@ 35f3a26c:92ddf231

### Background Most people non familiar with Bitcoin thinks that there its has not smart contracts capabilities, and that is incorrect, there are smart contract capabilities, and despite limited in comparison with other blockchain networks, those capabilities are evolving slowly but surely. The support for smart contracts is done through its scripting language, Script, which allows developers to create complex conditions for transactions. **What can you do with Script?** 1. time locks 2. multi-signature requirements 3. other custom logic opcodes like OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY (CLTV) and OP_CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY (CSV) are used to build more sophisticated smart contracts, these opcodes enable features such as the Lightning Network, a key scaling solution for Bitcoin back in 2021, the ***Taproot ***upgrade introduced Pay-to-Taproot (P2TR), in summary allows for more private and efficient smart contracts, in that soft fork more was added, in addition to Taproot, we got as well ***Schnorr signatures***, which enables multiple signatures to be aggregated into a single signature, improving scalability and privacy and ***MAST (Merklized Abstract Syntax Trees)*** which reduces the size of complex smart contracts, making them more efficient, as an added value, this efficiency reduces the cost of transactions. The ***Taproot ***upgrade has laid the foundation for the development of more sophisticated smart contracts on the Bitcoin network, and the use of covenants is an important part of this development. ### What is Bitcoin Covenants? It is a **BIP** (Bitcoin Improvement Proposal), **BIP-347**, assigned on April 24, 2024, which marks the first step towards reintroducing functionality removed from Bitcoin by its creator Satoshi Nakamoto in 2010. This proposal aims to bring smart contract functionality to Bitcoin as we see in other EVM networks. The proposal’s developers authors names are **Ethan Heilman** and **Armin Sabouri**, now the community will debate its merits. Here the link, in case you are curious: ***[https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0347.mediawiki](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0347.mediawiki)*** It is worth to read the motivation section of the BIP, which reads: “Bitcoin Tapscript lacks a general purpose way of combining objects on the stack, restricting the expressiveness and power of Tapscript. This prevents, among many other things, the ability to construct and evaluate merkle trees and other hashed data structures in Tapscript. OP_CAT, by adding a general purpose way to concatenate stack values, would overcome this limitation and greatly increase the functionality of Tapscript. OP_CAT aims to expand the toolbox of the tapscript developer with a simple, modular, and useful opcode in the spirit of Unix. To demonstrate the usefulness of OP_CAT below we provide a non-exhaustive list of some use cases that OP_CAT would enable: Bitstream, a protocol for the atomic swap (fair exchange) of bitcoins for decryption keys, that enables decentralized file hosting systems paid in Bitcoin. While such swaps are currently possible on Bitcoin without OP_CAT, they require the use of complex and computationally expensive Verifiable Computation cryptographic techniques. OP_CAT would remove this requirement on Verifiable Computation, making such protocols far more practical to build in Bitcoin. Tree signatures provide a multisignature script whose size can be logarithmic in the number of public keys and can encode spend conditions beyond n-of-m. For instance a transaction less than 1KB in size could support tree signatures with up to 4,294,967,296 public keys. This also enables generalized logical spend conditions. Post-Quantum Lamport signatures in Bitcoin transactions. Lamport signatures merely require the ability to hash and concatenate values on the stack. [4] It has been proposed that if ECDSA is broken or a powerful computer was on the horizon, there might be an effort to protect ownership of bitcoins by allowing people to mark their taproot outputs as "script-path only" and then move their coins into such outputs with a leaf in the script tree requiring a Lamport signature. It is an open question if a tapscript commitment would preserve the quantum resistance of Lamport signatures. Beyond this question, the use of Lamport Signatures in taproot outputs is unlikely to be quantum resistant even if the script spend-path is made quantum resistant. This is because taproot outputs can also be spent with a key. An attacker with a sufficiently powerful quantum computer could bypass the taproot script spend-path by finding the discrete log of the taproot output and thus spending the output using the key spend-path. The use of "Nothing Up My Sleeve" (NUMS) points as described in BIP-341 to disable the key spend-path does not disable the key spend-path against a quantum attacker as NUMS relies on the hardness of finding discrete logs. We are not aware of any mechanism which could disable the key spend-path in a taproot output without a soft-fork change to taproot. Non-equivocation contracts in tapscript provide a mechanism to punish equivocation/double spending in Bitcoin payment channels. OP_CAT enables this by enforcing rules on the spending transaction's nonce. The capability is a useful building block for payment channels and other Bitcoin protocols. Vaults [6] which are a specialized covenant that allows a user to block a malicious party who has compromised the user's secret key from stealing the funds in that output. As shown in OP_CAT is sufficient to build vaults in Bitcoin. Replicating CheckSigFromStack which would allow the creation of simple covenants and other advanced contracts without having to pre-sign spending transactions, possibly reducing complexity and the amount of data that needs to be stored. Originally shown to work with Schnorr signatures, this result has been extended to ECDSA signatures. OP_CAT was available in early versions of Bitcoin. In 2010, a single commit disabled OP_CAT, along with another 15 opcodes. Folklore states that OP_CAT was removed in this commit because it enabled the construction of a script whose evaluation could have memory usage exponential in the size of the script. For example, a script that pushed a 1-byte value on the stack and then repeated the opcodes OP_DUP, OP_CAT 40 times would result in a stack element whose size was greater than 1 terabyte assuming no maximum stack element size. As Bitcoin at that time had a maximum stack element size of 5000 bytes, the effect of this expansion was limited to 5000 bytes. This is no longer an issue because tapscript enforces a maximum stack element size of 520 bytes.” The last update of the BIP was done on Sep. 8 2024 by Ethan Heilman ### Controversy The controversy revolves around two main camps: 1. Those who want to preserve Bitcoin’s network for monetary transactions only, arguing that adding smart contract capabilities could introduce risks and complexity. 2. Others who advocate for expanding Bitcoin’s capabilities to support a wider range of applications, seeing OP_CAT as a step towards enhancing the network’s utility. ### Final Thoughts  Bitcoin have done what no other asset have done in history, neither gold, its success is clear, and now, that BlackRock is involved, “miraculously”, corporations and governments are getting on board and Bitcoin is not anymore only for criminals or “rat poison” or “is going to zero”. But as all tech, improvements are important, if those improvements are done to secure more the network and to make it more robust, there will be little to none controversy, however, when those changes are aiming at adding new shinning features that would change Bitcoin into a network with similar features as Ethereum in terms of contracts that requires attention and debate, few questions come to mind: 1. How will that change affect the security of the network? 2. How that change will affect the blockchain usage? 3. What is the projected impact over the fees per transaction if this change is approved? 4. Will the impact create pressure for the block size increase discussion to come back to the table and with it a second war? Looking into Ethan Heilman work and contribution to the Bitcoin ecosystem, I am inclined to believe that he has considered most of those questions. Looking forward to observe the evolution of this proposal. #### You liked the article? Make my day brighter! Like and share! Last but not least, the following link is an unstoppable domain, it will open a page in which you can perform an anonymous contribution to support my work: [https://rodswallet.unstoppable/](https://rodswallet.unstoppable/) The link didn’t open? To open the link you need to use a best in class browser that supports web3, two are recommended: Brave Browser and Opera Browser

@ f33c8a96:5ec6f741

<div style="position:relative;padding-bottom:56.25%;height:0;overflow:hidden;max-width:100%;"><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/V-7u7bJccSM?enablejsapi=1" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;border:0;" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>

@ bf47c19e:c3d2573b

###### [PREUZMITE ODLOMAK](https://www.knjizare-vulkan.rs/files/files/pdf/317878.pdf) ###### [KUPITE ELEKTRONSKO IZDANJE KNJIGE](https://delfi.rs/eknjiga/120661_delfi_knjizare.html?priceDisplayType=eBook) ###### Autor: Natanijel Poper ###### Prevodilac: Nevena Andrić --- Kako funkcioniše novac, ko iz njega izvlači korist i kako bi sve to moglo izgledati ubuduće. Bitkoin, revolucionarna digitalna valuta i finansijska tehnologija, predstavlja začetak jednog globalnog društvenog pokreta utopijskih stremljenja. Ideja nove valute, koju održavaju personalni računari širom sveta, bila je predmet brojnih šala, ali to je nije sprečilo da preraste u tehnologiju vrednu više milijardi dolara, tehnologiju s mnoštvom sledbenika, koji je smatraju najvažnijim novim izumom još od stvaranja interneta. Poklonici bitkoina, od Pekinga do Buenos Ajresa, u njemu vide mogućnost postojanja finansijskog sistema bez uticaja vlade ili banaka, novu globalnu valutu digitalne ere. Digitalno zlato je neobična priča o jednom grupnom izumu, pripovest o ličnostima koje su stvorile bitkoin, uključujući i jednog finskog studenta, argentinskog milionera, kineskog preduzetnika, Tajlera i Kamerona Vinklvosa, tajanstvenog tvorca bitkoina Satošija Nakamota, kao i Rosa Ulbrihta, osnivača Silk rouda, tržišta narkotika na internetu. „Sjajna priča. Bitkoin će preobraziti i finansijski svet i našu upotrebu interneta, a ova izuzetno zanimljiva knjiga predstavlja hroniku njegovog neverovatnog nastanka. Poperova priča se ne ispušta iz ruke, puna je živopisnih izumitelja, i predstavlja ključno štivo za svakoga ko želi da razume budućnost.“ Volter Ajzakson, autor knjige Stiv Džobs „Bitkoin je možda tekovina informatičkih nauka, ali priča o njemu je priča o ljudima. Ovaj nadasve zabavan istorijat podseća nas da istina može biti čudnija od književnosti, i ponekad je spektar stvarnih ličnosti još neobičniji i zanimljiviji od književnih.“ Lari Samers, bivši ministar finansija SAD [Trejler za knjigu "Digitalno zlato" Natanijela Popera](https://youtu.be/_W2ITkRY9mY)

@ 5d4b6c8d:8a1c1ee3

This isn't a fully crystalized post, but I want to see what people think about egregiously bad officiating in an era of widespread sports betting. It seems so obvious that Chiefs games, for instance, are rigged. I don't think that's specifically done for gambling reasons. My gut says it has more to do with marketing and league revenue. Might the sportsbooks be a check on this corruption of the sport, since honest matches (or at least the perception of such) are in their interest? People don't like betting on rigged events, after all. In other cases, though, atrocious calls can no longer live in a vacuum. We, as spectators, are now always wondering if officials are putting their thumbs on the scales for their own enrichment. If people keep watching and buying up all the merch, though, is there any incentive for the league to address it? If the leagues were to attempt to address it, what's the best way to impose accountability? originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/860390

