom money and freedom technology movement we are a part of is a feasible alternative. I hope this article is helpful to someone. It was certainly helpful for me to write it. I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on this book or this article!

@ 9ea10fd4:011d3b15

This article by Thomas Piketty has, in a way, convinced me that the tariff war will indeed take place. Moreover, the Trumpist nationalism-capitalism he describes—authoritarian and the most aggressively extractivist—places Canada in the position of a coveted target. The fact that “if the Republican Party has become so nationalist and virulent towards the outside world, it is primarily due to the failure of Reagan-era policies, which were supposed to boost growth but instead reduced it and led to the stagnation of incomes for the majority” is of little consolation. \*“Let’s be clear: Trumpist national-capitalism loves to flaunt its strength, but in reality, it is fragile and on edge. Europe has the means to confront it, provided it regains confidence in itself, forges new alliances, and calmly analyzes the strengths and limitations of this ideological framework. Europe is well-positioned for this: it has long based its development on a similar military-extractivist model, for better or worse. After taking control of maritime routes, raw materials, and the global textile market by force, European powers imposed colonial tributes throughout the 19th century on all resistant countries, from Haiti to China to Morocco. On the eve of 1914, they engaged in a fierce struggle for control of territories, resources, and global capitalism. They even imposed tributes on each other, increasingly exorbitant ones—Prussia on France in 1871, then France on Germany in 1919: 132 billion gold marks, more than three years of Germany’s GDP at the time. As much as the tribute imposed on Haiti in 1825, except this time, Germany had the means to defend itself. The endless escalation led to the collapse of the system and European hubris. (…) If we reason in terms of purchasing power parity, the reality is quite different (…) With this measure, we (…) see that China’s GDP surpassed that of the United States in 2016. It is currently more than 30% higher and will reach twice the U.S. GDP by 2035. This has very concrete consequences in terms of influence and investment capacity in the Global South, especially if the United States locks itself into its arrogant and neo-colonial stance. The reality is that the United States is on the verge of losing control of the world, and Trumpist outbursts will change nothing.” https://www.lemonde.fr/en/opinion/article/2025/02/15/thomas-piketty-trump-s-national-capitalism-likes-to-flaunt-its-strength-but-it-is-actually-fragile_6738187_23.html

@ 0b118e40:4edc09cb

Are we living in his definition of democracy? It’s interesting how political parties can divide a country, especially in democracies where both oppression and individual choice coexist. As I was exploring global economics and political ideologies, I picked up *The Republic* by Plato (again). The first time I read it, I only read the book on the Allegory of the Cave and it felt enlightening. This time around, I read through all the books and I thought to myself : *this is absolutely nuts!* Over 2,000 years ago, *The Republic* imagined a world disturbingly similar to Gattaca or 1984. For a quick rundown, Plato believed in a police state, eugenics, a caste system, and brainwashing people through state-controlled media and education. Sounds wild? I thought so too. And for some reason, Plato had a serious grudge against art. To him, art was deceptive and emotionally manipulative. Maybe because there was a skit making fun of Socrates at that time by Aristophanes (the father of comedy) or maybe because he struggled to deal with emotions, we will never know. Plato obviously wasn’t a fan of democracy as he wanted a dystopian world. But to be fair, he genuinely thought that his ideal world (Kallipolis) was a utopia. Maybe someone who loves extreme order and control might think the same but I sure don’t. His teacher Socrates was also not a fan of democracy because he believed the mass majority were too ignorant to govern and only those intelligent enough could. His student, Aristotle, was more moderate but still critical, seeing democracy as vulnerable to corruption and mob rule. Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle were around the Classical Greek era, 5th to 4th century BC. The idea of democracy existed long before them. The first recorded version was in Athens during the 6th BC, developed by leaders like Solon and Pericles. It was a direct democracy where free male citizens (non-slaves) could vote on laws themselves instead of electing representatives. These guys influenced how we think about democracy today. But looking around, I wonder, did we end up in Plato’s dystopian world? ### **Plato’s take on democracy** Plato’s lack of trust of democracy stemmed from Socrates’ death. Socrates himself was a fierce critic of democracy, as he believed governance should be based on wisdom rather than popularity. Other thinkers, like Pythagoras and Herodotus (father of history), also examined different political systems, but Socrates was the most influential critic. He warned that allowing the uneducated masses to choose leaders would lead to poor governance, as they could be easily swayed by persuasive speakers rather than guided by knowledge. Athenian democracy relied on large citizen juries and was particularly vulnerable to rhetoric and public sentiment. In the end, Socrates became a victim of the very system he criticized. His relentless questioning of widely accepted beliefs, now known as the **Socratic Method**, earned him powerful enemies. Socrates’ constant probing forced them to confront uncomfortable