@ bf47c19e:c3d2573b

Originalni tekst na [dvadesetjedan.com](https://dvadesetjedan.com/blog/btc-scenarij-uspijeha) ###### Autor: Vijay Boyapati / Prevod na hrvatski: [Matija](t.me/matijap9) --- Sa zadnjim cijenama koje je bitcoin dosegao 2017., optimističan scenarij za ulagače se možda čini toliko očitim da ga nije potrebno niti spominjati. Alternativno, možda se nekome čini glupo ulagati u digitalnu vrijednost koja ne počiva na nijednom fizičkom dobru ili vladi i čiji porast cijene su neki usporedili sa manijom tulipana ili dot-com balonom. Nijedno nije točno; optimističan scenarij za Bitcoin je uvjerljiv, ali ne i očit. Postoje značajni rizici kod ulaganja u Bitcoin, no, kao što planiram pokazati, postoji i ogromna prilika. #### Geneza Nikad u povijesti svijeta nije bilo moguće napraviti transfer vrijednosti među fizički udaljenim ljudima bez posrednika, poput banke ili vlade. 2008. godine, anonimni Satoshi Nakamoto je objavio [8 stranica rješenja](https://bitcoin.org/files/bitcoin-paper/bitcoin_hr.pdf) na dugo nerješivi računalski problem poznat kao “Problem Bizantskog Generala.” Njegovo rješenje i sustav koji je izgradio - Bitcoin - dozvolio je, prvi put ikad, da se vrijednost prenosi brzo i daleko, bez ikakvih posrednika ili povjerenja. Implikacije kreacije Bitcoina su toliko duboke, ekonomski i računalski, da bi Nakamoto trebao biti prva osoba nominirana za Nobelovu nagradu za ekonomiju i Turingovu nagradu. Za ulagače, važna činjenica izuma Bitcoina (mreže i protokola) je stvaranje novog oskudnog digitalnog dobra - bitcoina (monetarne jedinice). Bitcoini su prenosivi digitalni “novčići” (tokeni), proizvedeni na Bitcoin mreži kroz proces nazvan “rudarenje” (mining). Rudarenje Bitcoina je ugrubo usporedivo sa rudarenjem zlata, uz bitnu razliku da proizvodnja bitcoina prati unaprijed osmišljeni i predvidivi raspored. Samo 21 milijun bitcoina će ikad postojati, i većina (2017., kada je ovaj tekst napisan) su već izrudareni. Svake četiri godine, količina rudarenih bitcoina se prepolovi. Produkcija novih bitcoina će potpuno prestati 2140. godine.  *Stopa inflacije —— Monetarna baza* Bitcoine ne podržava nikakva roba ili dobra, niti ih garantira ikakva vlada ili firma, što postavlja očito pitanje za svakog novog bitcoin ulagača: zašto imaju uopće ikakvu vrijednost? Za razliku od dionica, obveznica, nekretnina ili robe poput nafte i žita, bitcoine nije moguće vrednovati koristeći standardne ekonomske analize ili korisnost u proizvodnji drugih dobara. Bitcoini pripadaju sasvim drugoj kategoriji dobara - monetarnih dobara, čija se vrijednost definira kroz tzv. teoriju igara; svaki sudionik na tržištu vrednuje neko dobro, onoliko koliko procjenjuje da će ga drugi sudionici vrednovati. Kako bismo bolje razumjeli ovo svojstvo monetarnih dobara, trebamo istražiti podrijetlo novca. #### Podrijetlo novca U prvim ljudskim društvima, trgovina među grupama se vršila kroz robnu razmjenu. Velika neefikasnost prisutna u robnoj razmjeni je drastično ograničavala količinu i geografski prostor na kojem je bila moguća. Jedan od najvećih problema sa robnom razmjenom je problem dvostruke podudarnosti potražnje. Uzgajivač jabuka možda želi trgovati sa ribarom, ali ako ribar ne želi jabuke u istom trenutku, razmjena se neće dogoditi. Kroz vrijeme, ljudi su razvili želju za čuvanjem određenih predmeta zbog njihove rijetkosti i simbolične vrijednosti (npr. školjke, životinjski zube, kremen). Zaista, kako i Nick Szabo govori u svojem izvrsnom [eseju o podrijetlu novca](https://nakamotoinstitute.org/shelling-out/), ljudska želja za sakupljanjem predmeta pružila je izraženu evolucijsku prednost ranom čovjeku nad njegovim najbližim biološkim rivalom, neandertalcem - Homo neanderthalensis. > "Primarna i najbitnija evolucijska funkcija sakupljanja bila je osigurati medij za čuvanje i prenošenje vrijednosti". Predmeti koje su ljudi sakupljali služili su kao svojevrsni “proto-novac,” tako što su omogućavale trgovinu među antagonističkim plemenima i dozvoljavale bogatsvu da se prenosi na sljedeću generaciju. Trgovina i transfer takvih predmeta bile su rijetke u paleolitskim društvima, te su oni služili više kao “spremište vrijednosti” (store of value) nego kao “medij razmjene” (medium of exchange), što je uloga koju danas igra moderni novac. Szabo objašnjava: > "U usporedbi sa modernim novcem, primitivan novac je imao jako malo “brzinu” - mogao je promijeniti ruke samo nekoliko puta u životu prosječnog čovjeka. Svejedno, trajni i čvrsti sakupljački predmet, što bismo danas nazvali “nasljeđe,” mogao je opstati mnogo generacija, dodajući znatnu vrijednost pri svakom transferu - i zapravo omogućiti transfer uopće". Rani čovjek suočio se sa bitnom dilemom u teoriji igara, kada je odlučivao koje predmete sakupljati: koje od njih će drugi ljudi željeti? Onaj koji bi to točno predvidio imao bi ogromnu prednost u mogućnosti trgovine i akvizicije bogatsva. Neka američka indijanska plemena, npr. Naraganseti, specijalizirala su se u proizvodnji sakupljačkih dobara koja nisu imala drugu svrhu osim trgovine. Valja spomenuti da što je ranije predviđanje da će neko dobro imati takvu vrijednost, veća je prednost koju će imati onaj koji je posjeduje, zato što ju je moguće nabaviti jeftinije, prije nego postane vrlo tražena roba i njezona vrijednost naraste zajedno sa populacijom. Nadalje, nabava nekog dobra u nadi da će u budućnosti biti korišteno kao spremište vrijednosti, ubrzava upravo tu primjenu. Ova cirkularnost je zapravo povratna veza (feedback loop) koja potiče društva da se rapidno slože oko jednog spremišta vrijednosti. U terminima teorije igara, ovo je znano kao “[Nashov ekvilibrij](https://sh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nashov_ekvilibrijum).” Postizanje Nashovog ekvilibrija za neko spremište vrijednosti je veliko postignuće za društvo, pošto ono znatno olakšava trgovinu i podjelu rada, i time omogućava napredak civilizacije.  Tisućljećima, kako su ljudska društva rasla i otvarala trgovinske puteve, različite aplikacije spremišta vrijednosti u individualnim društvima počele su se natjecati međusobno. Trgovci su imali izbor: čuvati svoju zaradu u spremištu vrijednosti vlastite kulture, ili one kulture sa kojom su trgovali, ili mješavini oboje. Benefit štednje u stranom spremištu vrijednosti bila je uvećana sposobnost trgovanja u povezanom stranom društvu. Trgovci koji su štedili u stranom spremištu vrijednosti su također imali dobrih razloga da potiču svoje društvo da ga prihvati, jer bi tako uvećali vrijednost vlastite ušteđevine. Prednosti “uvezene” tehnologije spremanja vrijednosti bile su prisutne ne samo za trgovce, nego i za sama društva. Kada bi se dvije grupe konvergirale u jedinstvenom spremištu vrijednosti, to bi značajno smanjilo cijenu troškova trgovine jednog s drugim, i samim time povećanje bogatstva kroz trgovinu. I zaista, 19. stoljeće bilo je prvi put da je najveći dio svijeta prihvatio jedinstveno spremište vrijednosti - zlato - i u tom periodu vidio najveću eksploziju trgovine u povijesti svijeta. O ovom mirnom periodu, pisao je John Maynard Keynes: > "Kakva nevjerojatna epizoda u ekonomskom napretku čovjeka… za svakog čovjeka iole iznadprosječnog, iz srednje ili više klase, život je nudio obilje, ugodu i mogućnosti, po niskoj cijeni i bez puno problema, više nego monarsima iz prethodnih perioda. Stanovnik Londona mogao je, ispijajući jutarnji čaj iz kreveta, telefonski naručiti razne proizvode iz cijele Zemlje, u količinama koje je želio, i sa dobrim razlogom očekivati njihovu dostavu na svoj kućni prag." #### Svojstva dobrog spremišta vrijednosti Kada se spremišta vrijednosti natječu jedno s drugim, specifična svojstva rade razliku koja daje jednom prednost nad drugim. Premda su mnoga dobra u prošlosti korištena kao spremišta vrijednosti ili kao “proto-novac,” određena svojstva su se pokazala kao posebno važna, i omogućila dobrima sa njima da pobijede. Idealno spremište vrijednosti biti će: * **Trajno**: dobro ne smije biti kvarljivo ili lako uništeno. Tako naprimjer, žito nije idealno spremište vrijednosti. * **Prenosivo**: dobro mora biti lako transportirati i čuvati, što omogućuje osiguranje protiv gubitka ili krađe i dopušta trgovinu na velike udaljenosti. Tako, krava je lošije spremište vrijednosti od zlatne narukvice. * **Zamjenjivo**: jedna jedinica dobra treba biti zamjenjiva sa drugom. Bez zamjenjivosti, problem podudarnosti želja ostaje nerješiv. Time, zlato je bolje od dijamanata, jer su oni nepravilni u obliku i kvaliteti. * **Provjerljivo**: dobro mora biti lako i brzo identificirano i testirano za autentičnost. Laka provjera povećava povjerenje u trgovini i vjerojatnost da će razmjena biti dovršena. * **Djeljivo**: dobro mora biti lako djeljivo na manje dijelove. Premda je ovo svojstvo bilo manje važno u ranim društvima gdje je trgovina bila rijetka, postalo je važnije sa procvatom trgovine. Količine koje su se mijenjale postale su manje i preciznije. * **Oskudno**: Monetarno dobro mora imati “cijenu nemoguću za lažirati,” kao što je rekao Nick Szabo. Drugim riječima, dobro ne smije biti obilno ili lako dostupno kroz proizvodnju. Oskudnost je možda i najvažnije svojstvo spremišta vrijednosti, pošto se izravno vezuje na ljudsku želju da sakupljamo ono što je rijetko. Ona je izvor vrijednosti u spremištu vrijednosti. * **Duge povijesti**: što je dulje neko dobro vrijedno za društvo, veća je vjerojatnost da će biti prihvaćeno kao spremište vrijednosti. Dugo postojeće spremište vrijednosti biti će jako teško uklonjeno od strane došljaka, osim u slučaju sile (ratno osvajanje) ili ako je nova tehnologija znatno bolja u ostalim svojstvima. * **Otporno na cenzuru**: novije svojstvo, sve više važno u modernom digitalnom svijetu sa sveprisutnim nadzorom, je otpornost na cenzuru. Drugim riječima, koliko je teško da vanjski agent, kao korporacija ili država, spriječi vlasnika dobra da ga čuva i koristi. Dobra koja su otporna na cenzuru su idealna za ljude koji žive u režimima koji prisilno nadziru kapital ili čine neke oblike mirne trgovine protuzakonitima. Ova tablica ocjenjuje Bitcoin, zlato (gold) i fiat novac (kao što je euro ili dolar) po svojstvima izlistanim gore. Objašnjenje svake ocjene slijedi nakon tablice.  ###### Trajnost: Zlato je neosporeni kralj trajnosti. Velika većina zlata pronađenog kroz povijest, uključujući ono egipatskih faraona, opstaje i danas i vjerojatno će postojati i za tisuću godina. Zlatnici korišteni u antičko doba imaju značajnu vrijednost i danas. Fiat valute i bitcoini su digitalni zapisi koji ponekad imaju fizički oblik (npr. novčanice). Dakle, njihovu trajnost ne određuju njihova fizička svojstva (moguće je zamijeniti staru i oštećenu novčanicu za novu), nego institucije koje stoje iza njih. U slučaju fiat valuta, mnoge države su nastale i nestale kroz stoljeća, i valute su nestale s njima. Marke iz Weimarske republike danas nemaju vrijednost zato što institucija koja ih je izdavala više ne postoji. Ako je povijest ikakav pokazatelj, ne bi bilo mudro smatrati fiat valute trajnima dugoročno; američki dolar i britanska funta su relativne anomalije u ovom pogledu. Bitcoini, zato što nemaju instituciju koja ih održava, mogu se smatrati trajnima dok god mreža koja ih osigurava postoji. Obzirom da je Bitcoin još uvijek mlada valuta, prerano je za čvrste zaključke o njegovoj trajnosti. No, postoje ohrabrujući znakovi - prominente države su ga pokušavale regulirati, hakeri ga napadali - usprkos tome, mreža nastavlja funkcionirati, pokazujući visok stupanj antifragilnosti. ###### Prenosivost: Bitcoini su najprenosivije spremište vrijednosti ikad. Privatni ključevi koji predstavljaju stotine milijuna dolara mogu se spremiti na USB drive i lako ponijeti bilo gdje. Nadalje, jednako velike sume mogu se poslati na drugi kraj svijeta skoro instantno. Fiat valute, zbog svojeg temeljno digitalnog oblika, su također lako prenosive. Ali, regulacije i kontrola kapitala od strane države mogu ugroziti velike prijenose vrijednosti, ili ih usporiti danima. Gotovina se može koristiti kako bi se izbjegle kontrole kapitala, ali onda rastu rizik čuvanja i cijena transporta. Zlato, zbog svojeg fizičkog oblika i velike gustoće, je najmanje prenosivo. Nije čudo da većina zlatnika i poluga nikad ne napuste sefove. Kada se radi prijenos zlata između prodavača i kupca, uglavnom se prenosi samo ugovor o vlasništvu, ne samo fizičko zlato. Prijenos fizičkog zlata na velike udaljenosti je skupo, riskantno i sporo. ###### Zamjenjivost: Zlato nam daje standard za zamjenjivost. Kada je rastopljeno, gram zlata je praktički nemoguće razlikovati od bilo kojeg drugog grama, i zlato je oduvijek bilo takvo. S druge strane, fiat valute, su zamjenjive samo onoliko koliko njihova institucija želi da budu. Iako je uglavnom slučaj da je novčanica zamjenjiva za drugu istog iznosa, postoje situacije u kojima su velike novčanice tretirane drukčije od malih. Naprimjer, vlada Indije je, u pokušaju da uništi neoporezivo sivo tržište, potpuno oduzela vrijednost novčanicama od 500 i 1000 rupija. To je uzrokovalo da ljudi manje vrednuju te novčanice u trgovini, što je značilo da više nisu bile zaista zamjenjive za manje novčanice. Bitcoini su zamjenjivi na razini mreže; svaki bitcoin je pri prijenosu tretiran kao svaki drugi. No, zato što je moguće pratiti individualne bitcoine na blockchainu, određeni bitcoin može, u teoriji, postati “prljav” zbog korštenja u ilegalnoj trgovini, te ga trgovci ili mjenjačnice možda neće htjeti prihvatiti. Bez dodatnih poboljšanja oko privatnosti i anonimnosti na razini mrežnog protokola, bitcoine ne možemo smatrati jednako zamjenjivim kao zlato. ###### Mogućnost provjere: Praktično gledajući, autentičnost fiat valuta i zlata je prilično lako provjeriti. Svejedno, i usprkos pokušajima da spriječe krivotvorenje novčanica, i dalje postoji potencijal prevare za vlade i njihove građane. Zlato također nije imuno na krivotvorenje. Sofisticirani kriminalci su koristili [pozlaćeni tungsten](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/fake-gold-wafer-rbc-canadian-mint-1.4368801) kako bi prevarili kupce zlata. Bitcoine je moguće provjeriti sa matematičkom sigurnošću. Korištenjem kriptografskih potpisa, vlasnik bitcoina može javno demonstrirati da posjeduje bitcoine koje tvrdi da posjeduje. ###### Djeljivost: Bitcoine je moguće podijeliti u stotinu milijuna manjih jedinica (zvanih satoshi), i prenositi takve (no, valja uzeti u obzir ekonomičnost prijenosa malih iznosa, zbog cijene osiguravanja mreže - “network fee”). Fiat valute su tipično dovoljno djeljive na jedinice sa vrlo niskom kupovnom moći. Zlato, iako fizički i teoretski djeljivo, postaje teško za korištenje kada se podijeli na dovoljno male količine da bi se moglo koristiti u svakodnevnoj trgovini. ###### Oskudnost: Svojstvo koje najjasnije razlikuje Bitcoin od fiat valuta i zlata je njegova unaprijed definirana oskudnost. Od početka, konačna količina bitcoina nikad neće biti veća od 21 milijun. To daje vlasnicima bitcoina jasan i znan uvid u postotak ukupnog vlasništva. Naprimjer, vlasnik 10 bitcoina bi znao da najviše 2,1 milijuna ljudi (manje od 0.03% populacije) može ikad imati isto bitcoina kao i on. Premda je kroz povijest uvijek bilo oskudno, zlato nije imuno na povećanje ukupne količine. Ako se ikad izumi nova, ekonomičnija metoda rudarenja ili proizvodnje zlata, ukupna količina zlata bi se mogla dramatično povećati (npr. [rudarenje morskog dna](https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/07/deep-sea-mining-five-facts/) ili [asteroida](http://web.mit.edu/12.000/www/m2016/finalwebsite/solutions/asteroids.html)). Na kraju, fiat valute, relativno nov izum u povijesti, pokazale su se sklonima konstantnim povećanjima u količini. Države su pokazale stalnu sklonost inflaciji monetarne kvantitete kako bi rješavale kratkoročne političke probleme. Inflacijske tendencije vlada diljem svijeta čine fiat valute gotovo sigurnim da će gubiti vrijednost kroz vrijeme. ###### Etablirana povijest: Nijedno monetarno dobro nema povijest kao zlato, koje je imalo vrijednost za cijelog trajanja ljudske civilizacije. Kovanice izrađene u antičko doba i [danas imaju značajnu vrijednost](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoxne_Hoard). Ne može se isto reći za fiat valute, koje su same relativno nova povijesna anomalija. Od njihovog početka, fiat valute su imale gotovo univerzalni smjer prema bezvrijednosti. Korištenje inflacije kao podmuklog načina za nevidljivo oporezivanje građana je vječita kušnja kojoj se skoro nijedna država u povijesti nije mogla oduprijeti. Ako je 20. stoljeće, u kojem je fiat novac dominirao globalni monetarni poredak, demonstriralo neku ekonomsku istinu, to je onda bila ta da ne možemo računati na fiat novac da održi vrijednost u dužem ili srednjem vremenskom periodu. Bitcoin, usprkos svojoj novosti, je preživio dovoljno testova tržišta da postoji velika vjerojatnost da neće nestati kao vrijedno dobro. Nadalje, [Lindy efekt](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect) govori da što duže Bitcoin bude korišten, to će veća biti vjera u njega i njegovu sposobnost da nastavi postojati dugo u budućnost. Drugim riječima, društvena vjera u monetarno dobro je asimptotička, kao u grafu ispod:  Ako Bitcoin preživi prvih 20 godina, imat će gotovo sveopće povjerenje da će trajati zauvijek, kao što ljudi vjeruju da je internet trajna stvar u modernom svijetu. ###### Otpor na cenzuru Jedan od najbitnijih izvora za ranu potražnju bitcoina bila je njegova upotreba u ilegalnoj kupovini i prodaji droge. Mnogi su zato pogrešno zaključili da je primarna potražnja za bitcoinima utemeljena u njihovoj prividnoj anonimnosti. Međutim, Bitcoin nije anonimna valuta; svaka transakcija na mreži je zauvijek zapisana na javnom blockchainu. Povijesni zapis transakcija dozvoljava forenzičkoj analizi da identificira izvore i tijek sredstava. [Takva analiza](http://blog.wizsec.jp/2017/07/breaking-open-mtgox-1.html) dovela je do uhićenja počinitelja zloglasne MtGox pljačke. Premda je istina da dovoljno oprezna i pedantna osoba može sakriti svoj identitet koristeći Bitcoin, to nije razlog zašto je Bitcoin bio toliko popularan u trgovini drogom. Ključno svojstvo koje čini Bitcoin najboljim za takve aktivnosti je njegova agnostičnost i nepotrebnost za dozvolom (“premissionlessness”) na mrežnoj razini. Kada se bitcoini prenose na Bitcoin mreži, ne postoji nitko tko dopušta transakcije. Bitcoin je distribuirana peer-to-peer (korisnik-korisniku) mreža, i samim time dizajnirana da bude otporna na cenzuru. Ovo je u velikom kontrastu sa fiat bankarskim sustavom, u kojem države reguliraju banke i ostale institucije prijenosa novca, kako bi one prijavljivale i sprječavale protuzakonito korištenje monetarnih dobara. Klasičan primjer regulacije novca su kontrole kapitala. Npr., bogati milijunaš će vrlo teško prenijeti svoje bogatstvo u novu zemlju, kada bježi iz opresivnog režima. Premda zlato nije izdano i proizvedeno od države, njegova fizička priroda ga čini teško prenosivim kroz prostor, i samim time ga je daleko lakše regulirati nego Bitcoin. Indijski [Akt kontrole zlata](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gold_(Control)_Act,_1968) je primjer takve regulacije. Bitcoin je odličan u većini gore navedenih svojstava, što mu omogućava da bude marginalno bolji od modernih i drevnih monetarnih dobara, te da pruži poticaje za svoje rastuće društveno usvajanje. Specifično, moćna kombinacija otpornosti na cenzuru i apsolutne oskudnosti bila je velika motivacija za bogate ulagače koji su uložili dio svojeg bogatstva u Bitcoin. #### Evolucija novca U modernoj monetarnoj ekonomiji postoji opsesija sa ulogom novca kao medija razmjene. U 20. stoljeću, države su monopolizirale izdavanje i kontrolu novca i kontinuirano potkopavale njegovo svojstvo spremišta vrijednosti, stvarajući lažno uvjerenje da je primarna svrha novca biti medij razmjene. Mnogi su kritizirali Bitcoin, govoreći da je neprikladan da bude novac zato što mu je cijena bila previše volatilna za medij razmjene. No, novac je uvijek evoluirao kroz etape; uloga spremišta vrijednosti je dolazila prije medija razmjene. Jedan od očeva marginalističke ekonomije, William Stanley Jevons, objašnjava: > "Povijesno govoreći… čini se da je zlato prvo služilo kao luksuzni metal za ukras; drugo, kao sačuvana vrijednost; treće, kao medij razmjene; i konačno, kao mjerilo vrijednosti." U modernoj terminologiji, novac uvijek evoluira kroz četiri stadija: 1. **Kolekcionarstvo**: U prvoj fazi svoje evolucije, novac je tražen samo zbog svojih posebnih svojstava, uglavnom zbog želja onog koji ga posjeduje. Školjke, perlice i zlato su bili sakupljani prije nego su poprimili poznatije uloge novca. 2. **Spremište vrijednosti**: Jednom kada je novac tražen od dovoljnog broja ljudi, biti će prepoznat kao način za čuvanje i spremanje vrijednosti kroz vrijeme. Kada neko dobro postane široko korišteno kao spremište vrijednosti, njegova kupovna moć raste sa povećanom potražnjom za tu svrhu. Kupovna moć spremišta vrijednosti će u jednom trenutku doći do vrhunca, kada je dovolno rašireno i broj novih ljudi koji ga potražuju splasne. 3. **Sredstvo razmjene**: Kada je novac potpuno etabliran kao spremište vrijednosti, njegova kupovna moć se stabilizira. Nakon toga, postane prikladno sredstvo razmjene zbog stabilnosti svoje cijene. U najranijim danima Bitcoina, mnogi ljudi nisu shvaćali koju buduću cijenu plaćaju koristeći bitcoine kao sredstvo razmjene, umjesto kao novonastalo spremište vrijednosti. Poznata priča o čovjeku koji je za 10,000 bitcoina (vrijednih oko 94 milijuna dolara kada je ovaj članak napisan) za dvije pizze ilustrira ovaj problem. 4. **Jedinica računanja vrijednosti**: Jednom kada je novac široko korišten kao sredstvo razmjene, dobra će biti vrednovana u njemu, tj. većina cijena će biti izražena u njemu. Uobičajena zabluda je da je većinu dobara moguće zamijeniti za bitcoine danas. Npr., premda je možda moguće kupiti šalicu kave za bitcoine, izlistana cijena nije prava bitcoin cijena; zapravo se radi o cijeni u državnoj valuti koju želi trgovac, preračunatu u bitcoin po trenutnoj tržišnoj cijeni. Kad bi cijena bitcoina pala u odnosu na valutu, vrijednost šalice izražena u bitcoinima bi se povećala. Od trenutka kada trgovci budu voljni prihvaćani bitcoine kao platežno sredstvo, bez obraćanja pažnje na vrijednost bitcoina u državnoj fiat valuti, moći ćemo reći da je Bitcoin zaista postao jedinica računanja vrijednosti. Monetarna dobra koja još nisu jedinice računanja vrijednosti možemo smatrati “djelomično monetiziranima.” Danas zlato ima takvu ulogu, jer je spremište vrijednosti, ali su mu uloge sredstva razmjene i računanja vrijednosti oduzete intervencijama država. Moguće je također da se jedno dobro koristi kao sredstvo razmjene, dok druga ispunjavaju ostale uloge. To je tipično u zemljama gdje je država disfunkcionalna, npr. Argentina ili Zimbabwe. U svojoj knjizi, Digitalno zlato, Nathaniel Popper piše: > "U Americi, dolar služi trima funkcijama novca: nudi sredstvo razmjene, jedinicu za mjerenje vrijednosti dobara, i mjesto gdje se može čuvati vrijednosti. S druge strane, argentinski peso je korišten kao sredstvo razmjene (za svakodnevne potrebe), ali ga nitko nije koristio kao spremište vrijednosti. Štednja u pesosima bila je ekvivalent bacanja novca. Zato su ljudi svu svoju štednju imali u dolarima, jer je dolar bolje čuvao vrijednost. Zbog volatilnosti pesosa, ljudi su računali cijene u dolarima, što im je pružalo pouzdaniju jedinicu mjerenja kroz vrijeme." Bitcoin je trenutno u fazi tranzicije iz prvog stadija monetizacije u drugi. Vjerojatno će proći nekoliko godina prije nego Bitcoin pređe iz začetaka spremišta vrijednosti u istinski medij razmjene, i put do tog trenutka je još uvijek pun rizika i nesigurnosti. Važno je napomenuti da je ista tranzicija trajala mnogo stoljeća za zlato. Nitko danas živ nije doživio monetizaciju dobra u realnom vremenu (kroz koju Bitcoin prolazi), tako da nemamo puno iskustva govoriti o putu i načinu na koji će se monetizacija dogoditi. #### Put monetizacije Kroz proces monetizacije, monetarno dobro će naglo porasti u kupovnoj moći. Mnogi su tako komentirali da je uvećanje kupovne moći Bitcoina izgledalo kao “balon” (bubble). Premda je ovaj termin često korišten kako bi ukazao na pretjeranu vrijednosti Bitcoina, sasvim slučajno je prikladan. Svojstvo koje je uobičajeno za sva monetarna dobra jest da je njihova kupovna moć viša nego što se može opravdati samo kroz njihovu uporabnu vrijednost. Zaista, mnogi povijesni novci nisu imali uporabnu vrijednost. Razliku između kupovne moći i vrijednosti razmjene koju bi novac mogao imati za svoju inherentnu korisnost, možemo razmatrati kao “monetarnu premiju.” Kako monetarno dobro prolazi kroz stadije monetizacije (navedene gore), monetarna premija raste. No, ta premija ne raste u ravnoj i predvidivoj liniji. Dobro X, koje je bilo u procesu monetizacije, može izgubiti u usporedbi sa dobrom Y koje ima više svojstava novca, te monetarna premija dobra X drastično padne ili potpuno nestane. Monetarna premija srebra je skoro potpuno nestala u kasnom 19. stoljeću, kada su ga vlade diljem svijeta zamijenile zlatom kao novcem.  Čak i u odsustvu vanjskih faktora, kao što su intervencije vlade ili druga monetarna dobra, monetarna premija novog novca neće ići predvidivim putem. Ekonomist [Larry White](http://oll.libertyfund.org/pages/misestmc) primijetio je: > "problem sa pričom “balona,” naravno, je da je ona konzistentna sa svakim putem cijene, i time ne daje ikakvo objašnjenje za specifičan put cijene" Proces monetizacije opisuje teorija igara; svaki akter na tržištu pokušava predvidjeti agregiranu potražnju ostalih aktera, i time buduću monetarnu premiju. Zato što je monetarna premija nevezana za inherentnu korisnost, tržišni akteri se uglavnom vode za prošlim cijenama da bi odredili je li neko dobro jeftino ili skupo, i žele li ga kupiti ili prodati. Veza trenutne potražnje sa prošlim cijenama naziva se “ovisnost o putu” (path dependence); ona je možda najveći izvor konfuzije u shvaćanju kretanja cijena monetarnih dobara. Kada kupovna moć monetarnog dobra naraste zbog većeg i šireg korištenja, očekivanja tržišta o definicijama “jeftinog” i “skupog” se mijenjaju u skladu s time. Slično tome, kada cijena monetarnog dobra padne, očekivanja tržišta mogu se promijeniti u opće vjerovanje da su prethodne cijene bile “iracionalne” ili prenapuhane. Ovisnost o putu novca ilustrirana je [riječima ](http://thereformedbroker.com/2017/09/11/you-can-practically-smell-it-in-the-air/) poznatog upravitelja fondova s Wall Streeta, Josha Browna: > "Kupio sam bitcoine kada su koštali $2300, i to mi se udvostručilo gotovo odmah. Onda sam počeo govoriti kako “ne mogu kupiti još” dok im je cijena rasla, premda sam znao da je to razmišljanje bazirano samo na cijenu po kojoj sam ih kupio. Kasnije, kada je cijena pala zbog kineske regulacije mjenjačnica, počeo sam si govoriti, “Odlično, nadam se da će još pasti da mogu kupiti još.”" Istina leži u tome da su ideje “jeftinog” i “skupog” zapravo besmislene kada govorimo o monetarnim dobrima. Cijena monetarnog dobra ne reflektira njegovu stopu rasprostanjenosti ili korisnosti, nego mjeru koliko je ono široko prihvaćeno da ispuni razne uloge novca. Dodatna komplikacija u ovom aspektu novca je činjenica da tržišni akteri ne djeluju samo kao nepristrani promatrači koji pokušavaju kupiti i prodati u iščekivanju budućih kretanja monetarne premije, nego i kao aktivni proponenti. Pošto ne postoji objektivno “točna” monetarna premija, širiti dobar glas o superiornijim svojstvima nekog monetarnog dobra je efektivnije nego za obična dobra, čija vrijednost je u konačnici vezana na njegovu osnovnu korisnost. Religiozni zanos sudionika na Bitcoin tržištu vidljiv je na raznim internetskim forumima, gdje Bitcoineri aktivno promoviraju benefine Bitcoina i bogatstvo koje je moguće ostvariti investiranjem u njega. Promatrajući Bitcoin tržište, [Leigh Drogen komentira](https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/19/josh-brown-goes-down-the-bitcoin-rabbit-hole-commentary.html): > "To je prepoznatljivo svima kao religija - priča koju si pričamo i oko koje se slažemo. Religija je krivulja na grafu prihvaćanja o kojoj trebamo razmišljati. Sustav je gotovo savršen - onog trenutka kada netko pristupi krugu Bitcoinera, to će reći svima i nastaviti širiti riječ. Onda njihovi prijatelji pristupe i nastave širiti riječ." Premda usporedba sa religijom može staviti Bitcoin u iracionalno svjetlo, potpuno je racionalno za individualnog vlasnika da širi dobru vijest o superiornom monetarnom dobru, i za šire društvo da se standardizira oko njega. Novac djeluje kao temelj za svu trgovinu i štednju; tako da prihvaćanje superiornog oblika novca ima ogromne multiplicirajuće benefite za stvaranje bogatstva za sve članove društva. #### Oblik monetizacije  U članku o [Spekulativnom prihvaćanju Bitcoina / teorije cijene](https://medium.com/@mcasey0827/speculative-bitcoin-adoption-price-theory-2eed48ecf7da), Michael Casey postulira da rastući Gartner hype ciklusi predstavljaju faze standardne S-krivulje prihvaćanja novih tehnologija, koje su bile prisutne kod mnogih transformacijskih tehnologija dok su postajale uobičajene u društvu.  Svaki Gartner hype ciklus počinje sa eksplozijom entuzijazma za novom tehnologijom, a cijenu podižu oni sudionici na tržištvu koji su “dostupni” u toj fazi. Najraniji kupci u Gartner hype ciklusu obično imaju jaku vjeru o transformacijskoj prirodi tehnologije u koju ulažu. S vremenom, tržište dosegne vrhunac entuzijazma kako se količina novih kupaca iscrpljuje, te kupovinom počnu dominirati spekulatori koji su više zainteresirani u brze profite nego u samu tehnologiju. Nakon vrha hype ciklusa, cijene rapidno padaju dok spekulativno ludilo ustupa mjesto očajavanju, javnoj poruzi i osjećaju da tehnologija nije uopće bila transformacijska. S vremenom, cijena dosegne dno i formira plato na kojem se originalnim ulagačima, koji su imali snažno uvjerenje, pridružuju nove grupe ljudi koji su izdržali bol kraha cijena i koji cijene važnost same tehnologije. Plato traje neko vrijeme i formira, kako Casey kaže, “stabilnu, dosadnu dolinu.” Za ovo vrijeme, javni interes za tehnologiju opada, no nastaviti će se razvijati i snažna zajednica uvjerenja će polako rasti. Tada, postavlja se nova baza za sljedeću iteraciju hype ciklusa, dok vanjski promatrači prepoznaju da tehnologija i dalje postoji i da ulaganje u nju možda nije onoliko rizično kao što se činilo za vrijeme pada cijene. Sljedeća iteracija hype ciklusa donosi mnogo veći broj novih ljudi, pa je i ciklus daleko veći u svojoj magnitudi. Jako mali broj ljudi koji sudjeluju u Gartner hype ciklusu će točno predvidjeti koliko će visoko cijena porasti za vrijeme ciklusa. Cijene često dosegnu razine koje bi se činile apsurdnima većini ulagača u raniji stadijima ciklusa. Kada ciklus završi, mediji tipično atribuiraju pad cijene nekoj od aktualnih drušvenih tema. Premda takva tema može biti okidač pada, ona nikad nije temeljni razlog zašto ciklus završava. Gartner hype ciklusi završavaju kada je količina dostupnih novih sudionika na tržištu iscrpljena. Zanimljivo je da je i zlato nacrtalo klasičan graf Gartner hype ciklusa od kasnih 1970-ih do ranih 2000-ih. Moguće je spekulirati da je hype ciklus osnovna socijalna dinamika oko procesa monetizacije. #### Gartner kohorte Od početka trgovanja Bitcoina na mjenjačnicama 2010. godine, Bitcoin tržište je svjedočilo četirima velikim Gartner hype ciklusima. U retrospektivi, možemo vrlo precizno identificirati grupe cijena prethodnih hype ciklusa Bitcoin tržišta. Također, možemo kvalitativno odrediti kohorte ulagača koje su povezane sa svakom iteracijom prethodnih ciklusa. **$0–$1** (2009. – 3. mjesec 2011.): Prvi hype ciklus u Bitcoin tržištu dominirali su kriptografi, računalni znanstvenici i cypherpunkovi koji su od početka bili spremni razumijeti važnost nevjerojatnog izuma Satoshija Nakamotoa, i koji su bili pioniri u potvrđivanju da Bitcoin protokol nema tehničkih mana. **$1–$30** (3. mjesec 2011. – 7. mjesec. 2011.): Drugi ciklus privukao je rane entuzijaste oko novih tehnologija kao i stabilan pritok ideološki motiviranih ulagača koji su bili oduševljeni idejom novca odvojenog od države. Libertarijanci poput Rogera Vera došli su u Bitcoin zbog aktivnog anti-institucionalnog stava, i mogućnosti koju je nova tehnologija obećavala. Wences Casares, briljantni i dobro povezani serijski poduzetnik, bio je također dio drugog Bitcoin hype ciklusa te je širio riječ o Bitcoinu među najprominentnijim tehnolozima i ulagačima u Silicijskoj Dolini. **$250–$1100** (4. mjesec 2013. – 12. mjesec 2013.): Treći hype ciklus doživio je ulazak ranih generalnih i institucionalnih ulagača koji su bili voljni uložiti trud i riskirati kroz užasno komplicirane kanale likvidnosti kako bi kupili bitcoine. Primaran izvor likvidnosti na tržištu za vrijeme ovog perioda bio je MtGox, mjenjačnica bazirana u Japanu, koju je vodio notorno nesposobni i beskrupulozni Mark Karpeles, koji je kasnije završio i u zatvoru zbog svoje uloge u kolapsu MtGoxa. Valja primijetiti da je rast Bitcoinove cijene za vrijeme spomenuti hype ciklusa većinom povezano sa povećanjem likvidnosti i lakoćom sa kojom su ulagači mogli kupiti bitcoine. Za vrijeme prvog hype ciklusa, nisu postojale mjenjačnice; akvizicija bitcoina se odvijala primarno kroz rudarenje (mining) ili kroz izravnu razmjenu sa onima koju su već izrudarili bitcoine. Za vrijeme drugog hype ciklusa, pojavile su se rudimentarne mjenjačnice, no nabavljanje i osiguravanje bitcoina na ovim mjenjačnicama bilo je previše kompleksno za sve osim tehnološki najsposobnijih ulagača. Čak i za vrijeme trećeg hype ciklusa, ulagači koju su slali novac na MtGox kako bi kupili bitcoine su morali raditi kroz značajne prepreke. Banke nisu bile voljne imati posla sa mjenjačnicom, a oni posrednici koji su nudili usluge transfera bili su često nesposobni, kriminalni, ili oboje. Nadalje, mnogi koji su uspjeli poslati novac MtGoxu, u konačnici su morali prihvatiti gubitak svojih sredstava kada je mjenjačnica hakirana i kasnije zatvorena. Tek nakon kolapsa MtGox mjenjačnice i dvogodišnje pauze u tržišnoj cijeni Bitcoina, razvili su se zreli i duboki izvori likvidnosti; primjeri poput reguliranih mjenjačnica kao što su GDAX i OTC brokeri kao Cumberland mining. Dok je četvrti hype ciklus započeo 2016. godine, bilo je relativno lako običnim ulagačima kupiti i osigurati bitcoine. ###### $1100–$19600? (2014. –?): U trenutku pisanja ovog teksta, tržište Bitcoina je prolazilo svoj četvrti veliki hype ciklus. Sudjelovanje u ovom hype ciklusu dominirala je ona skupina koju je Michael Casey opisao kao “rana većina” običnih i institucionalnih ulagača.  Kako su se izvori likvidnosti produbljivali i sazrijevali, veliki institucionalni ulagači sada imaju priliku sudjelovati kroz regulirana “futures” tržišta. Dostupnosti takvih tržišta stvara put ka kreaciji Bitcoin ETF-a (exchange traded fund) (fond na slobodnom tržištu), koji će onda pokrenuti “kasnu većinu” i “najsporije” u sljedećim hype ciklusima. Premda je nemoguće predvidjeti točan efekt budućih hype ciklusa, razumno je očekivati da će najviša točka biti između $20,000 i $50,000 (2021. zenit je bio preko $69,000). Znatno više od ovog raspona, i Bitcoin bi imao znatan postotak ukupne vijednosti zlata (zlato i Bitcoin bi imali jednaku tržišnu kapitalizaciju kada bi bitcoini vrijedili oko $380,000 u trenutku pisanja ovog teksta). Značajan postotak vrijednosti zlata dolazi od potražnje centralnih banaka, te je malo vjerojatno da će centralne banke ili suverene države sudjelovati u trenutnom hype ciklusu. #### Ulazak suverenih država u Bitcoin Bitcoinov zadnji Gartner hype ciklus će započeti kada ga suverene države počnu akumulirati kao dio svojih rezervi stranih valuta. Tržišna kapitalizacija Bitcoina je trenutno premala da bismo ga smatrali značajnim dodatkom rezervama većini zemalja. No, kako se interes u privatnom sektoru povećava i kapitalizacija Bitcoina se približi trilijunu dolara, postat će dovoljno likvidan za većinu država. Prva država koja službeno doda bitcoine u svoje rezerve će vjerojatno potaknuti stampedo ostalih da učine isto. Države koje su među prvima u usvajanju Bitcoina imat će najviše benefita u svojim knjigama ako Bitcoin u konačnici postane globalna valuta (global reserve currency). Nažalost, vjerojatno će države sa najjačom izvršnom vlasti - diktature poput Sjeverne Koreje - biti najbrže u akumulaciji bitcoina. Neodobravanje prema takvim državama i slaba izvršna tijela zapadnjačkih demokracija uzrokovat će sporost i kašnjenje u akumulaciji bitcoina za njihove vlastite rezerve. Velika je ironija u tome što je SAD trenutno jedna od regulatorno najotvorenijih nacija prema Bitcoinu, dok su Kina i Rusija najzatvorenije. SAD riskira najviše, geopolitički, ako bi Bitcoin zamijenio dolar kao svjetska rezervna valuta. U 1960-ima, Charles de Gaulle je kritizirao “pretjeranu privilegiju” (“exorbitant privilege”) koju su SAD imale u međunarodnom monetarnom poretku, postavljenom kroz Bretton Woods dogovor 1944. godine. Ruska i kineska vlada još ne shvaćaju geo-strateške benefite Bitcoina kao rezervne valute, te se trenutno brinu o efektima koje bi mogao imati na njihova unutarnja tržišta. Kao de Gaulle u 1960-ima, koji je prijetio SAD-u povratkom na klasični standard zlata, Kinezi i Rusi će s vremenom uvidjeti korist u velikoj poziciji u Bitcoinu - spremištu vrijednosti bez pokrića ijedne vlade. Sa najvećom koncentracijom rudara Bitcoina u Kini (2017.), kineska vlada već ima znatnu potencijalnu prednost u stavljanju bitcoina u svoje rezerve. SAD se ponosi svojim statusom nacije inovatora, sa Silicijskom dolinom kao krunom svoje ekonomije. Dosad, Silicijska dolina je dominirala konverzacijom usmjerenom prema regulaciji, i poziciji koju bi ona treba zauzeti prema Bitcoinu. No, bankovna industrija i federalna rezerva SAD-a (US Federal Reserve, Fed) napokon počinju uviđati egzistencijalnu prijetnju koju Bitcoin predstavlja za američku monetarnu politiku, postankom globalne rezervne valute. Wall Street Journal, jedan od medijskih glasova federalne reserve, izdao je [komentar ](https://www.wsj.com/articles/is-it-time-to-regulate-bitcoin-1512409004) o Bitcoinu kao prijetnji monetarnoj politici SAD-a: > "Postoji još jedna opasnost, možda i ozbiljnija iz perspektive centralnih banaka i regulatora: bitcoin možda ne propadne. Ako je spekulativni žar u kriptovalutu samo prvi pokazatelj njezinog šireg korištenja kao alternative dolaru, Bitcoin će svakako ugroziti monopol centralnih banaka nad novcem." U narednim godinama, možemo očekivati veliku borbu između poduzetnika i inovatora u Silicijskoj dolini, koji će pokušavati čuvati Bitcoin od državne kontrole s jedne strane, i bankovne industrije i centralnih banaka koje će učiniti sve što mogu da bi regulirale Bitcoin kako bi spriječile znatne promjene u svojoj industriji i moći izdavanja novca, s druge. #### Prijelaz na medij razmjene Monetarno dobro ne može postati opće prihvaćen medij razmjene (standardna ekonomska definicija za “novac”) prije nego je vrednovano od širokog spektra ljudi; jednostavno, dobro koje nije vrednovano neće biti prihvaćeno u razmjeni. Kroz proces generalnog rasta vrijednosti, i time postanka spremišta vrijednosti, monetarno dobro će brzo narasti u kupovnoj moći, i time stvoriti cijenu za korištenje u razmjeni. Samo kada ta cijena rizika mijenjanja spremišta vrijednosti padne dovoljno nisko, može dobro postati opće prihvaćen medij razmjene. Preciznije, monetarno dobro će biti prikladno kao medij razmjene samo kada je suma cijene rizika i transakcijske cijene u razmjeni manja nego u trgovini bez tog dobra. U društvu koje vrši robnu razmjenu, prijelaz spremišta vrijednosti u medij razmjene može se dogoditi čak i onda kada monetarno dobro raste u kupovnoj moći, zato što su transakcijski troškovi robne razmjene iznimno visoki. U razvijenoj ekonomiji, u kojoj su troškovi razmjene niski, moguće je za mladu i rapidno rastućnu tehnologiju spremišta vrijednosti, poput Bitcoina, da se koristi kao medij razmjene, doduše na ograničen način. Jedan primjer je ilegalno tržište droge, gdje su kupci voljni žrtvovati oportunu cijenu čuvanja bitcoina kako bi umanjili znatan rizik kupovine droge koristeći fiat novac. Postoje međutim velike institucionalne barijere da novonastalo spremište vrijednosti postane sveopće prihvaćen medij razmjene u razvijenom društvu. Države koriste oporezivanje kao moćnu metodu zaštite svojeg suverenog novca protiv rivalskih monetarnih dobara. Ne samo da suvereni novac ima prednost konstantnog izvora potražnje, zato što je porez moguće platiti jedino u njemu, nego su i rivalska monetarna dobra oporezana pri svakoj razmjeni za vrijeme rastuće cijene. Ova metoda oporezivanja stvara znatan otpor korištenju spremišta vrijednosti kao medija razmjene. Ovakvo sabotiranje tržišnih monetarnih dobara nije nepremostiva barijera za njihovo prihvaćanje kao općeg medija razmjene. Ako ljudi izgube vjeru u suvereni novac, njegova vrijednost može rapidno propasti kroz proces zvan hiperinflacija. Kada suvereni novac prolazi kroz hiperinflaciju, njegova vrijednost propadne prvo u usporedbi sa najlikvidnijim dobrima u društvu, kao što je zlato ili stabilna strana valuta (američki dolar npr.), ako su ona dostupna. Kada nema likvidnih dobara ili ih ima premalo, novac u hiperinflaciji kolabira u usporedbi sa stvarnim dobrima, kao što su nekretnine ili upotrebljiva roba. Arhetipska slika hiperinflacije je trgovina sa praznim policama - potrošači brzo bježe iz propadajuće vrijednosti novca svoje nacije.  