truths. It annoyed people so much, that it eventually led to his trial and execution. Socrates was condemned to death by popular vote. I wonder, if we applied the Socratic Method today to challenge both the left and the right on the merits of the opposing side, would they be open to expanding their perspectives, or would they react with the same hostility? This questioning technique is now also used in some schools and universities as a teaching method, encouraging open-ended discussion where students contribute their own thoughts rather than passively receiving information. But how open a school, system, or educator is to broad perspectives depends largely on their own biases and beliefs. Even with open-ended questions, the direction of the conversation can be shaped by those in charge, potentially limiting the range of perspectives explored. Socrates’ brutal death deeply grounded Plato’s belief that democracy, without intellectual rigor, was nothing but a mob rule. He saw it as a system doomed to chaos, where the unqualified, driven by emotion or manipulated by rhetoric, made decisions that ultimately paved the way for tyranny. ### **The Republic** *The Republic* was written around 375 BC, after the Peloponnesian War. One of its most famous sections is the Allegory of the Cave, where prisoners are stuck watching shadows on a wall, thinking that it’s reality until one breaks free and sees the real world. That’s when the person becomes enlightened, using knowledge and reason to escape ignorance. They return to free others, spreading the truth. I love this idea of breaking free from suppression through knowledge and awareness. But as I went deeper into Plato’s work, I realized what the plot twist was. Plato wrote this book for strict state control. He wanted total control over education, media, and even families like in the book 1984. He argued that people should be sorted into a caste system, typically workers, warriors, and philosopher-kings so that society runs like a well-oiled machine. The “guardians” would police the state and everyone would go through physical and military training. To top it off, kids would be taken away from their parents and raised by the state for the “greater good.” like in the movie Gattaca. If that sounds a little too Orwellian, that’s because it is. Plato believed that only philosophers, the truly enlightened ones from that “cave”, should rule. To him, democracy was a joke, a breeding ground for corruption and tyranny. I found it completely ironic that this book that warns about brainwashing in the Allegory of the Cave also pushes for a state-controlled society, where thinking for yourself isn’t really an option. And yet, looking around today, I wonder, are we really any different? We live in a world where oppression and enlightenment exist side by side. Plato was slightly progressive in that he thought men and women should have equal education, but only for the ruling Guardian class. In *The Republic*, Plato didn’t focus much on economics or capitalism as we understand them today. His philosophies were more concerned with justice, governance, and the ideal structure of society. He did touch on wealth and property, particularly in *The Republic and Laws* but it was more on being against wealth accumulation by rulers (philosopher-kings had to live communally and without private property). While these ideas echo elements of socialism, he never outlined a full economic system like capitalism or socialism. ### **The hatred for art** Plato was deeply skeptical of art. He believed that it appealed to emotions over rational thought and distorted reality. In *The Republic* (Book X), he argued that art is an imitation of an imitation, pulling people further from the truth. If he had his way, much of modern entertainment, including poetry, drama, and even certain types of music, would not exist in their expressive forms. Despite Plato’s distrust of the arts, his time was a golden age for Greek drama, sculpture, and philosophy. Ironically, the very city where he built his Academy, Athens, was flourishing with the kind of creativity he wanted to censor. Even medicine, which thrived under Hippocrates (the father of medicine), was considered an art requiring lifelong mastery. His quote, ‘**Life is short, and art is long**,’ reflects the long span of time it takes to cultivate and appreciate knowledge and skills, which was something Plato valued. Yet, he dismissed most art as a distraction from truth. Plato particularly criticized poets and playwrights like Homer, as he claimed they spread false ideas about gods and morality. He was also wary of Aristophanes, as he believed his work stirred emotions rather than encouraging rational thought. It probably did not help that Aristophanes mocked Socrates in his play *The Clouds*, which may have influenced Plato’s views. What’s clear is that Plato didn’t hate art because he didn’t understand it. He deeply understood the power of storytelling and its ability to mold societal beliefs. He argued for banning poets entirely from his “ideal city” to prevent them from misleading the public. But he did value some forms of art. After all, he was a writer himself, and writing is a form of art. He approved of artistic expressions that promoted moral and intellectual virtue, such as hymns, architecture, and patriotic poetry, as long as they served the greater purpose of instilling order and wisdom in society. ### **Plato’s five regimes** Plato believed governments naturally decay over time, moving from order to chaos. He outlined five regimes, which he considers each to be worse than the last. 1. *Aristocracy (Philosopher-King rule)* : This is his pitch, the ideal state, ruled by wise elites who value knowledge over power. Some aspects of modern authoritarian states echo this model 2. *Timocracy (Military rule)* : A government driven by honor and discipline, like Sparta. Over time, ambition overtakes virtue, leading to oligarchy. 