Nakon dovoljno vremena, kada je vjera potpuno uništena za vrijeme hiperinflacije, suvereni novac više nitko ne prihvaća, te se društvo može vratiti na robnu razmjenu, ili će doživjeti potpunu zamjenu monetarne jedinice za sredstvo razmjene. Primjer ovog procesa bila je zamjena zimbabveanskog dolara za američki dolar. Takva promjena suverenog novca za stranu valutu je dodatno otežana relativnom oskudnošću strane valute i odsustvom stranih bankarskih institucija koje pružaju likvidnost tržištu. Sposobnost lakog prenošenja bitcoina preko granica i odsustvo potrebe za bankarskim sustavom čine Bitcoin idealnim monetarnim dobrom za one ljude koji pate pod hiperinflacijom. U nadolazećim godinama, kako fiat valute nastave svoj povijesni trend ka bezvrijednosti, Bitcoin će postati sve popularniji izbor za ušteđevine ljudi diljem svijeta. Kada je novac nacije napušten i zamijenjen Bitcoinom, Bitcoin će napraviti tranziciju iz spremišta vrijednosti u tom društvu u opće prihvaćeno sredstvo razmjene. Daniel Krawicz stvorio je termin “[hiperbitcoinizacija](http://nakamotoinstitute.org/mempool/hyperbitcoinization/#selection-43.159-46.0)” da bi opisao ovaj proces. #### Učestala pogrešna shvaćanja Većina ovog članka usredotočila se na monetarnu prirodu Bitcoina. Sa tim temeljima možemo adresirati neke od najčešćih nerazumijevanja u Bitcoinu. ##### Bitcoin je balon (bubble) Bitcoin, kao sva tržišna monetarna dobra, posjeduje monetarnu premiju. Ona često rezultira uobičajenom kritikom da je Bitcoin samo “balon.” No, sva monetarna dobra imaju monetarnu premiju. Naprotiv, ta monetarna premija (cijena viša od one koju diktira potražnja za dobrom kao korisnim) je upravo karakteristična za sve oblike novca. Drugim riječima, novac je uvijek i svuda balon. Paradoksalno, monetarno dobro je istovremeno balon i ispod vrijednosti ukoliko je u ranijim stadijima općeg prihvaćanja kao novac. ##### Bitcoin je previše volatilan Volatilnost cijene Bitcoina je funkcija njegovog nedavnog nastanka. U prvih nekoliko godina svojeg postojanja, Bitcoin se ponašao kao mala dionica, i svaki veliki kupac - kao npr. braća Winklevoss - mogao je uzrokovati veliki skok u njegovoj cijeni. No, kako su se prihvaćenost i likvidnost povećavali kroz godine, volatilnost Bitcoina je srazmjerno smanjila. Kada Bitcoin postigne tržišnu kapitalizaciju (vrijednost) zlata, imat će sličnu volatilnost kao i zlato. Kako Bitcoin nastavi rasti, njegova volatilnost će se smanjiti do razine koja ga čini prikladnim za široko korištenje kao medij razmjene. Kao što je prethodno rečeno, monetizacija Bitcoina se odvija u seriji Gartner hype ciklusa. Volatilnost je najniža za vrijeme vrhunaca i dolina unutar ciklusa. Svaki hype ciklus ima nižu volatilnost od prethodnih, zato što je likvidnost tržišta veća. ##### Cijene transakcija su previsoke Novija kritika Bitcoin mreže je ta da ju je povećanje cijena prijenosa bitcoina učinilo neprikladnom za sustav plaćanja. No, rast u cijenama transakcija je zdrav i očekivan. One su nužne za plaćanje bitcoin minera (rudara), koji osiguravaju mrežu validacijom transakcija. Rudare se plaća kroz cijene transakcija ili kroz blok-nagrade, koje su inflacijska subvencija od trane trenutnih vlasnika bitcoina. S obzirom na Bitcoinovu fiksnu proizvodnju (monetarna politika koja ga čini idealnim za spremanje vrijednosti), blok-nagrade će s vremenom nestati i mrežu će se u konačnici morati osiguravati kroz cijene transakcija. Mreža sa “niskim” cijenama transakcija je mreža sa slabom sigurnosti i osjetljiva na vanjsku intervenciju i cenzuru. Oni koji hvale niske cijene Bitcoinovih alternative zapravo niti ne znajući opisuju slabosti tih takozvanih “alt-coina.” Površan temelj kritika Bitcoinovih “visokih” cijena transakcija je uvjerenje da bi Bitcoin trebao biti prvo sustav plaćanja, i drugo spremište vrijednosti. Kao što smo vidjeli kroz povijest novca, ovo uvjerenje je naopako. Samo onda kada Bitcoin postane duboko ukorijenjeno spremište novca može biti prikladan kao sredstvo razmjene. Nadalje, kada oportunitetni trošak razmjene bitcoina dođe na razinu koja ga čini prikladnim sredstvom razmjene, većina trgovine neće se odvijati na samoj Bitcoin mreži, nego na mrežama “drugog sloja” (second layer) koje će imati niže cijene transakcija. Takve mreže, poput Lightning mreže, služe kao moderna verzija zadužnica koje su korištene za prijenos vlasničkih papira zlata u 19. stoljeću. Banke su koristile zadužnice zato što je prijenos samog metala bio daleko skuplji. Za razliku od takvih zadužnica, Lightning mreža će omogućavati nisku cijenu prijenosa bitcoina bez potrebe za povjerenjem prema trećoj strani, poput banaka. Razvoj Lightning mreže je tehnološka inovacija od izuzetne važnosti u povijesti Bitcoina, i njezina vrijednost će postati očita u narednim godinama, kako je sve više ljudi bude razvijalo i koristilo. ##### Konkurencija Pošto je Bitcoin softverski protokol otvorenog tipa (open-source), oduvijek je bilo moguće kopirati softver i imitirati mrežu. Kroz godine nastajali su mnogi imitatori, od identičnih kopija, kao Litecoin, do kompleksnijih varijanti kao što je Ethereum, koje obećavaju arbitrarno kompleksne ugovorne mehanizme koristeći decentralizirani računalni sustav. Česta kritika Bitcoinu od strane ulagača je ta da on ne može zadržati svoju vrijednost kada je vrlo lako stvoriti konkurente koji mogu lako i brzo u sebi imati najnovije inovacije i softverske funkcionalnosti.  Greška u ovom argumentu leži u manju takozvanog “mrežnog efekta” (network effect), koji postoji u prvoj i dominantnoj tehnologiji u nekom području. Mrežni efekt - velika vrijednost korištenja Bitcoina samo zato što je već dominantan - je važno svojstvo samo po sebi. Za svaku tehnologiju koja posjeduje mrežni efekt, to je daleko najvažnije svojstvo koje može imati. Za Bitcoin, mrežni efekt uključuje likvidnost njegovog tržišta, broj ljudi koji ga posjeduju, i zajednicu programera koji održavaju i unaprjeđuju njegov softver i svjesnost u javnosti. Veliki ulagači, uključujući države, će uvijek prvo tražiti najlikvidnije tržište, kako bi mogli ući i izaći iz tržišta brzo, i bez utjecanja na cijenu. Programeri će se pridružiti dominantnoj programerskoj zajednici sa najboljim talentom, i time pojačati samu zajednicu. Svjesnost o brendu sama sebe pojačava, pošto se nadobudni konkurenti Bitcoina uvijek spominju u kontekstu Bitcoina kao takvog. ##### Raskrižje na putu (fork) Trend koji je postao popularan 2017. godine nije bio samo imitacija Bitcoinovog softvera, nego kopiranje potpune povijesti njegovih prošlih transakcija (cijeli blockchain). Kopiranjem Bitcoinovog blockchaina do određene točke/bloka i odvajanjem sljedećih blokova ka novoj mreži, u procesu znanom kao “forking” (odvajanje), Bitcoinovi konkurenti su uspjeli riješiti problem distribuiranja svojeg tokena velikom broju korisnika.  Najznačajniji takav fork dogodio se 1. 8. 2017. godine, kada je nova mreža nazvana Bitcoin Cash (Bcash) stvorena. Vlasnik N količine bitcoina prije 1.8.2017. bi onda posjedovao N bitcoina i N BCash tokena. Mala, ali vrlo glasna zajednica Bcash proponenata je neumorno pokušavala prisvojiti Bitcoinov brend i ime, imenujući svoju novu mrežu Bitcoin Cast i pokušavajući uvjeriti nove pridošlice u Bitcoin da je Bcash “pravi” Bitcoin. Ti pokušaji su većinom propali, i taj neuspjeh se vidi u tržišnim kapitalizacijama dviju mreža. No, za nove ulagače, i dalje postoji rizik da bi konkurent mogao kopirati Bitcoin i njegov blockchain i tako uspjeti u preuzimanju tržišne kapitalizacije, te postati de facto Bitcoin. Moguće je uočiti važno pravilo gledajući velike forkove u prošlosti Bitcoin i Ethereum mreža. Većina tržišne kapitalizacije odvijat će se na mreži koja zadrži najviši stupanj talenta i aktivnosti u zajednici programera. Premda se na Bitcoin može gledati kao na nov i mlad novac, on je također računalna mreža koja počiva na softveru, kojeg se pak treba održavati i poboljšavati. Kupovina tokena na mreži koja ima malo neiskusnih programera bilo bi kao kupovati kopiju Microsoft Windowsa na kojoj rade lošiji programeri. Jasno je vidljivo iz povijesti forkova koji su se odvili 2017. godine da su najbolji računalni i kriptografski stručnjaci posvećeni razvoju originalnog Bitcoina, a ne nekoj od rastućeg broja imitacija koje su se izrodile iz njega. #### Stvarni rizici Premda su uobičajene kritike upućene Bitconu od strane medija i ekonomske profesije krive i bazirane na netočnom shvaćanju novca, postoje pravi i značajni rizici kod ulaganja u Bitcoin. Bilo bi mudro za novog Bitcoin ulagača da shvati ove rizike prije potencijalnog ulaganja. ##### Rizik protokola Bitcoin protokol i kriptografski sastavni dijelovi na kojima je sagrađen potencijalno imaju dosad nepronađenu grešku u svom dizajnu, ili mogu postati nesigurni razvojem kvantnih računala. Ako se pronađe greška u protokolu, ili neka nova metoda računarstva učini mogućim probijanje kriptografskih temelja Bitcoina, vjera u Bitcoin biti će znatno narušena. Rizik protokola bio je najviši u ranim godinama razvoja Bitcoina, kada je još uvijek bilo nejasno, čak i iskusnim kriptografima, je li Satoshi Nakamoto zaista riješio problem bizantskih generala (Byzantine Generals’ Problem). Brige oko ozbiljnih grešaka u Bitcoin protokolu nestale su kroz godine, no uzevši u obzir njegovu tehnološku prirodu, rizik protokola će uvijek ostati u Bitcoinu, makar i kao izuzetak. ##### Propadanje mjenjačnica Time što je decentraliziran, Bitcoin je pokazao značajnu otpornost, suočen sa brojnim pokušajima raznih vlada da ga reguliraju ili unište. No, mjenjačnice koje trguju bitcoinima za fiat valute su centralizirani entiteti i podložne regulacijama i zatvaranju. Bez mjenjačnica i volje bankara da s njima posluju, proces monetizacije Bitcoina bio bi ozbiljno usporen, ako ne i potpuno zaustavljen. Iako postoje alternativni izvori likvidnosti za Bitcoin, poput “over-the-counter” brokera i decentraliziranih tržišta za kupovinu i prodaju bitcoina, kritičan proces otkrivanja i definiranja cijene se odvija na najlikvidnijim mjenjačnicama, koje su sve centralizirane. Jedan od načina za umanjivanje rizika gašenja mjenjačnica je geografska arbitraža. Binance, jedna od velikih mjenjačnica iz Kine, preselila se u Japan nakon što joj je kineska vlada zabranila operiranje u Kini. Vlade su također oprezne kako ne bi ugušile novu industriju koja je potencijalno značajna kao i internet, i time predale nevjerojatnu konkurentnu vrijednost drugim nacijama. Samo kroz koordinirano globalno ukidanje Bitcoin mjenjačnica bi proces monetizacije mogao biti zaustavljen. Trenutno smo u utrci; Bitcoin raste i postaje sve rašireniji, i doći će do trenutka kada bi potpuno ukidanje mjenjačnica postalo politički neizvedivo - kao i gašenje interneta. Mogućnost takvog ukidanja je još uvijek realna, i valja je uzeti u obzir pri ulaganju u Bitcoin. Kao što je gore objašnjeno, suverene vlade se polako bude i uviđaju prijetnju koju predstavlja neovisna digitalna valuta otporna na cenzuru, za njihovu monetarnu politiku. Otvoreno je pitanje hoće li išta poduzeti da odgovore ovoj prijetnji prije nego Bitcoin postane toliko utvrđen i raširen da politička akcija postane nemoćna i ne-efektivna. ##### Zamjenjivost Otvorena i transparentna priroda Bitcoin blockchaina omogućava državama da proglase specifične bitcoine “okaljanima” zbog njihovog korištenja u određenim aktivnostima. Premda Bitcoin, na protokolarnoj razini, ne diskriminira transakcije na ikoji način, “okaljani” bitcoini bi mogli postati bezvrijedni ako bi ih regulacije proglasile ilegalnima i neprihvatljivima za mjenjačnice ili trgovce. Bitcoin bi tada izgubio jedno od kritičnih svojstava monetarnog dobra: zamjenjivost. Da bi se ovaj problem riješio i umanjio, biti će potrebna poboljšanja na razini protokola kako bi se poboljšala privatnost transakcija. Premda postoji napredak u ovom smjeru, prvi put primjenjen u digitalnim valutama kao što su Monero i Zcash, potrebno je napraviti značajne tehnološke kompromise između efikasnosti i kompleksnosti Bitcoina i njegove privatnosti. Pitanje ostaje otvoreno je li moguće dodati nova svojstva privatnosti na Bitcoin, na način koji neće kompromitirati njegovu korisnost kao novca. #### Zaključak Bitcoin je novonastali novac koji je u procesu transformacije iz sakupljačkog dobra u spremište vrijednosti. Kao neovisno monetarno dobro, moguće je da će u budućnosti postati globalan novac, slično kao zlato za vrijeme 19. stoljeća. Prihvaćanje Bitcoina kao globalnog novca je upravo taj optimističan scenarij za Bitcoin, kojeg je artikulirao Satoshi Nakamoto još 2010. godine u [email razmjeni](https://pastebin.com/Na5FwkQ4) sa Mikeom Hearnom: > "Ako zamisliš da se koristi u nekom dijelu svjetske trgovine, i da će postojati samo 21 milijun bitcoina za cijeli svijet, vrijednost po jedinici će biti znatno veća". Ovaj scenarij je još snažnije definirao briljantni kriptograf Hal Finney, koji je ujedno primio i prve bitcoine od Nakamotoa, ubrzo nakon [najave prvog funkcionalnog Bitcoin softvera](https://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography@metzdowd.com/msg10152.html): > "Zamislimo da Bitcoin bude uspješan i postane dominantan sustav plaćanja diljem svijeta. U tom slučaju će ukupna vrijednost valute biti jednaka ukupnoj vrijednosti svog bogatstva svijeta. Današnje procjene ukupnog svjetskog bogatska kućanstava koje sam pronašao borave negdje između 100 i 300 trilijuna dolara. Sa 20 milijuna bitcoina, svaki bi onda vrijedio oko 10 milijuna dolara." Čak i da Bitcoin ne postane u cijelost globalan novac, nego da se samo natječe sa zlatom kao neovisno spremište vrijednosti, i dalje je masivno podcijenjen. Mapiranje tržišne kapitalizacije postojeće količine izrudarenog zlata (oko 8 trilijuna dolara) na maksimalnu dostupnost Bitcoina od 21 milijun, daje vrijednost od otprilike 380,000 dolara po bitcoinu. Kao što smo vidjeli u prethodnom tekstu, svojstva koja omogućavaju monetarnom dobru da bude prikladno spremište vrijednosti, čine Bitcoin superiornijim zlatu u svakom pogledu osim trajanja povijesti. No, kako vrijeme prolazi i Lindy efekt postane jači, dosadašnja povijest će prestati biti prednost zlata. Samim time, nije nerazumno očekivati da će Bitcoin narasti do, a možda i preko, ukupne cijene zlata na tržištvu do 2030. Opaska ovoj tezi je činjenica da veliki postotak vrijednosti zlata dolazi od toga što ga centralne banke čuvaju kao spremište vrijednosti. Da bi Bitcoin došao do te razine, određena količina suverenih država će trebati sudjelovati. Hoće li zapadnjačke demokracije sudjelovati u vlasništvu Bitcoina je nepoznato. Vjerojatnije je, nažalost, da će prve nacije u Bitcoin tržištu biti sitne diktature i kleptokracije. Ako niti jedna država ne bude sudjelovala u Bitcoin tržištu, optimistična teza i dalje postoji. Kao nevisno spremište vrijednosti u rukama individualnih i institucionalnih ulagača, Bitcoin je i dalje vrlo rano u svojoj “krivulji prihvaćenosti” (adoption curve); tzv. “rana većina” ulaze na tržište sada, dok će ostali ući tek nekoliko godina kasnije. Sa širim sudjelovanjem individualnih i institucionalnih ulagača, cijena po bitcoinu između 100,000 i 200,000 dolara je sasvim moguća. Posjedovanje bitcoina je jedna od malobrojnih asimetričnih novčanih strategija dostupnih svakome na svijetu. Poput “call” opcija, negativan rizik ulagača je ograničen na 1x, dok potencijalna dobit i dalje iznosi 100x ili više. Bitcoin je prvi istinski globalan balon čija je veličina ograničena samo potražnjom i željom građana svijeta da zaštite svoju ušteđevinu od raznovrsnih ekonomskih malverzacija vlade. Bitcoin je ustao kao feniks iz pepela globalne financijske krize 2008. godine - katastrofe kojoj su prethodile odluke centralnih banaka poput američke Federalne rezerve (Federal Reserve). Onkraj samo financijske teze za Bitcoin, njegov rast i uspjeh kao neovisno spremište vrijednosti imat će duboke geopolitičke posljedice. Globalna, ne-inflacijska valuta će prisiliti suverene države da promjene svoje primarne mehanizme financiranja od inflacije u izravno oporezivanje; koje je daleko manje politički popularno. Države će se smanjivati proporcionalno političkoj boli koju im nanese oporezivanje kao jedini način financiranja. Nadalje, globalna trgovina vršiti će se na način koji zadovoljava aspiraciju Charlesa de Gaullea, da nijedna nacija ne bi smjela imati privilegiju nad ikojom drugom: > "Smatramo da je potrebno da se uspostavi međunarodna trgovina, kao što je bio slučaj prije velikih nesreća koje su zadesile svijet, na neosporivoj monetarnoj bazi, koja ne nosi na sebi oznaku ijedne države." Za 50 godina, ta monetarna baza biti će Bitcoin.

@ 2e8970de:63345c7a

So, I'm surprised there isn't a discussion about the Stargate project here already. It got posted twice: https://stacker.news/items/858961 https://stacker.news/items/859422 but to me the big elephant in the room is ... that 500b is a big f*cking number?  https://xcancel.com/elonmusk/status/1881923570458304780 https://www.wsj.com/tech/musk-pours-cold-water-on-trump-backed-stargate-ai-project-53428d16?mod=WSJ_home_mediumtopper_pos_1 Other things that don't make sense - Why Oracle? OpenAIs long term partner is Microsoft and there is no reason to think Microsoft would have worse access to chips and scaling energy than Oracle - Trump backed? And Elon seems to hate it? What gives? - 100b immediately? From where? OpenAIs private valuation is like 100b or 150b so? originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/860325

@ 554ab6fe:c6cbc27e

In recent years, mindfulness meditation has been gaining traction as a form of therapy to address various health-related issues. In a previous blog [post](https://highlighter.com/a/naddr1qvzqqqr4gupzq422kmldvavct44endu667mcfluv5jjmqfmcsyhpj68wurrvhsn7qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyv9kh2uewd9hj7qq6gyk5ymrpwd6z6ar0946xsefd2pshxapdxehnzwtk0qdvxqdt), I discussed how meditation is a promising technique to alleviate anxiety and depression. Previously, I examined the effects of mindfulness meditation through a psychological perspective. However, I find that the science of meditation is a hard sell for many people; people who come from a more scientific background often need to understand the underlying physiologic mechanisms of mindfulness meditation to be convinced of its efficacy. This is understandable -- I seek these kinds of answers as well. The science of meditation is still very new, and no one has a clear understanding of why it works. However, my research has led me to discover a few promising theories from a bottom-up point of view. How does the practice of meditation change the body, and do these changes then influence the state of the mind? Meditation appears beneficial to the body, in part, because it increases parasympathetic nervous system (PNS) activity, and decreases sympathetic nervous system (SNS) activity. The SNS is activated during times of danger, and is often called the “fight or flight” response. This response is healthy in moments of danger but becomes detrimental when it is chronically activated. Modern life is full of stressors that keeps the SNS activated, and this chronic SNS activity is poor for our health. Meditation helps us decrease the activation though eliciting the ancillary PNS. But how? The two theories I will outline below all revolve around the effect slow breathing has on increasing parasympathetic activity through vagal tone. More specifically, these theories outline how breathing patterns affect the activation of baroreceptors within blood vessels, and mechanoreceptors within the lungs (Gerritsen & Band, 2018). Baroreceptors are pressure sensors found within our body. These are important detectors within blood vessels that help relay sensory information to the brain for autonomic control, which helps maintain balance within the cardiovascular systems. For instance, inhalation causes an increase in heart rate, while exhalation causes the heart rate to slow. This is called respiratory sinus arrhythmia (RSA). The detection and signaling of this change, in part, is sensed by baroreceptors within the veins (Gary G. Berntson, John T. Cacioppo, 1993; Karemaker, 2009). The baroreceptors are activated when blood pressure increases in the aorta during exhalation due to increased intra-thoracic pressure. The activation signals a decrease in heart rate that causes a reduction in blood pressure, and vice versa (Gerritsen & Band, 2018; Lehrer & Gevirtz, 2014; Vaschillo et al., 2002). This is one example of the many methods in which balance is maintained within the cardiovascular system via the vagus nerve. Keep in mind that the sensitivity and responsiveness of these receptors can change, which thereby changes the frequency (or tone) of vagus nerve activation. It has been shown that decreasing one’s breath to 0.1 Hz (about 10 seconds per breath) increases the sensitivity of heart rate change given changes in blood pressure (Bernardi et al., 2001; Lehrer et al., 2003). This suggests that the baroreceptors become more sensitive during deep/slow breathing, and the vagus nerve is activated more often. Thus, breathing at this rate increases the sensitivity of these receptors, thereby increasing vagal tone. Other research has also confirmed that slow breathing rates result in increased heart rate variability (HRV)(Song & Lehrer, 2003). As the name suggests, heart rate variability represents the variability of time intervals between consecutive heartbeats (Makivić et al., 2013). The heart changes speed given the demand of the body. This flexibility of the heart to change its speed quickly is known as heart rate variability. If the speed at which the heart beats changes is fast, the HRV is said to increase. This observation that slower breathing increases HRV makes sense because it is commonly used as an indicator of autonomic nervous system balance (Ernst, 2017) and is increased with increased vagal tone (Laborde et al., 2017). Consequently, because modern day stress causes us to go into “fight or flight” mode often, increasing SNS activity and decreasing PNS activity, decreased HRV can be used as an indicator of stress (Kim et al., 2018). This is important because this breathing frequency of 0.1Hz is the same breathing rate observed in novice Zen meditators (Cysarz & Büssing, 2005). Since meditation results in calmed breathing, it thereby increases vagal tone, and decreases the physiologic processes of stress. In more simplistic terms, the pace of slowed and consistent breathing increases baroreceptor sensitivity which increases vagal tone because this nerve is what sends the signals of the receptors to the brain (Lehrer et al., 2003). Vagus nerve tone is a major driver of parasympathetic nervous system activity. Due to the vagus nerve innervating all major systems of the body, when activation is increased in one area, activation is increased in the rest. This counteracts the SNS activity caused by stress, which theoretically should balance the body and improve health. The above theory describes how breathing patterns influence baroreceptors, which influence vagus nerve tone. Another theory argues that it is the receptors within the lungs that cause the physiologic changes(Noble & Hochman, 2019). Within the lungs, there are two pulmonary stretch receptors worth noting: rapidly-adapting receptors (RARs) and slowly-adapting receptors (SARs). RARs are typically activated throughout normal breathing(Noble & Hochman, 2019), while slower breathing additionally activates SARs(Jerath et al., 2006; Schelegle, 2003). SARs are important receptors as they are involved in the Hering-Breur Reflex(Schelegle, 2003), which is a reflex that induces immediate exhalation of the lungs after the detection of an excessively large inhale(Moore, 1927). This reflex likely exists to protect the lungs from overexpansion, but also highlights the importance of the role of these receptors in the nervous system’s control over the lungs. SARs send signals to a region of the brain called the nuclear tractus solataris (NTS) via the vagus nerve(Schelegle, 2003). The NTS is a relay station for all vagal afferents(Noble & Hochman, 2019), and sends neuronal input to the hypothalamic paraventricular nucleus and the central nucleus of the amygdala(Petrov et al., 1993). The amygdala is highly involved in emotional regulation and processing(Desbordes et al., 2012). Increased amygdala activity is also associated with perceived stress(Taren et al., 2015). SARs activation either directly, or indirectly inhibits amygdala activation by means of the NTS(Noble & Hochman, 2019). This possibly explains how deep breathing can provide stress-reducing effects(Noble & Hochman, 2019). These two ideas are not mutually exclusive theories. Both of the mechanisms may play a role in the benefits of mindfulness meditation and similar practices. At the same time, you may be noticing that there is a “chicken or egg” question here: are these changes happening because our mind decided to calm down first, or is the mind calming down because of the physical activity of mindfulness? This is surely a difficult question – however, perhaps it is frivolous. It is of my current opinion that both occur simultaneously. The mind and body are one. The practice of meditation induces both mental and physical changes, which in turn cause a positive feedback loop of relaxation. This parasympathetic activity has the potential to create resilience towards our modern, stressful environment. So, like the Yin Yang, these two ideas are not in opposition to each other, but rather represent a larger truth -- a truth that challenges us to become more considerate of our body, and work to bring it more calmness. References Bernardi, L., Gabutti, A., Porta, C., & Spicuzza, L. (2001). Slow breathing reduces chemoreflex response to hypoxia and hypercapnia, and increases baroreflex sensitivity. Journal of Hypertension, 19(12), 2221–2229. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004872-200112000-00016 Cysarz, D., & Büssing, A. (2005). Cardiorespiratory synchronization during Zen meditation. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 95(1), 88–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-005-1379-3 Desbordes, G., Negi, L. T., Pace, T. W. W., Alan Wallace, B., Raison, C. L., & Schwartz, E. L. (2012). Effects of mindful-attention and compassion meditation training on amygdala response to emotional stimuli in an ordinary, Nonmeditative State. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6(OCTOBER 2012), 292. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00292 Ernst, G. (2017). Heart-Rate Variability—More than Heart Beats? Frontiers in Public Health, 5, 1. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2017.00240 Gary G. Berntson, John T. Cacioppo, K. S. Q. (1993). Arritmia sinusal respiratória: argumentos autonômicos, mecanismos fisiológicos e implicações psicofisiológicas/Respiratory sinus arrhythmia: autonomic origins, physiological mechanisms and psychophysiological implications. In Psychophysiology (Vol. 30, pp. 183–196). Gerritsen, R. J. S., & Band, G. P. H. (2018). Breath of Life: The Respiratory Vagal Stimulation Model of Contemplative Activity. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 12, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2018.00397 Jerath, R., Edry, J. W., Barnes, V. A., & Jerath, V. (2006). Physiology of long pranayamic breathing: Neural respiratory elements may provide a mechanism that explains how slow deep breathing shifts the autonomic nervous system. Medical Hypotheses, 67(3), 566–571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2006.02.042 Karemaker, J. M. (2009). Counterpoint: Respiratory sinus arrhythmia is due to the baroreflex mechanism. Journal of Applied Physiology, 106(5), 1742–1743. https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.91107.2008a Kim, H. G., Cheon, E. J., Bai, D. S., Lee, Y. H., & Koo, B. H. (2018). Stress and heart rate variability: A meta-analysis and review of the literature. In Psychiatry Investigation (Vol. 15, Issue 3, pp. 235–245). Korean Neuropsychiatric Association. https://doi.org/10.30773/pi.2017.08.17 Laborde, S., Mosley, E., & Thayer, J. F. (2017). Heart rate variability and cardiac vagal tone in psychophysiological research - Recommendations for experiment planning, data analysis, and data reporting. In Frontiers in Psychology (Vol. 8, Issue FEB, p. 213). Frontiers Research Foundation. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00213 Lehrer, P. M., & Gevirtz, R. (2014). Heart rate variability biofeedback: How and why does it work? Frontiers in Psychology, 5(JUL), 756. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00756 Lehrer, P. M., Vaschillo, E., Vaschillo, B., Lu, S.-E., Eckberg, D. L., Edelberg, R., Shih, W. J., Lin, Y., Kuusela, T. A., Tahvanainen, K. U. O., & Hamer, R. M. (2003). Heart Rate Variability Biofeedback Increases Baroreflex Gain and Peak Expiratory Flow. Psychosomatic Medicine, 65(5), 796–805. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.PSY.0000089200.81962.19 Makivić, B., Nikić, M. D., & Willis, M. S. (2013). Heart Rate Variability (HRV) as a Tool for Diagnostic and Monitoring Performance in Sport and Physical Activities. Journal of Exercise Physiology Online, 16(3), 103–131. Moore, B. Y. R. L. (1927). A STUDY OF THE HERING-BREUER REFLEX . ( From the Hospital of The Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research .) The observation has been made by several investigators that a rapid respiratory rate depends on intact vagal conduction . In experiments on anes. 819–837. Noble, D. J., & Hochman, S. (2019). Hypothesis: Pulmonary Afferent Activity Patterns During Slow, Deep Breathing Contribute to the Neural Induction of Physiological Relaxation. Frontiers in Physiology, 10, 1176. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2019.01176 Petrov, T., Krukoff, T. L., & Jhamandas, J. H. (1993). Branching projections of catecholaminergic brainstem neurons to the paraventricular hypothalamic nucleus and the central nucleus of the amygdala in the rat. Brain Research, 609(1–2), 81–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-8993(93)90858-K Schelegle, E. S. (2003). Functional morphology and physiology of slowly adapting pulmonary stretch receptors. The Anatomical Record, 270A(1), 11–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/ar.a.10004 Song, H. S., & Lehrer, P. M. (2003). The effects of specific respiratory rates on heart rate and heart rate variability. Applied Psychophysiology Biofeedback, 28(1), 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022312815649 Taren, A. A., Gianaros, P. J., Greco, C. M., Lindsay, E. K., Fairgrieve, A., Brown, K. W., Rosen, R. K., Ferris, J. L., Julson, E., Marsland, A. L., Bursley, J. K., Ramsburg, J., & Creswell, J. D. (2015). Mindfulness meditation training alters stress-related amygdala resting state functional connectivity: a randomized controlled trial. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 10(12), 1758–1768. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsv066 Vaschillo, E., Lehrer, P., Rishe, N., & Konstantinov, M. (2002). Heart rate variability biofeedback as a method for assessing baroreflex function: A preliminary study of resonance in the cardiovascular system. Applied Psychophysiology Biofeedback, 27(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014587304314

@ e1d968f7:5d90f764

When I first started escorting, I didn’t fully grasp the importance of planning for the future. At first, it was all about meeting clients, handling inquiries, and navigating the emotional challenges. But as time passed, I realised this wasn’t just a job—it was a stepping stone for building a secure and fulfilling life. --- ### **The Meaning of Investment** Investing in myself doesn’t only mean financial planning (though that’s a big part of it). It also means dedicating time and energy to personal growth, self-care, and education. This job has taught me that my body, mind, and skills are my most valuable assets, and I need to nurture them. - **Financial Security:** The unpredictability of this work makes financial planning essential. I’ve set up savings goals, started learning about investments, and ensured I have a safety net. My future self will thank me for every penny I’ve saved. - **Skill Development:** Escorting offers a unique skill set—communication, emotional intelligence, and business acumen. I’ve looked into courses and certifications to expand these skills further, knowing they’ll benefit me long after I leave the industry. --- ### **Self-Care as an Investment** Taking care of myself is more than a necessity; it’s a form of self-investment. When I prioritise my health, happiness, and well-being, I can show up as my best self for my clients and for my personal goals. - **Health First:** Regular check-ups, a healthy diet, and fitness routines are non-negotiable. This isn’t just about looking good but feeling good and staying strong in the long run. - **Mental Wellness:** Therapy and mindfulness practices help me process the emotional ups and downs of the job. Protecting my mental health ensures I stay resilient and focused. --- ### **The Bigger Picture** I’ve started to think long-term. What do I want my life to look like in five, ten, or even twenty years? Escorting is a chapter, not the whole story. I’m exploring passions, hobbies, and potential career paths that align with who I am and who I want to become. - **Diversifying Income:** Beyond savings, I’m exploring other revenue streams, like investments or side projects. It’s empowering to know that my financial stability doesn’t depend on just one source. - **Future Aspirations:** Whether it’s furthering my education, starting a business, or simply achieving a sense of independence, having goals keeps me motivated. --- ### **Empowerment Through Planning** Investing in myself has transformed how I view my work and my life. This isn’t just about surviving today; it’s about thriving tomorrow. Every hour I put into improving myself, every pound I save, and every skill I hone is a step toward a brighter, more secure future. --- ### **Conclusion** The escorting world can be unpredictable, but by investing in myself and my future, I’ve found a sense of stability and purpose. It’s not just about what I do today but about setting myself up for the life I want tomorrow. Each day is an opportunity to grow, build, and prepare for the next chapter. Rebecca x

@ 2e8970de:63345c7a

 http://ifstudies.org/blog/sexless-america-young-adults-are-having-less-sex 35% of young men (aged 22-34) had no sex in the last 3 months. But this graphic also shows how the same thing is happening in the 1y measure. It's also happening to women. In my book this disproves the narrative of "lonely men", which some call the Chad-theory. In this theory the phenomenon was mainly happening to men because of a small number of men ("Chads") are enabled by technology to promiscuity which would only increase sexlessness in the median for men but not for women. originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/860205

@ 93eeb56c:9469e39a

## 💀 Introducing No Good Kid --- <br> After 15 years of working as a graphic designer, marketer, and brand therapist, I recently started to feel the urgency to start a project of my own. I feel out of tune with the state of mainstream marketing today—sterile aesthetics, overstated presentations, and endless battle for attention on centralized social media. So, I’m introducing No Good Kid. And as you can guess from the title, No Good Kid targets both creators and audiences who don’t exactly fit the status quo. No Good Kid is the creative’s alter ego. It’s an identity that can be shared and serves as a label under which we can collaborate to create cool projects. <br><br> ## 🪩 What is it? --- <br> I think of it as an identity—the creative’s alter ego, if you will—that can be shared among creators and serve as a label under which we can collaborate and create. And the result can be anything, from a marketing campaign to original music production. There are no borders. If the party is right, anything can happen. In the spirit of gamma personalities, there will be no agency, leader, or hierarchy. My hope is that the projects will reflect values such as freedom and solidarity. But it’s entirely up to the creators. Feel free to use the No Good Kid identity, share your project, or reach out if I can help. <br><br> ## 🔥 Projects released so far --- <br> <img src="https://blossom.primal.net/9eba693703b32501b8923dd7681cc741a611f4a37d62c8daf119604e358e1ccc.jpg"> ### whistleblower10 In 2024, I crafted a campaign for Amnesty International CZ which led to Amnesty accepting Bitcoin donations for a limited time. [whistleblower10 website→](https://whistleblower10.xyz/)\ [project design→](https://dribbble.com/shots/25151791-whistleblower10-Amnesty-International-CZ)<br> <br><br> <img src="https://blossom.primal.net/aa5a200a87d8558a0b3bc05d67886e76674de6b54c3e54a3d98fe12f203443a5.jpg"> ### The Nocoiner Syndrome By the end of last year, The Nocoiner Syndrome was published by Institute of Cryptoanarchy—a research paper written by Peter Horváth that rebutted the ECB’s statement about Bitcoin being on “the road to irrelevance.” [Institute of Cryptoanarchy website→](https://cryptoanarchy.institute/)\ [project design→](https://dribbble.com/shots/25151801-The-Nocoiner-Syndrome-Institute-of-Cryptoanarchy) <br><br> ## ☮️ Vision --- <br> There is no need to place a label on this project. I want No Good Kid to be a tool to connect beliefs and hopes with skills in the name of freedom. Let me know what you think of the idea, or if you have a project in mind. Be well, and stay no good. dworis 💀 <br><br> #### 🥁 Follow No Good Kid: https://nogoodkid.com/ npub1j0ht2m9jgs6mccyvkffd2dlnfusmqfx9mjlwg6fsmfwxm9rfuwdq40w6rf npub1uwglfjet0m2regqhmgeygc2tc75ngezl8fhftgzhaqas9rjeny8sdztml4 <br><br> --- --- ## 🔥 Thanks for reading Enjoyed this article? **⚡️ Zap some sats**<br> literalpersian75(at)walletofsatoshi.com **💀 No Good Kid projects & portfolio**<br> <https://nogoodkid.com/> **👥 Let’s connect on Nostr**<br> npub1j0ht2m9jgs6mccyvkffd2dlnfusmqfx9mjlwg6fsmfwxm9rfuwdq40w6rf

@ eee391ee:8d0b97c2

## Amber 3.1.9 - Add missing logs for relay errors - Change listen for new connections button text and icons Download it with [zap.store]( https://zapstore.dev/download), [Obtainium]( https://github.com/ImranR98/Obtainium), [f-droid]( https://f-droid.org/packages/com.greenart7c3.nostrsigner) or download it directly in the [releases page]( https://github.com/greenart7c3/Amber/releases/tag/v3.1.9) If you like my work consider making a [donation]( https://greenart7c3.com) ## Verifying the release In order to verify the release, you'll need to have `gpg` or `gpg2` installed on your system. Once you've obtained a copy (and hopefully verified that as well), you'll first need to import the keys that have signed this release if you haven't done so already: ``` bash gpg --keyserver hkps://keys.openpgp.org --recv-keys 44F0AAEB77F373747E3D5444885822EED3A26A6D ``` Once you have his PGP key you can verify the release (assuming `manifest-v3.1.9.txt` and `manifest-v3.1.9.txt.sig` are in the current directory) with: ``` bash gpg --verify manifest-v3.1.9.txt.sig manifest-v3.1.9.txt ``` You should see the following if the verification was successful: ``` bash gpg: Signature made Fri 13 Sep 2024 08:06:52 AM -03 gpg: using RSA key 44F0AAEB77F373747E3D5444885822EED3A26A6D gpg: Good signature from "greenart7c3 <greenart7c3@proton.me>" ``` That will verify the signature on the main manifest page which ensures integrity and authenticity of the binaries you've downloaded locally. Next, depending on your operating system you should then re-calculate the sha256 sum of the binary, and compare that with the following hashes: ``` bash cat manifest-v3.1.9.txt ``` One can use the `shasum -a 256 <file name here>` tool in order to re-compute the `sha256` hash of the target binary for your operating system. The produced hash should be compared with the hashes listed above and they should match exactly.