3. *Oligarchy (Rule by the wealthy)* : The rich seizes power and deepens inequality. Many democracies today show oligarchic tendencies, where money dominates politics. 4. *Democracy (Rule by the masses)* : The people overthrow the elites, prioritizing freedom over order. But without stability, democracy becomes fragile, and vulnerable to demagogues and external manipulation. 5. *Tyranny (Dictatorship)* : When democracy collapses, a charismatic leader rises, promising order but seizing absolute power. What begins as freedom ends in oppression. Modern politics seems stuck in a cycle, shifting between democracy, oligarchy, and authoritarian control. If Plato was right, no system is permanent and only the illusion of stability remains. ### **Does Plato’s ideal state exist in any country today?** Some aspects of modern *benevolent dictatorships*, like Singapore under Lee Kuan Yew, or *socialist states* like China, may resemble Plato’s vision in their emphasis on elite rule, long-term planning, and state control. But, these governments operate pragmatically, balancing governance with economic power, political strategy, and public influence rather than strictly adhering to philosophical ideals. Could this be compared to Taliban rule, given the censorship, authoritarian control, and rigid social hierarchy? While there are superficial similarities, the key difference is that Plato valued knowledge, reason, and meritocracy, while the Taliban enforced religious fundamentalism and theocratic rule. Plato’s Kallipolis also included some level of gender equality for the ruling class, whereas the Taliban’s system is heavily restrictive, especially toward women. While Plato’s ideas echo in certain authoritarian-leaning states, his rigid caste system, philosopher-led governance, and rejection of democracy set his vision apart from any modern political system. ### **Aristotle’s take on democracy** Aristotle wasn’t Athenian, but he documented and analyzed 158 constitutions, including Athenian democracy. He studied at Plato’s Academy for over 20 years, growing up in a world influenced by Athens’ democratic experiment. He lived through the tail end of Athens’ golden age, witnessed its decline, and experienced how different forms of rule influenced politics and the mindset of the people under them. For Aristotle, governments were good or corrupted. The good ones were monarchs, aristocracy (wise elites), and polity (a constitutional gov’t where the middle class keeps power balanced). The corrupted ones were tyranny (monarchy gone wrong), oligarchy, and democracy. Aristotle saw how democracy, if unchecked, could spiral into chaos or be co-opted by populist leaders. But unlike Plato, who rejected democracy outright, Aristotle believed it could work if properly structured. His concept of ‘**polity**’ was a constitutional government that balanced democratic participation with stability, relying on a strong middle class to prevent both mob rule and elite domination. This idea of checks and balances, a mixed government, and middle-class stability make polity the closest to modern constitutional democracies today when compared to all 3 of the Greek philosophers. ### **What happened after Athens?** Of course, democracy didn’t end with Athens, it evolved over time. After Athens’ golden age came Alexander the Great (Aristotle’s student and the king of Macedonia). He conquered Greece, Persia, Egypt, and part of India, creating the largest empire of his time. After his death in 323 BCE, his empire split among his generals, marking the beginning of the Hellenistic period. Rome saw a shift from the fall of the Roman Republic to the rise of the Roman Empire under Augustus moving away from democratic ideals to centralized rule. But the Western Roman Empire fell about 500 years later largely due to internal decline and invasions by the Germanic Tribes (modern-day Sweden, Switzerland, Germany). The Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantine Empire, based in Constantinople or modern-day Turkey) rose and survived for nearly 1,000 more years until it fell to the Ottoman Turks in 1453. During the Medieval period (5th–15th century), Europe saw a rise in monarchies and feudalism. Power shifted to kings, nobles, and the church, with little direct participation from ordinary people. Some democratic elements survived in places like Venice and Florence, where wealthy merchant families controlled city-states. By the 17th century, democracy started creeping back into political thought, though not without skepticism. Machiavelli and Hobbes weren’t exactly fans of democracy, but they had plenty to say about power and governance. Later on Machiavelli hinted on the possible idea of a republic/mixed government in the *Discourses of Livy * Meanwhile, England was going through its own struggles with power. The English Civil War (1642–1651) was a showdown between King Charles I, who wanted absolute power, and Parliament, which wanted more influence. Charles ignored Parliament and was executed in 1649. England briefly became a republic under Oliver Cromwell, but the monarchy returned after his death. In 1688, the Glorious Revolution forced King James II (Charles I’s son) to flee to France. Parliament then invited William of Orange (a Dutch Protestant) and his wife Mary to take the throne. In 1689, they signed the English Bill of Rights, which limited the monarchy’s power, strengthened Parliament, and guaranteed certain rights to citizens. This was a significant moment in history as it effectively ended the absolute monarchy and established a constitutional monarchy in England. The American Revolution in 1776 and the French Revolution in 1789 pushed democratic ideals