@ 4506e04e:8c16ba04

If you are a researcher in the field of medicine, you are most likely very familiar with PubMed – where you get citations for the articles and studies that drive your work forward. PubMed Central (PMC), the full-text repository of life sciences journal literature managed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM), was established in 2000. Its creation marked a significant milestone in providing open access to biomedical research. Since 2005, PMC has served as the designated repository for papers submitted under the NIH Public Access Policy, reflecting the growing emphasis on transparency and accessibility in scientific research. Over the years, PMC has expanded its scope, becoming a repository for papers aligned with public and open access policies from various research funding organizations, both within and beyond biomedical sciences. ## Funding and Partnerships NLM’s operations, including PubMed and PMC, are supported by a combination of government funding and contributions from influential entities such as The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.  The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation receives significant donations from pharmaceutical companies, as well as other organizations and individuals. The exact amount of money donated by each company can vary from year to year, but here are some examples of the amounts donated by the pharmaceutical companies: **GSK (GlaxoSmithKline):** - In 2020, GSK donated $100 million to the Gates Foundation to support the development of new vaccines and treatments for diseases such as malaria, tuberculosis, and HIV/AIDS. - In 2019, GSK donated $50 million to the Gates Foundation to support the development of a new malaria vaccine. **Pfizer:** - In 2020, Pfizer donated $50 million to the Gates Foundation to support the development of new vaccines and treatments for diseases such as malaria, tuberculosis, and HIV/AIDS. - In 2019, Pfizer donated $25 million to the Gates Foundation to support the development of a new malaria vaccine. **Merck & Co.:** - In 2020, Merck donated $50 million to the Gates Foundation to support the development of new vaccines and treatments for diseases such as malaria, tuberculosis, and HIV/AIDS. - In 2019, Merck donated $25 million to the Gates Foundation to support the development of a new malaria vaccine. **Novartis:** - In 2020, Novartis donated $20 million to the Gates Foundation to support the development of new treatments for diseases such as malaria and tuberculosis. - In 2019, Novartis donated $10 million to the Gates Foundation to support the development of a new malaria vaccine. **Johnson & Johnson:** - In 2020, Johnson & Johnson donated $50 million to the Gates Foundation to support the development of new vaccines and treatments for diseases such as malaria, tuberculosis, and HIV/AIDS. - In 2019, Johnson & Johnson donated $25 million to the Gates Foundation to support the development of a new malaria vaccine. **Sanofi:** - In 2020, Sanofi donated $20 million to the Gates Foundation to support the development of new vaccines and treatments for diseases such as malaria and tuberculosis. - In 2019, Sanofi donated $10 million to the Gates Foundation to support the development of a new malaria vaccine. **AstraZeneca:** - In 2020, AstraZeneca donated $20 million to the Gates Foundation to support the development of new vaccines and treatments for diseases such as malaria and tuberculosis. - In 2019, AstraZeneca donated $10 million to the Gates Foundation to support the development of a new malaria vaccine. **Eli Lilly and Company:** - In 2020, Eli Lilly donated $10 million to the Gates Foundation to support the development of new treatments for diseases such as malaria and tuberculosis. - In 2019, Eli Lilly donated $5 million to the Gates Foundation to support the development of a new malaria vaccine. Additionally, NLM website [https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/cms/files/PMCFunderDepositList.xlsx] (list over 200)(!) organisations that are founding it. What could go wrong one might ask?! ## The Centralization Challenge While PubMed and PMC have played a pivotal role in democratizing access to scientific literature, their centralized nature presents vulnerabilities. Over the past century healthcare has grown to become one of the most profitable industries and to believe that the healthcare system we have today is the best we can do is far from understatement. PubMed's reliance on centralized funding and decision-making processes makes it susceptible to external influences, including lobbying by powerful entities. Moreover, the centralized infrastructure allows for content to be published and removed with relative ease, often without leaving a trace. This raises concerns about the integrity and permanence of the scientific record, particularly in contentious or politically sensitive areas of research. The ability to alter or erase information from PubMed undermines trust in the system’s objectivity and neutrality. Researchers and the public alike depend on these repositories for reliable and impartial access to scientific knowledge. Any perceived or actual manipulation of content can erode confidence in the platform and compromise its foundational mission. ## The Case for Decentralization To address these challenges, a decentralized alternative built on emerging technologies, such as the Nostr protocol, could offer significant advantages. A decentralized platform would: - **Enhance Resilience:** By distributing data across a network of relays, a decentralized system would eliminate single points of failure, ensuring the scientific record remains intact and always accessible even in the face of technical or political disruptions. - **Increase Transparency:** Decentralized systems inherently log changes, making it nearly impossible to alter or remove content without leaving an auditable trail. This transparency would bolster trust in the integrity of the research. - **Reduce Susceptibility to Lobbying:** Without centralized control, the influence of external entities on the platform’s content would be significantly diminished, preserving the objectivity of the scientific record. - **Foster Open Collaboration:** A decentralized approach aligns with the principles of open science, encouraging global collaboration without the constraints of centralized oversight or bias introduced by big pharma lobby. ## Conclusion While PubMed and PMC have been instrumental in advancing access to scientific literature, their centralized nature leaves them vulnerable to manipulation and external pressures. A shift toward a decentralized, censorship-resistant platform would address these vulnerabilities and provide a more robust and trustless repository for scientific knowledge. Groundbreaking research that dares to challenge the pharmaceutical industry's status quo could be published anonymously, following in the footsteps of the Bitcoin whitepaper's pseudonymous author, Satoshi Nakamoto. Leveraging technologies like the Nostr protocol, the research community can build a system that ensures the permanence, integrity, and impartiality of the scientific record for generations to come.

@ 000002de:c05780a7

Anyone else noticing their LN address not working with Minibits? originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/860143

@ b83e6f82:73c27758

## Citrine 0.7.1 - Add the restore follows button back - Show notification when backing up database - Listen for pokey broadcasts Download it with [zap.store]( https://zap.store/download), [Obtainium]( https://github.com/ImranR98/Obtainium), [f-droid]( https://f-droid.org/packages/com.greenart7c3.citrine) or download it directly in the [releases page ]( https://github.com/greenart7c3/Citrine/releases/tag/v0.7.1) If you like my work consider making a [donation]( https://greenart7c3.com) ## Verifying the release In order to verify the release, you'll need to have `gpg` or `gpg2` installed on your system. Once you've obtained a copy (and hopefully verified that as well), you'll first need to import the keys that have signed this release if you haven't done so already: ``` bash gpg --keyserver hkps://keys.openpgp.org --recv-keys 44F0AAEB77F373747E3D5444885822EED3A26A6D ``` Once you have his PGP key you can verify the release (assuming `manifest-v0.7.1.txt` and `manifest-v0.7.1.txt.sig` are in the current directory) with: ``` bash gpg --verify manifest-v0.7.1.txt.sig manifest-v0.7.1.txt ``` You should see the following if the verification was successful: ``` bash gpg: Signature made Fri 13 Sep 2024 08:06:52 AM -03 gpg: using RSA key 44F0AAEB77F373747E3D5444885822EED3A26A6D gpg: Good signature from "greenart7c3 <greenart7c3@proton.me>" ``` That will verify the signature on the main manifest page which ensures integrity and authenticity of the binaries you've downloaded locally. Next, depending on your operating system you should then re-calculate the sha256 sum of the binary, and compare that with the following hashes: ``` bash cat manifest-v0.7.1.txt ``` One can use the `shasum -a 256 <file name here>` tool in order to re-compute the `sha256` hash of the target binary for your operating system. The produced hash should be compared with the hashes listed above and they should match exactly.

@ 5d4b6c8d:8a1c1ee3

I just completed my 5th steps challenge on Workit (only available on iOS, sorry). This challenge was 10k steps every day for two weeks. Of course, these were the coldest two weeks of the year, so many of those steps were indoors. The buy-in/stake was 25k sats and the payout was 28,608, which was a little less than I expected. I don't think the winners of the bonus rewards have been announced yet, so there may still be another 40k coming my way (but, probably not). So far, I've netted over 50k on these challenges. What a great way to stay healthy, while stacking sats. originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/860122

@ a853296a:209e695f

🎙️ Howdy cowboys, stackers and podcast enthusiasts! 🤠 Last week we released [**Pull That Up Jamie**](https://pullthatupjamie.ai/?searchMode=podcast-search). 🚀 Today we're thrilled to announce an upgrade to **The Fastest Podcast Search in the West** 🤠 with significant UX improvements! Check out the full details in the [(announcement post)](https://stacker.news/items/852635). 📰 --- ### **🔥 Fast Jamie Rundown**: - 🛠️ **18 high-signal Bitcoin and lifestyle podcasts** for lightning-fast insights ⚡ - 🔗 **Share podcast clips** with exact timestamps and a dedicated landing page - 📱 **Listen and explore** from mobile or desktop browser — smooth and seamless! - 🚀 **Enhanced hybrid keyword and embeddings search** for lightning-fast performance & spot-on results --- ### **🏆 Highlights**  🎧 _Learning about **P2P rights legal work** on Samourai and Tornado Cash with Zach Shapiro on Citadel Dispatch @ODELL [(deeplink)](https://pullthatupjamie.ai/share?clip=df8da274-7920-4b6b-b1fc-a715076e89a8_p40)_  🎧 _@nicktee highlighted this **Bitcoin Optech** gem on BOLT12 blinded paths [(clip deeplink)](https://pullthatupjamie.ai/share?clip=d061904c-4317-4a58-9da9-76c2faa39e08_p142)_  🎧 _@futurepaul's chat with @TheGuySwann on Mutiny's pivot to **Open Secret** [(clip deeplink)](https://pullthatupjamie.ai/share?clip=https___permalink_castos_com_podcast_59707_episode_1931494_p119)_ --- ### **🚀 Future Development**: - 🎙️ **Expanding podcast feeds**: From sports and health to AI and theology! - 🌐 **Integrating with Jamie Web Search** for a unified search experience - 🤖 **More automation** for seamless use - 🚨 **More [REDACTED]**... stay tuned for epic updates! 😉 --- 🤠 Giddy-up, and happy listening, y’all! Let us know your thoughts in the comments! 🗣️ originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/860053

@ 8d34bd24:414be32b

When I read this verse, I saw something I had never seen before. > A servant who acts wisely will rule over a son who acts shamefully,\ > And will share in the inheritance among brothers. (Proverbs 17:2) I had taken this by its plain meaning about a servant and a son and how they will be treated based on their actions, but I think there is more to this. In the *Old Testament*, the Bible hints at God’s plan for mankind which would include more than just God’s chosen people, Israel. > since Abraham will surely become a great and mighty nation, and in him all the nations of the earth will be blessed? (Genesis 18:18) In the *New Testament*, this prediction is expanded upon: > The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “All the nations will be blessed in you .” (Galatians 3:8) All nations will be blessed through Abraham and Jacob, especially through Israel. What does the Bible say about the relationship between Jews, gentiles, and salvation? > I say then, they \[Jews/Israel\] did not stumble so as to fall, did they? May it never be! But **by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles**, to make them jealous. Now if their transgression is riches for the world and their failure is riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their fulfillment be! But I am speaking to you who are Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle of Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, if somehow I might move to jealousy my fellow countrymen and save some of them. For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? If the first piece of dough is holy, the lump is also; and if the root is holy, the branches are too. > > But **if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches**; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear; for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either. Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. For if you were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these who are the natural branches be grafted into their own olive tree? (Romans 11:11-24) The Jews are God’s chosen people, but many have rejected their God and Savior. Because of this, God cut off their branch from the root and grafted in chosen gentiles. The new vine is made up of both Jew and gentile. Now let’s look back at the verse I started with: > A servant who acts wisely will rule over a son who acts shamefully,\ > And will share in the inheritance among brothers. (Proverbs 17:2) Could God be warning the Israelites, that if they act shamefully, they will have to share their inheritance with the gentiles who will partake of the blessings of God towards His chosen people? Obviously God had a plan. He knew every choice every person would make and is able to control any decision He wishes. Still, I think this was a warning to Israel. Just as I never saw it when reading this verse many times, the Jews didn’t see the warning because they thought their position was secure despite their actions. Those who are truly chosen and are truly children of God, will choose to serve and obey God. They will not reject Him. They may make mistakes, but they will always turn back to Him and seek to serve and please Him. I pray that you will be or are grafted into the true vine, Jesus Christ our Savior. Trust Jesus.

@ 21ac2956:09d1e2df

## [kakoi](https://github.com/betonetojp/kakoi) の仕様についてのメモ ### キーボード操作 * 左手での操作に最適化 | キー | 動作 | |:-|:-| | ESC | 設定画面 | | F1 / F12 | ポストバーの表示と非表示 | | F2 | 時間の表示と非表示 | | F3 | ユーザーアイコンの表示と非表示 | | F4 | 名前の表示と非表示 | | F5 | Geminiによるタイムラインまとめ画面を表示 | | F9 / Z | コンテンツの折り返し表示の切り替え （余白ダブルクリックでも動作） | | F10 | ユーザーリストとキーワード通知の設定画面 （余白右クリックでも動作） | | F11 | メイン画面の表示と非表示 （ポストバー表示） | | Shift + W | イベント最上行へ移動 | | W / ↑| イベント選択上移動 | | S / ↓ | イベント選択下移動 | | Shift + S | イベント最下行へ移動 | | A / ← | Webビューを開く （イベントを右クリックでも動作） | | F / → | リアクションを送信 （イベントをダブルクリックでも動作） | | 1 ～ 0 | リアクションを選択 | | R | 返信 | | B | リポスト | | Q | 引用 | | C | Webビューを閉じる | | Ctrl + Shift + A | メイン画面をアクティブにする | ### タイムライン * kind:1, 6, 7, 16を取得して表示する * フォロイーの名前の前には * が付く ### フォローリスト（kind:3） * 参照のみで更新はしない * F10 で開くユーザーリストでユーザーを選択し petname セルをクリックすることで未フォローユーザーにもペットネームを設定可能（ローカル保存） ### プロフィール（kind:0） * F10 で開くユーザーリストでユーザーを選択し picture セルをクリックすることでユーザーのアイコン表示を変更可能（ローカル保存） ### 返信（[NIP-10](https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/blob/master/10.md) kind:1） * kakoi のタイムラインに流れるすべてのイベント種に返信可能とする * スレッドを考慮せず、単一イベントへの単発返信とする * e タグは marker と返信先 pubkey は設定していない。 relay-url には空文字を設定 ```json ["e", "返信先 event-id", ""] ``` * p タグは 返信先 pubkey ひとつだけを指定 ### リポスト（[NIP-18](https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/blob/master/18.md) kind:6 , 16） * kakoi のタイムラインに流れるすべてのイベント種をリポスト可能 * kind:1はkind:6。その他はkind:16でリポストする * e タグは relay-url に空文字を設定 ```json ["e", "リポスト元 event-id", ""] ``` ### 引用（[NIP-18](https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/blob/master/18.md) kind:1） * q タグは relay-url に空文字を設定 ```json ["q", "引用元 event-id", ""] ```

@ 2ce0697b:1ee3d3fc

### Following Trump’s ~~failure to fulfill ~~his promise, much of the Bitcoin community continues to petition for his pardon.(1) 1: Add on: at the end of day one Trump freed Ross. Everything else in this article applies irregardless of that action. Added at 880.358 time chain. #### ~~Key Fact 1: Trump failed to release Ross Ulbricht on day one.~~ #### Key Fact 2: Some Bitcoiners fall into the trap of statism by recognizing the legitimacy of the American President. --- > "The State is the denial of humanity." — Mikhail Bakunin --- It seems that in the end, the orange man wasn’t so orange. The orange man was voted for by many of the orange team because they believed he would use the resources at his disposal to create a great stockpile of oranges. But just before taking office, it turned out he started stockpiling [manure]( https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2025/01/19/solana-hits-275-lifetime-peak-as-official-trump-memecoin-surges-to-8-b) instead. Bitcoin solves this because, eventually, that manure will fertilize the oranges which, at least for now, will not be produced by the state apparatus controlled by the orange man. Instead, as they always have been, they will continue to be produced by the private sector, contributing much more to decentralization, even at the cost of not achieving at the moment a sharp increase in hashing power. The orange man was also supported and tolerated by many in the orange team because he promised to release Ross Ulbricht. Ross is someone deprived of liberty for the "crime" of challenging the State by creating Silk Road, a free market. Ross understood that according to natural law, every adult has the right to interact with another by respecting their consent without unwanted third-party interference in the exchange. The orange team shares this vision and understands that imprisoning an innocent person is an injustice that must be corrected. However, not all members of the orange team agree on the reasons or the methods. There is a portion of the orange team that continuously and respectfully asks the orange man to free Ross. Members of this subcategory of the orange team pray: *"Oh dear Mr. Orange, please grant Ross your mercy! Free him from the clutches of the Federal Government, the same government you’ve always supported, been a part of, and promoted, the same government you administered for four years previously without freeing this innocent man. Oh Mr. Orange, we promise that if you do this, you will have our support to do everything —or almost everything— you want to do. Amen."*  What a portion of the orange team fails to see is that Ross is in prison precisely because they accept his imprisonment, despite all the petition campaigns for his release. This sub-category of the orange team is composed by democratic Bitcoiners, Republicans ones, voters in general, and law-abiding Bitcoiners, in other words, **statist Bitcoiners. That´s it bitcoiner who support the existence of the State.** No matter how much they may dislike it, the reality is that one cannot ask a President for clemency without simultaneously recognizing his legitimate authority to grant that clemency. What some members of this subgroup of the orange team don´t realize is that the orange man is just another person, a human being with the same rights and obligations as anyone else. The orange man is currently the one holding Ross captive through violence and force. He is the one at fault. It is the orange man who, every minute he remains in power, tolerates the aggression against innocents like Ulbricht. And this is just one example among millions of others who are also victimized by him and his state apparatus, which magnifies aggression. Whoever initiates or perpetuates violence against others is the one who should be punished by society, whether by restricting their actions, excommunicating him, banishing him, depriving him of public resources, or at the very least, ignoring him. By asking the orange man to please cease the violence against Ross while simultaneously tolerating his violence against millions of other innocent people currently coerced by the state apparatus, one unwittingly promotes further injustices. > "Authority is the negation of freedom." — Errico Malatesta Ross is innocent, but so are all the users of USD who are robbed through inflation. Ulbricht deserves to be free, but so does every human being capable of giving their consent to trade in the manner they choose. The creator of Silk Road deserves to return to his family and enjoy the rest of his life as he sees fit, but so does every prisoner accused of victimless crimes. (For example, in the U.S., one of the most common victimless crimes that feeds the private prison industry is dealing of drugs outside of compliance.) This author cannot help but ask this part of the orange team: If the orange man frees Ross and then Ross reinstates Silk Road, what do you think will happen? Would Ross remain free after committing that act again? And if it’s not Ross but John Doe who does it, wouldn’t John also be persecuted by the same orange man whom you tolerate?  Wouldn’t it be better for the global human community to ask the orange man, or anyone who occupies his position, to cease violence against all innocents? Or better yet: Wouldn’t it be better to act accordingly by creating peaceful free exchange mechanisms that allow people to escape such violence? Like it or not, by supporting a potential presidential pardon, one acknowledges state authority. It is an acceptance that there are human beings superior to others, owners of others, whose whims must be tolerated by the rest of society. The difference between the timeline where Ross is a business magnate and the one where he is treated as a criminal lies in the whim of a president and a ruling political caste. But the tolerance of that whim by the rest of society is what is at stake—and, on an individual level, within our control. Every well-intentioned moral action is correct. Freeing Ross could be a well-intentioned moral action. But it could also simply be a demagogic action intended to perpetuate the inherently immoral state apparatus. The second option is the most likely and logical coming from fiat professional politicians. There is nothing we can do about it since that is beyond our control. But what all members of the orange team can do is [deny the authority ]( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpTxs_qrcfg)of the orange man—not only because he is just an ordinary man, equal among humans, but especially to deny the legitimacy of his enterprise. An enterprise based on violence, coercion, monetary inflation, theft, war, and the use of force to benefit his friends at the expense of the rest of humanity. --- Camilo JdL at 880,209 timechain. If you find this content helpful, zap it to support more content of the sort and to boost the V4V model.

@ 6b57533f:eaa341f5

Erik Prince · 30 April 2024 How the MIC and the Neocons Keep America Losing It is painfully apparent to anyone of sound mind and judgment that there’s something gravely wrong with America’s current military capacity and our ability to project power in the world. The WWII-era fighting force composed of fourteen million GIs with a muscular industrial base backing them up is almost unimaginable today. In the last three years, five different US embassies have been hastily evacuated: Sudan, Afghanistan, Belarus, Ukraine, and Niger. Americans are held hostage in Gaza; commercial shipping traffic is blockaded and our ground and naval forces are shot at daily with impunity. How did America go from winning the Cold War and becoming the sole global superpower in the 90s to the state of disarray that we find ourselves in now? One reason is financial. All warfare has an underlying economic basis and a nation’s military power reflects its economic structure. Today in America the “exorbitant privilege” of the US dollar and the unlimited printing press of fiat currency it enables means current US defense spending is essentially covered by debt: indeed at least 30% of the current national debt consists of military overspend from the so-called Global War on Terror. This reality has created an absence of strategic discipline, and a military policy that prioritizes a tiny guild of contractors feeding an obese top-heavy structure rather than winning wars. The roots of the current situation reach back to the election of Reagan in 1980. Reagan started a pivot from 35 years of containment to a more aggressive approach, covered by deficits. Channeled economically, politically, culturally, socially, and through covert action these measures helped to bring an end to the Soviet Union, but at a critical strategic cost. Partly as a consequence of the central economic role that the USSR had come to play for the US defense industry, the opportunity to positively engage with Russia after 1991 was rejected by the dominant neoconservative faction and their military-industrial complex allies in Washington. Originally Trotskyites, the Neocons had taken root in the corporatist wing of the Republican Party and gradually increased in influence, to eventually become dominant in the Washington Beltway foreign policy and emblematic of its mentality of continuous warfare funded by an unlimited fiat printing press. The so-called “Peace Dividend” that followed the end of the Cold War was redirected into expanding NATO instead of ending it. The goal was to enrich the military-industrial complex by creating more clients to buy US weapons, at the expense of the opportunity to partner with Russia. Promises of not expanding NATO eastward into former Warsaw Pact countries were broken and NATO troops were deployed on Russia’s border. The priorities of Neocon Washington were also projected into US policy in Africa. After Liberian warlord Charles Taylor sponsored the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) in Sierra Leone in the late ’90s, the RUF quickly captured most of the country, particularly the diamond-rich areas of the north. In the process they committed atrocious acts of savagery against Sierra Leone’s civilian population. Into this maelstrom entered Executive Outcomes (EO), a South African PMC. EO initially deployed 60 ex-South African Special Forces personnel fresh from ending a civil war that had raged for years in Angola, and eventually expanded to around 200 well-trained personnel. Using mostly equipment abandoned by Sierra Leone’s disintegrated army, within 6 months they’d retaken the country and restored peace and order to the extent that free and fair elections could be held 3 months later. Executive Outcomes was sponsored by an association of diamond miners who wanted their mines back. This group was willing to sponsor an ongoing 30-man EO presence to retrain a new Sierra Leone armed forces while providing a backstop in case the rebels returned. Susan Rice, then Bill Clinton’s Assistant Secretary of State for Africa, vetoed this proposal: “We don’t want any white mercenaries in Africa,” she declared. The result? Within months the RUF and a new group called the West Side Boys had returned, killing, looting, and pillaging the country. 11,000 UN Peacekeepers at a cost of $1B+ per year in 1990s US dollars were now deployed. But they didn’t solve the problem, and not until the British SAS killed hundreds of rebels during a large hostage rescue mission of Irish Peacekeepers did the country start to stabilize. This debacle in West Africa occurred on the heels of an even greater catastrophe further East. In the spring of 1994, after decades of simmering ethnic hatred in Rwanda, the Hutus launched a program of manual genocide. Over a four-month period they killed almost 1,000,000 of their Tutsi neighbors, a murder rate exceeding 8,000 per day, mainly using machetes and farm tools. Here as well EO made a formal proposal to the UN and the US government to intervene and prevent further slaughter. The proposal was also rejected by Rice in Washington. EO stayed out and the carnage continued unabated until Paul Kagame’s exiled Rwandan Patriotic Front invaded from Uganda and retook the country. *** By the late 90s, with Washington engaged in combat in the former Yugoslavia, a new kind of enemy was emerging: jihadist Islam. In 1993 a poorly conceived and badly executed nation-building exercise in Somalia had already supplied a foretaste when the Battle of Mogadishu resulted in the death of 18 US Special Operations personnel and 73 wounded after repeated requests for air support were rejected by an indecisive Clinton administration. By 1999, unanswered attacks in Nairobi, Dar As Salaam, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and New York had claimed hundreds of lives and mauled a US Destroyer, USS Cole. Finally, on Sept 11th, 2001, this series of body blows reached its spectacular culmination. In the aftermath of 9/11, President Bush met with his War Cabinet to plan a response to the costliest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor. As the Pentagon smoldered, the Department of Defense recommended a bombing campaign and a Ranger raid against an Al Qaeda-linked farm, but wanted to wait at least six months before beginning combat operations in order to avoid the Afghan winter. The CIA, for their part, recommended an Unconventional Warfare campaign. They wanted to supercharge the Northern Alliance, who’d been fighting the Taliban for a decade, with US airpower directed by SOF advisors. The CIA plan was adopted. The Taliban and their guests Al-Qaeda were routed in weeks by a highly aggressive SOF targeting cycle which gave them no quarter. The US response to 9/11 should have resembled a Scipio Africanus-style Roman punitive raid, killing all Taliban and Al-Qaeda remnants within reach, including those sheltering in the tribal areas of Pakistan, and then withdrawing. Instead, the Neocons saw a lucrative opportunity to ‘nation build’. Because the Pentagon runs on the bureaucratic principle of budget cycles and the internal war for promotion rather than the principle of victory, a vastly inflated occupational army ultimately comprising 120,000 soldiers was deployed to the country. This force represented a repetition of the failed Soviet plan of the 80s, to the extent of occupying the same bases. Ignoring every historical lesson of successful counter-insurgencies, experienced soldiers were rotated on 6-12 month intervals with fresh units, losing all continuity and local intelligence. The top commander spot rotated 18 times in 20 years. Concerned as per usual with marketing for their defense contractor clients, the Neocons dragged dozens of largely unwilling NATO members to Afghanistan, producing a dysfunctional chaos of individual national mandates. Many nations wouldn’t patrol at night or engage in offensive combat missions. When the German army arrived in Kabul in the spring of 2002, among their concerns was finding appropriate housing for all the gay couples deployed in the Bundeswehr. The Neocon plan for Afghanistan, or at least the story, was to impose a centralized Jeffersonian democracy on a largely illiterate, semi-feudal tribal nation by throwing infinite money at a paper-thin civil society. The result, unsurprisingly, was corruption, not infrastructure. Meanwhile, the military operation remained chaos incarnate. Not only was there never a truly empowered supreme commander, but authorities were split between the US Ambassador, CIA Station chief, the current 4-star US General, the CENTCOM Commander and their staff residing in Qatar or Tampa, and various representatives from NATO. This committee from Hell produced predictable results. In the 1980s the US provided lethal aid to the Mujahedeen fighting the Soviets running to $1B a year including state-of-the-art Stinger missiles, which knocked down an average of one Soviet aircraft per day. Nobody provided this kind of aid to the Taliban: not one NATO/Coalition aircraft was lost to a guided missile. But air supremacy wasn’t enough. The Taliban were a self-funded insurgency composed of mostly illiterate fighters using weapons designed more than 70 years earlier. Although they lacked the techno-wizardry of the Pentagon forces, their budget grew to approximately $600mm per year from tolling narcotics and the import of fuel used to feed a thirsty Pentagon presence. Fuel logistics alone cost the Pentagon tens of billions per year, despite the fact that a vast reserve of crude – Amu-Darya Field in Balkh Province Afghanistan – had been drilled, proven and properly cemented by Soviet forces before they left in 1989. But what could have supplied the entire Afghanistan operation with low-cost, reliable hydrocarbon energy was ignored in favor of paying, by the time the fuel reached the vehicles, an operational cost of $250 per gallon. President Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev sign the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (1987) / President George H.W. Bush talks to reporters about US military operations in Iraq, flanked by Defense Secretary Dick Cheney and Chair of the Joint Chiefs Colin Powell (1991) / George Bush with Dick Cheney and senior staff in the President’s Emergency Operations Center in Washington in the hours following the 9/11 attacks (2001) It’s fair to compare the longevity of the Soviet-built Afghan forces, holding on for years after the Soviets left, versus the Pentagon-built Afghan forces collapsing only weeks after the American withdrawal. Today of course the Taliban rule Afghanistan with an iron sandal. The trillions of dollars and thousands of lives expended by America’s youth were completely wasted – and nobody has ever been held to account. The Taliban have not become more moderate – they are exactly the same group as before and hosting more terror groups than ever. Al Qaeda is resident once again in Kabul, and now known to be gathering means to enrich uranium in Afghanistan. Afghanistan wasn’t even the worst US military failure over the last twenty years. Almost exactly the same Neocon fever dream also played out in Iraq. Here again the fantasy of deposing a dictator in the name of installing democracy in a country with a culture with no history of representative democracy followed its inevitable course. After an initial phase of 24/7 war porn of the US invasion, broadcast by the network media through “embedded journalists,” the Pentagon was quickly dragged into an urban counter-insurgency quagmire involving a Sunni faction rebranded as Al Qaeda in Iraq, Saddam regime holdovers, and Shia insurgents, armed, trained and sometimes led by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. This development was not inevitable. I still recall a sliding door moment early in the conflict when the Director of the Iraqi National Intelligence Service came to see me with his CIA liaison officer in early 2004. He described the scale of the efforts by the IRGC Quds Forces to infiltrate Iraqi society and establish a proxy capability similar to Hezbollah in Lebanon and requested that we develop a joint program to locate and eradicate the Iranian presence. Unfortunately, the program was blocked by then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, on the grounds that Iran was not our enemy and that the US must support the political process in Iraq. In the event, this political process spun into a vicious civil war, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians. Meanwhile, our ‘non-enemy’ Iran flooded the country with thousands of lethal EFP roadside bombs, to shred armored vehicles with American soldiers inside. Today Iraq is subjugated by Iran with Tehran making key decisions and approving all key ministry appointments, including who becomes Prime Minister. Their power is backed by the Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) or Hashd al Shabi – an Iranian-controlled proxy mirroring Hezbollah in Lebanon. The PMUs are paid for by the Iraqi Government, armed in most cases with American weapons, and led either by Iranian-appointed commanders or by serving IRGC officers directly. Source: The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, 2021 America continues to wage futile forever wars of convenience because Washington believes we are immune to reality and evolved beyond history. The grand strategy of the so-called Global War on Terror was conceived on a false premise promoted by Neocon think tanks and the Military-Industrial Complex that American drone technology could revolutionize counter-insurgency warfare through surgical strikes targeting only the leadership of terror organizations. This delusion produced sclerosis in the military by stripping authority away from field commanders concerning when to shoot and when to hold fire. A fixation on large orbiting cameras likewise devolved into high-tech voyeurism with lawyers, not commanders making battlefield decisions even when friendly troops were in peril and requiring urgent air support. Ultimately, the paradigm flies in the face of the realities of war. Leaders are replaceable. There’s always another ambitious jihadi looking to wear the crown of command. What actually ends wars is destroying enemy manpower, finance, logistics, and ability to resupply. Every relevant historical example tells the same story, from the wars of ancient Greece to continental European and Napoleonic wars to the American Civil War and the world wars of the 20th Century. In the course of losing WWII Germany lost 5.3 of 17.7 million men aged 15-44 years old, or 30% of their male population. This brutality is the reality of winning wars – as the recent US track record of failure shows. The “measured and proportional response” crowd wants a war without war. It’s a fantasy that only seems plausible to people who have never experienced war and are insulated from its consequences; their first-born children should be drafted into frontline combat units to relieve them of this problem. After the Roman Empire lost a crushing defeat at the Battle of Cannae, the Roman Senate immediately became 40% undermanned, because the Roman leaders actually served in the defense of their Republic and risked their lives in battle for it. Today, America’s elites instead spend their time on Wall Street or in think tanks gathering degrees and attending conferences. The old concept of noblesse oblige has gone missing from our national culture and so has the concept of accountability. Despite the failures of Iraq and Afghanistan, there have been zero lessons learned or course corrections made. Consequently, the failures keep coming. When Hamas unleashed thousands of rockets, missiles, paragliders, and ground assaults across 30 breach points into Israel on October 7 of last year, they showed how dangerous complacency can be. Clearly Hamas had plotted their operation for years. Their network of 300 miles of tunnels spanning all of Gaza was built with one goal in mind: to suck the IDF into an urban quagmire in order to maximize carnage and casualties, of both Palestinian civilian and Israeli soldiers. But why not flood the tunnels with seawater using Texas precision drilling technology? The tactic would have obviated the need to bomb urban areas containing civilians and the terrible suffering that this tactic entails. Flooding the tunnels would have destroyed all underground weapons storage, prevented maneuver, and would have forced Hamas to move or lose their hostage human shields. In fact, an entire package of drilling/pumping and technical support for precisely this tactic was offered by donors to the IDF. Yet the IDF – under pressure from the Pentagon diktats – instead chose bombing. The result has seen a wave of global sympathy generated for the Palestinian cause and left Hamas in charge of uncleared southern Gaza: a double nightmare scenario far from being resolved. Source: The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, 2021 *** In 2011, Hillary Clinton, chief Neocon of the Obama Administration, proudly declared of Libya’s US-sponsored revolution: “We came. We saw. He died.” Colonel Qaddafi may not have been perfect but Libya under him was politically stable. Now? For 13 years the country has been wracked by civil war and chaos. Rife with Russian and Turkish PMCs fighting for regional hegemony, the country is now a major exporter of weapons and one of the biggest channels to Europe for drugs and human trafficking. Further east, Iran, with Hamas, Hezbollah, Hashd al shaabi (Iraq), and the Houthis in Yemen, have built a powerful network of regional proxy forces, now extending even into South America through the Lebanese diaspora in the narcotics and weapons trade. In Yemen, the Houthis have developed into effective pirates, shutting off Red Sea shipping traffic with long-range anti-ship weapons hidden in Yemen’s rugged terrain. As a result, an already economically struggling Egypt – a key American ally – has suffered a 40% blow to their GDP from lost Suez transit fees of $800mm/month and everyone else has seen punishing supply chains inflation from dislocated transit routes and runaway insurance premiums. Why are Iranian surrogates in Iraq and Yemen being permitted to fire hundreds of precision drones, cruise and ballistic missiles at US forces on land and sea, largely without meaningful response from Washington? What response there has been has mainly consisted of announcing a coalition named ‘Prosperity Guardian’ to protect shipping which collapsed almost immediately after multiple vessels were struck and destroyed. Why are US policymakers and the Pentagon unable to innovate effective military solutions? It doesn’t have to be this way. In the 1960s, Egypt, then a Soviet client, seized half of Yemen and deposed the Yemeni monarch. In response, Britain and Saudi Arabia hired SAS founder David Stirling’s PMC Watchguard International. Within months they had sufficiently amplified the Yemeni Tribesman fighting capabilities to force Egypt to withdraw. Stirling actually received a medal from the IDF for engaging so many Egyptian troops that it assisted the IDF victory in the 1967 Six-Day War. Fast forward to 2017, Saudi Arabia and the UAE were trying to battle Iranian surrogate Houthis who seized control over half of Yemen. They request PMC support to replicate the successful Stirling model from the 1960s, and once again they are blocked, this time by Neocon Secretary of Defense Matthis serving under President Trump. The Houthis remained unchecked and ascendant, and eventually strong enough to shut off one of the world’s major trade routes. Meanwhile this same approach is still failing in Africa. There have been a staggering nine coup d’etats across Africa in the last 4 years, mainly in ex-colonial French regions, where decades-long insurgencies have exploded following the destruction of Libya. The looting of massive Libyan state arsenals following the overthrow of Qaddafi flooded the region with weapons. Long insufficient COIN operations by France and their USG partners reached the end of the road; local militaries ousted their Paris-sponsored leadership. The current US humiliation in Niger and Chad where US forces are being forced to vacate new multi-billion dollar facilities built to support drone operations across Africa is the result. Compare this to Russia. Having embraced PMC capabilities, Russia is currently running a successful playbook in Africa against ineffective Western-friendly governments by showing a firmer hand against jihadists. This cycle will continue unabated so long as the State Department and the CIA restrict their thinking to coming up with PR strategies while America’s rivals implement military solutions. The Central African Republic, rich in buried mineral wealth, suffered a descent into civil war in 2014 and the empowerment of criminal gangs; the Seleca and Anti Balaka. In 2017, the CAR government requested Western PMC assistance to build a robust mining police force in order to choke out the gangs. Contracts were even signed and funding-ready. But once again this solution was blocked by the NeoCons at the State Dept and their pet, the UN, refusing to waive their sanctions against CAR for the purchasing of small arms to equip police. But Russia had no such issues and sent 400 Wagner personnel immediately. Now multiple Wagner units run mines that net the Russian PMC billions of dollars per year, funding many of their other operations across Africa. Somalia has been a geopolitical problem since the early 90s, sucking up tens of billions in ineffective foreign aid, killing hundreds of thousands, exporting terrorism, sheltering pirates, and flooding America with hundreds of thousands of migrants. In the spring of 2020, Kenyan President Jomo Kenyatta reached out for private sector assistance to finally tourniquet this endless bleeding. Every terror attack in Kenya costs Kenya more than $1B in tourist revenue. The PMC offer was made, and Kenyatta asked President Trump for financial assistance to run this private sector solution. Trump agreed and funding was passed into law by Congress. But Team Biden took over before the already-appropriated funds were released. As a result, they were used instead on the same failed approach – the surgical decapitation strategy which has repeatedly failed globally for 20+ years. Today, Somalia still bleeds and still drains funds, while America is stuck with culturally incompatible migrants that we “cannot deport” because Somalia remains a failed state. When does Western incompetence end? Barack Obama, center, participates in a meeting in the White House Situation Room (2011) The Syrian Civil War saw Neocons funding a radical Sunni insurgency to depose Bashar Al Assad. This force quickly morphed into ISIS and promptly conquered half of Iraq by appealing to a Sunni population repressed by Iranian Shia proxies. The point is worth repeating. ISIS emerged directly from Neocon meddling in the Syrian Civil War. Today, in the aftermath, US forces occupy eastern Syria as some sort of ill-defined buffer between various Kurdish factions, Turkey, and the Syrian government, at a cost of billions per year and for no tangible benefit to American citizens. Cui Bono? Who benefits? And who is benefiting from the ongoing tragedy of the war in Ukraine? Since historical perspective in conflicts is always useful, I invite readers to consider the staggering costs in manpower borne by the USSR to defeat the Wehrmacht: over 22 million lives lost compared to US losses of 250,000 troops. While the US was invading North Africa in a warm-up to the invasion of Europe, the Soviets were killing 1.2 million Axis soldiers at Stalingrad, while losing almost twice that number themselves. That loss is genetically imprinted on surviving generations, and strategically imprinted in the thinking of the Russian state. The effect of the eastward expansion of NATO culminating in a proposal to include Ukraine despite clear red-line language expressed by the Kremlin was highly predictable. Yet the Neocons kept pressing the issue, even after assisting in the overthrow of a pro-Russian President. One should take note of how upset the US Government was when the USSR began emplacing missiles in Cuba during the early 1960s. At the outbreak of WWII, in Britain’s greatest hour of danger, America sent them 50 surplus Navy destroyers, combat aircraft, and weaponry. Meanwhile, in the Chinese theater, combat aircraft were purchased by a Nationalist government which needed American Volunteer Group Contractor support to stop the Japanese from bombing Chinese cities. Similarly, as tensions rose in Ukraine in late 2021 and a Russian invasion looked imminent, a combination of Lend Lease and the Flying Tigers was offered to the White House. For fiscal year 2022, 200+ fully functional combat aircraft including 50 F-16s, 50 F-15s and 42 A-10s explicitly designed for destroying Soviet tanks were set to be retired, flown to the desert, and parked forever. These are not state-of-the-art aircraft but entirely adequate when flown by well-trained contract pilots filling the gap for 18 months while Ukrainian crews could be readied. Team Biden could have made a grand announcement before the invasion stating Ukraine would never join NATO but would have the means to defend itself. This airwing deployment with weapons crews and fuel would have cost less than $800mm compared to the hundreds of billions and incalculable deaths on both sides. Announcing no NATO expansion and instant deployment of a robust air wing could have prevented the largest war in Europe in eighty years. Or did the Neocons want a war? Which brings us to Taiwan. Taiwan, and China’s claim on it, remains the flashpoint in the ultimate cold war in the final stages of warming. Clever deterrence measures have been offered and rejected. The Pentagon wants to fight by our own playbook, but as always in war, the enemy gets a vote. A hot war between China and the USA would see US cities annihilated and a death toll in the tens of millions, at minimum. This apocalyptic carnage can only be averted by looking back through history at what has worked and what hasn’t worked in the conveyor belt of failed Washington foreign policy approaches which have dominated the last thirty years. We owe it to our children to get this right but course changes must be made immediately, before it is too late. *** What we should do? The current policy model of US security assistance is broken and counterproductive. The US military is the most expensive organization in 3,000 years of human history and has degenerated into an instrument for selling or grifting overpriced military hardware to countries that struggle to use it, let alone maintain it. The US military mows the lawn with Lamborghinis, when Kubota tractors is what our allies need. The dozens of developing countries that suffer from narco crime, gangsterism and chaos urgently need real help. When troops are sent for advisory missions too many are sent and they don’t stay long enough to provide real assistance; while they are there they are hamstrung by lawyers into ineffectiveness. Building lasting capability in countries takes time. Doing a three-week exercise while delivering new gifted equipment is a waste of energy and money every time. Send experienced advisors to dwell long term – for years, not months. Give advisors a path to really learn a region and culture. The Russians are not ignorant of history and the Wagner group has stepped into the void created by US incompetence. In the Sahel and other parts of West Africa they’ve quickly become the power behind the throne. The best way to beat Wagner is to outcompete them. The same principle also applies to reforming Washington more generally. Policymakers must allow competition to flourish. The military does not need to be so inherently governmental. If, in 1969, during the summer of Woodstock and Apollo 11, someone said that in 50 years the only way the USG would be able to get people into space would be on a SpaceX rocket, you’d be laughed out of Johnson Space Center. Before the creation of FedEx, a politician would have proclaimed government as the only entity robust enough to deliver packages overnight globally, yet today “FedEx” is a verb. It hasn’t totally replaced the US Postal Service, but it has made it run more efficiently. The same logic can be applied to the military. The American taxpayer is paying far too much for much too little. The cozy cartel of defense contractors must be broken up, and the military made competitive again. Anti-trust enforcement and competitive tenders will stop the corruption of the thousands of lobbyists in Washington milking congress like a cow while delivering overpriced and ineffective products. The current status is unacceptable. The more consolidated the defense base, the more it behaves like the Pentagon bureaucracy: exactly what America cannot afford. Our Founding Father’s instincts for empowering market capacities in military power are explicitly articulated in the Constitution. Before discussing “Congress shall raise a Navy” in Art 1 Sec 8 it directs Congress to mandate the private sector with a letter of Marque and Reprisal – effectively a hunting license for private contractors to interdict enemy shipping. The litany of failures listed above supplies ample evidence that the current military status quo is ineffective. A “government-only” approach abroad is calamitous and undermines US credibility and deterrence. The foreign policy of the United States should be that our friends love us, our rivals respect us, and our enemies fear us. Instead, our friends fear our self-immolation while our rivals consume us and our enemies fire upon us without consequence. --- America’s private sector has always outperformed government in solving problems. It is time to unleash America’s entrepreneurs in foreign policy to cut costs and restore American credibility. Erik D. Prince is a former Navy SEAL officer and the founder of private military company Blackwater. Among his current projects is the Unplugged phone, a privacy-focused smartphone. He can be followed @realErikDPrince.