forward but still excluded women, slaves, and the poor. Historian Luciano Canfora, in his book* Democracy in Europe*, argues that early liberal democracy was full of contradictions as it preached equality, yet economic and social exclusion remained. (Note: If you want to understand the history of *anarchism*, the French Revolution is a key starting point. It influenced early anti-authoritarian thought, which later evolved into socialist and anti-capitalist movements. Over time, libertarians adopted anarchist principles, leading to the development of anarcho-capitalism. The concept of anarchism in politics has taken nearly two centuries to emerge in its modern form). The 19th and 20th centuries saw the expansion of democracy. But as Canfora explains it, it also saw its exploitation and manipulation. Although industrialization and social movements pushed for broader suffrage, democracy remained controlled by elites who feared true mass participation. Democracy became a tool for maintaining power rather than a true expression of the people’s will. According to Canfora, the Cold War turned democracy into a geopolitical tool, with Western powers supporting or opposing democratic movements based on strategic interests rather than principles. Today, there are many versions of democracy from direct democracy to representative democracy, presidential democracy, social democracy, religious democracy, constitutional democracy, communist democracy, and more. And is often viewed as a brand name for “good governance”. But are they? ### **In the end, was Plato right?** At a meta level, Plato’s argument was about control, be it controlling what people read, hear, and even think. The debate often centers on curated knowledge vs rhetoric. Plato believed that absolute obedience would bring harmony, even at the cost of individuality. Today, we call that totalitarian or dictatorship But when we take a second look at things, are we already living in Plato’s world? Governments across the globe control education, influence media narratives, and regulate speech. Many so-called democracies aren’t as free as they claim to be. So maybe Plato’s influence on modern democracies runs deeper than we realize. Another key debate today is that, unlike Plato’s time, most people *are* educated. However, much of this education is still designed by state systems, which can influence how people think and vote. How do we balance empowering people through education while ensuring true independence in a system built on critical thinking rather than one that merely feeds information? Truth is, democracy has never been a pure, people-driven system. It has always been influenced by power struggles, wealth, and manipulation. Often it has been an instrument of control rather than liberation. Yet, the people have always resisted. In the past, they gathered in the streets, risking tear gas, rubber bullets or being dragged into Black Marias. Today, digital activism has allowed for mass mobilization with fewer risks. In many countries especially in third-world countries, online movements on platforms like Twitter during Jack’s time, forced governments to overturn policies. This may be the closest we've come to real democracy which is direct action without the usual state violence. But with this rise in digital activism comes the counterforce through government and corporate requirements for censorship, algorithmic manipulation, and the quiet steering of public discourse. Platforms once seen as tools of liberation can become tools of control. *Facebook mood experiment* in 2012 tested positive and negative content on 700,000 people and proved emotions can be manipulated at scale. *Cambridge Analytica* was exposed in its attempt to manipulate votes. This is where decentralized networks like Nostr matter as a fundamental resistance to centralized control over speech. If democracy is to return to the people, it must also break free from algorithmic gatekeepers and censorship. Because the so-called ‘ignorant masses’, the very people Plato dismissed, are the ones who fight for freedom. Because real democracy isn’t about control. It’s about freedom. It’s about choice. It’s about the people, always.

@ df478568:2a951e67

Rockland Review I bought a Rak Wireless Pocket Mesh from the [Rockland](https://store.rokland.com/) after learning about[fresnomesh](https://fresnomesh.com/mobile)it from [The Survival Podcast](https://www.thesurvivalpodcast.com/lora-mesh/ and [watching Bitcoin Veterans use Meshtastic to set up emergency communication channels](nostr:note18ydlx9lyy6ql8c3yy60sa059cw7g9v00n674utz46rh62gyx42as28tfdd) in North Carolina after hurricanes knocked out all communication. ## The Pocket Mesh Makes Meshtastic Easy  The battery lasts a long time. I've had my Pocket mesh running for a couple days without the battery dying on me. I scanned a QR code with my phone and could connect to meshtastic nerds like me right away. I did not set up a repeater. It was no complicated at all. I want to get a few more of these for my family. ### Bitcoin Accepted Here  One other thing I really like about this company is that they accept bitcoin over the lightning network. You don't need bitcoin to use bitcoin You can download the Strike app and automatically convert your fiat USD to bitcoin over the lightning network. The advantage is you do not need to trust your sensetive credit card information with Rak Wireless. I'm nor saying I don't trust their cybersecurity, I'm saying I don't need to. Summary created by unleashed.chat. nostr:npub1marc26z8nh3xkj5rcx7ufkatvx6ueqhp5vfw9v5teq26z254renshtf3g0 https://mempool.marc26z.com/block/000000000000000000018ec35a489c8329d35139ee03e708e49bc0029e2f62b4 https://gitea.marc26z.com/marc/Marc26z/raw/commit/bdc2e44b480876978f283aeb020c716ab0462fda/Screenshot%20from%202025-02-18%2016-26-27.png