@ fe02e8ec:f07fbe0b

##### **Zum ersten Mal** in der Geschichte der Menschheit … **… wissen so viele Menschen Bescheid über Propaganda**. Seit ihren Anfängen etwa um 1900 bis 1920 (LeBons „[Psychologie der Massen](https://unternehmerkanal.de/buecher-2/psychologie/die-psychologie-der-massen-zusammenfassung/)“, Bernays „[Propaganda](https://www.buch7.de/produkt/propaganda-edward-bernays/1021149974?ean=9783936086355)“, Lippmanns [„Die öffentliche Meinung“](https://www.westendverlag.de/buch/die-oeffentliche-meinung-2/)) haben sich weltweit Tausende von Psychologen damit beschäftigt, wie Menschen beeinflusst werden können. Es existieren unzählige Websites und Bücher, in welchen die Methoden, Techniken und Tricks beschrieben werden. Jeder, der es wissen möchte, kann es wissen. Und jetzt kommt das Beste: *Propaganda funktioniert nur, wenn sie nicht bemerkt wird!* Nur so lange Menschen der Meinung sind, sie erhalten echte Information schenken sie ihr Glauben. Sobald sie bemerkt haben, dass verborgene Absichten dahinterstecken, sind Zweifel und Misstrauen wesentlich stärker als das Restvertrauen, das oft nur noch aus jahrelanger Gewohnheit besteht. Aber: ist Vertrauen erst verspielt lässt es sich äußerst schwer zurückgewinnen. Die Propaganda versagt. Heute (2023) glauben in Deutschland noch ca. 50% den großen Medien, in den USA sind es weniger als 20%. Propaganda verliert ihre Wirkung. *Die Erzeugung einer mehrheitlich geglaubten Scheinrealität bricht zusammen.* \*\* \*\* ##### **Zum ersten Mal** in der Geschichte der Menschheit … **… können sich die Menschen selbstbestimmt informieren.** Dank Internet, freien Medien und rührigen Einzelpersonen haben die großen Medien ihre Gatekeeper-Funktion weitgehend verloren. Während früher eine Handvoll Medienkonzerne entscheiden konnte, welche Informationen an die Menschen geliefert werden und welche nicht, ist das heute nicht mehr möglich. Jeder, der dies möchte, kann sich selbstbestimmt informieren. Damit ist die *Durchsetzung einer einzig gültigen Wirklichkeitswahrnehmung* seitens Politik und Medien unmöglich. Aus diesem Grund ist in den letzten Jahren der größte Zensurkomplex der Welt entstanden. Der Amerikaner Michael Shellenberger, Mitgründer von Greenpeace (mittlerweile ausgetreten) nennt es den „[Censorship Industrial Complex](https://censorshipindustrialcomplex.org/")“. Spätestens seit „Corona“ ist bekannt, wie extrem die Zensur zuschlägt, um die staatlich verordnete „Realität“ durchzusetzen. Doch je wilder die Zensur, desto offensichtlicher die Angst und Hilflosigkeit der „Narrativ Reiniger“. Doch es ist vorbei. Ist das Vertrauen verspielt so kehrt es nicht mehr zurück. Sie wissen es. Und sie wissen, dass wir es wissen. Doch sie machen weiter, denn ein Zurück ist für sie unvorstellbar. Kauft Popcorn.   ##### **Zum ersten Mal** in der Geschichte der Menschheit … **… erkennen viele die Macht-Motive hinter den Weltkrisen.** Der „Wertewesten“, die „regelbasierte internationale Ordnung“, Kriege, um „Demokratie und Freiheit“ zu bringen, die USA mit über [800 ausländischen Militärbasen (Russland: 9, China: 1](https://www.friedenskooperative.de/friedensforum/artikel/die-strategische-bedeutung-von-militaerbasen)), nie existierende Massenvernichtungswaffen, die einen Krieg rechtfertigen mussten und so weiter. Es ließe sich noch lange fortsetzen. Unzählige Historiker, aufrechte Journalisten und mutige Whistleblower haben der Welt gezeigt, worum es wirklich geht: Macht, Geostrategie, Rohstoffe, Kontrolle, Geld. Menschen, die sich unabhängig informieren, lassen sich mit den seit Jahrzehnten bekannten Phrasen nicht mehr manipulieren. Der Rückhalt für diese Politik nimmt ab, mit medialem Dauerfeuer (Ukraine, Russland, demnächst Niger?) wird versucht, gegenzusteuern. Doch weder die [USA](https://www.zerohedge.com/political/falling-military-recruitment-another-sign-waning-faith-regime) noch die [Bundeswehr](https://www.merkur.de/politik/wenig-bock-auf-bundeswehr-karriere-pistorius-gehen-die-rekruten-aus-92413203.html) finden genug Rekruten für die Verteidigung der „westlichen Werte“. Ob es daran liegt, dass diese „Werte“ am Ende aussehen wie syrische Ölquellen, irakische Raffinerien oder Milliardengewinne für Rüstungskonzerne? Immer mehr der 99% erkennen, dass die 1% ohne sie zu absolut nichts Kriegerischem in der Lage wären. Und es werden monatlich mehr, die dies bemerken. \*\* \*\* ##### **Zum ersten Mal** in der Geschichte der Menschheit … **… werden die großen Pläne so frühzeitig aufgedeckt.** Die Bilderberger Konferenz existiert seit 1954, in der Öffentlichkeit war sie praktisch unbekannt. Obwohl dort die Creme de la Creme aus Politik, Hochfinanz, Militär, Medien, Adel und CEOs zusammenkamen, Jahr für Jahr. Doch investigative Journalisten zwangen sie dazu, eine [eigene Website mit Teilnehmerlisten](https://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/) zu veröffentlichen. Die „Davos Clique“, das [Word Economic Forum](https://www.weforum.org/) um Kissinger- und CIA-Zögling Klaus Schwab ist spätestens seit der „Pandemie“ in aller Munde. Und so weiter. All die Elite Organisationen, Think Tanks, NGOs und internationalen Institutionen stehen heute viel genauer unter Beobachtung, als dies noch vor zehn Jahren der Fall war. In den unabhängigen Medien wird frühzeitig über die Pläne berichtet, so etwa der monströse Plan der WHO, im Falle einer (gänzlich undefinierten) „Pandemiesituation“ alle Regierungen der Welt überstimmen zu können. Freie Journalisten deckten frühzeitig die (teils extremen) Unstimmigkeiten in der Corona-/ Impf-Berichterstattung auf und ermöglichten es Millionen von Menschen, selbstbestimmte Entscheidungen zu treffen. Das Beste: immer mehr Menschen sind wachsam! \*\* \*\* ##### **Zum ersten Mal** in der Geschichte der Menschheit … **… können sich Millionen von Menschen frei vernetzen.** Whatsapp, telegram, Signal: mehr als drei Milliarden Menschen auf der ganzen Welt können sich heute miteinander verbinden, kommunizieren, Informationen austauschen. Vielleicht ist dies sogar die größte Neuerung von allen, denn damit sind Dinge möglich, die früher undenkbar waren. Videos, die innerhalb eines Tages millionenfach gesehen werden und üble Machenschaften aufdecken. Gruppen, die auf mehrere 100.000 Mitglieder anwachsen und sich verabreden können. Podcaster wie [Joe Rogan](https://open.spotify.com/show/4rOoJ6Egrf8K2IrywzwOMk) oder [Tucker Carlson](https://tuckercarlson.com/), von denen jeder mehr Zuhörer erreicht als alle Hauptnachrichtensender der USA zusammen! Deshalb ja auch die massiven Versuche von Regierungen und Geheimdiensten, die Verschlüsselungen der Plattformen zu brechen. Es ist dasselbe wie mit der Zensur: Angst und Hilflosigkeit lassen sie über alle Stränge schlagen. Wir werden sehen, wie weit sie bereit sind zu gehen. \*\* \*\* ##### **Zum ersten Mal** in der Geschichte der Menschheit … **… ist die Bewusstseinsentwicklung so weit fortgeschritten**. Mit der „68er-Generation“ begann mehr als nur Flower Power, Rock und psychedelische Drogen. Es begann eine Generation sich mit ihrer eigenen Innenseite zu beschäftigen. Für die östlichen Religionen nichts Neues, im Gegenteil, es ist deren Schwerpunkt. Doch in den Ländern des ungebremsten Wirtschaftswachstums war das bewusste Erleben der eigenen Innenwelt etwas ziemlich Neues. Meditation, bewusstseinserweiternde Substanzen (Entheogene), Psychologie im Alltag und eine Reihe spiritueller und esoterischer Ansätze eröffneten eine vollkommen neue Welt. Heute können wir offen über Traumatisierungen, Meditations-Erfahrungen, Non-duale Zustände, epigenetische Weitergabe generationaler Themen, systemische Erfahrungen und mehr reden. Themen, die der Generation der vor 1950 Geborenen nur in sehr ausgewählten Kreisen zugänglich waren. Wir können Meta-Perspektiven einnehmen, uns selbst beobachten, uns als Teil des Ganzen begreifen und noch viel mehr. *Denn das ist erst der Anfang!*   ##### **Zum ersten Mal** in der Geschichte der Menschheit … **… werden Verstand, Herz und GEIST integral gesehen**. Entgegen der derzeit weit verbreiteten Ansicht, dass die KIs und der Transhumanismus uns alle zu unnützen Essern reduzieren werden steht die Auffassung, dass wir weit mehr sind als rein materielle Gebilde. Auch wenn dies heute (noch) nicht unwiderlegbar zu beweisen ist, so zeigen doch Millionen von Erfahrungsberichten, dass Bewusstsein eine komplett andere Dimension darstellt als die Atome, aus denen unser Gehirn besteht. Unser Verstand ist das Werkzeug, mit dem wir den Alltag bewältigen. Unser Herz – im übertragenen Sinne – ist unser emotionales und Bindungszentrum. Unser GEIST ist das, was über uns hinausweist. Und möglicherweise schon vor diesem materiellen Körper existiert hat – und weiterexistieren wird. Klar handelt es sich hier um sehr persönliche Fragen, doch zumindest leben wir in einer Zeit, in der all dies einen Platz hat und erlebt, gespürt und diskutiert werden kann. Und das unterscheidet diese Zeit fundamental von den letzten 2000 Jahren. Danke dafür. \*\* \*\* ##### **Zum ersten Mal** in der Geschichte der Menschheit … **… braucht es keinen großen Führer, um Großes zu erreichen.** Das ist Spekulation. Denn auch wenn alles hier Beschriebene richtig wäre, so lässt sich diese Aussage nicht beweisen. Im Gegenteil, es sieht eher danach aus, dass die Masse noch immer nicht in der Lage ist, sich selbst zu organisieren. Nicht einmal in kleinen Gruppen von 20, 50 oder 100 Personen. Eine Vielzahl gescheiterter Projekte spricht Bände. Zugleich sind auch einige der engagierten Personen aus der freiheitlichen Bewegung nicht frei von Narzissmus und verhindern teilweise eine übergreifende Zusammenarbeit. Dennoch: auch wenn sich der Weg erst schemenhaft zeigt, die Richtung ist klar: vernetzte Zellen mit hoher Autonomie. Es wird viele Modelle geben, viele Versuche, manches wird scheitern und anderes wird gelingen. Denn eines ist sicher: auf den „Großen Anführer“ wird hier keiner mehr warten! \*\* \*\* ##### **Zum ersten Mal** in der Geschichte der Menschheit … **… nimmt uns keiner die Verantwortung ab**. Das kann man positiv oder negativ sehen. Denn es bedeutet zweifellos, dass noch viel mehr Menschen erst ihre [persönliche Heldenreise](https://www.raymond-unger.de/publikationen/heldenreise-des-buergers/) auf dem Weg des Erwachsenwerdens, der Selbstverantwortung, durchlaufen und durchleiden müssen. There is no free lunch. Wer auf den paternalistischen Staat, Grundeinkommen oder ewige Versorgung setzt, der hat nicht verstanden, wohin die Reise geht. Macht nichts, denn immer ist es eine Minderheit, die vorangeht. Die Pioniere, Abenteurer, Entdecker, die heute keine neuen Kontinente mehr bereisen, sondern neue Formen des Zusammenlebens und -arbeitens entdecken. Dahin fährt der Zug, ein paar sitzen ganz klar vorne, ein paar sorgen für Treibstoff und die Versorgung und viele fahren neugierig mit. Und das ist auch gut so. Denn weiter sind wir in unserer Evolution noch nicht. Aber wir haben ja noch ein paar Tausend Jahre vor uns. Was wir heute üben und kultivieren dürfen, das ist persönlicher Mut, der es uns immer öfter gestattet, aus Konformität und Autoritätshörigkeit auszubrechen! \*\* \*\* ##### **Zum ersten Mal** leben wir in dieser Zeit!   Erstveröffentlichung bei ["Der Sandwirt"](https://www.dersandwirt.de/zum-ersten-mal/)

@ 7ed5bd1c:4caa7587

# เครือข่ายที่เติบโต: ทำไมเครือข่าย Bitcoin ถึงมีคุณค่ามากขึ้นเรื่อย ๆ? ในโลกของเทคโนโลยีและเครือข่าย Bitcoin การเติบโตของจำนวนผู้ใช้งานไม่เพียงแค่ส่งผลต่อการใช้งาน แต่ยังเพิ่มมูลค่าให้กับเครือข่ายเองด้วย หลักการนี้สามารถอธิบายได้ผ่าน "Metcalfe’s Law" ที่กล่าวว่า มูลค่าของเครือข่ายหนึ่ง ๆ เพิ่มขึ้นตามกำลังสองของจำนวนผู้ใช้งาน ## Metcalfe’s Law และ Bitcoin Metcalfe’s Law เป็นกุญแจสำคัญในการอธิบายว่าทำไมเครือข่าย Bitcoin ถึงมีมูลค่าเพิ่มขึ้นตามจำนวนผู้ใช้งาน โดยกฎนี้กล่าวว่า: > มูลค่าของเครือข่าย = จำนวนผู้ใช้งาน^2 นั่นหมายความว่า หากจำนวนผู้ใช้งาน Bitcoin เพิ่มขึ้นเพียง 2 เท่า มูลค่าของเครือข่ายอาจเพิ่มขึ้นถึง 4 เท่า ## การเติบโตของเครือข่าย Bitcoin 1. ผู้ใช้งานเพิ่มขึ้นอย่างต่อเนื่อง: ปัจจุบัน Bitcoin มีผู้ใช้งานหลายล้านคนทั่วโลก และยังคงมีแนวโน้มเติบโตเมื่อคนหันมาให้ความสนใจเกี่ยวกับการเก็บมูลค่าและการปกป้องทรัพย์สิน 2. การยอมรับที่กว้างขึ้น: บริษัทและธุรกิจจำนวนมากเริ่มยอมรับ Bitcoin เป็นวิธีการชำระเงิน เช่น Tesla, PayPal และบริษัทใหญ่ ๆ ทั่วโลก 3. การสนับสนุนจากสถาบันการเงิน: นักลงทุนสถาบันและธนาคารบางแห่งเริ่มเข้ามามีส่วนร่วมกับ Bitcoin มากขึ้น ซึ่งช่วยเสริมสร้างความน่าเชื่อถือและความต้องการในตลาด ## ผลกระทบต่อมูลค่าเครือข่าย - สภาพคล่องที่เพิ่มขึ้น: เมื่อมีผู้ใช้งานมากขึ้น การซื้อขาย Bitcoin ก็เพิ่มขึ้น ส่งผลให้ตลาดมีสภาพคล่องสูงขึ้นและการเคลื่อนไหวของราคามีเสถียรภาพ - มูลค่าที่มั่นคงในระยะยาว: การเติบโตของเครือข่ายช่วยเสริมความเชื่อมั่นและลดความเสี่ยงที่ Bitcoin จะกลายเป็นเทคโนโลยีล้มเหลว - การกระจายอำนาจที่ดียิ่งขึ้น: จำนวนผู้ใช้งานที่เพิ่มขึ้นทำให้ Bitcoin เป็นเครือข่ายที่ยากต่อการควบคุมจากศูนย์กลาง ## Bitcoin กับการเติบโตอย่างยั่งยืน การเติบโตของเครือข่าย Bitcoin ไม่ได้เป็นเพียงแค่การเพิ่มจำนวนผู้ใช้งาน แต่ยังสะท้อนถึงการยอมรับที่เพิ่มขึ้นในฐานะทรัพย์สินดิจิทัลที่มีคุณค่าและศักยภาพในการปฏิวัติระบบการเงินดั้งเดิม แล้วคุณล่ะ เห็นการเติบโตของ Bitcoin เป็นโอกาสหรือความท้าทาย? แสดงความคิดเห็นของคุณด้านล่าง!

@ 4cebd4f5:0ac3ed15

Injective và công ty đầu tư mạo hiểm nổi tiếng a16z đã công bố việc đồng tổ chức cuộc thi Hackathon Injective AI Agent trên nền tảng phong trào lập trình viên toàn cầu DoraHacks. Được biết, đây là lần đầu tiên hệ điều hành Eliza OS tham gia tổ chức một cuộc thi hackathon quy mô lớn về trí tuệ nhân tạo (AI) trong lĩnh vực tài chính phi tập trung (DeFi). Các thí sinh sẽ sử dụng Eliza để xây dựng AI Agent và triển khai chúng trên blockchain Injective.  Cổng nộp dự án BUIDL sẽ được mở sau 13 ngày nữa, người dùng DoraHacks hiện đã có thể đăng ký cá nhân để tham gia sự kiện công nghệ này.

@ b17fccdf:b7211155

### **What's changed** ----------- - [New bonus guide dedicated to install/upgrade/uninstall PostgreSQL](https://minibolt.minibolt.info/bonus-guides/system/postgresql) - [Modified the LND guide to use PostgreSQL instead of bbolt](https://minibolt.minibolt.info/lightning/lightning/lightning-client) - [Modified the Nostr relay guide to use PostgreSQL instead of SQLite (experimental)](https://minibolt.minibolt.info/bonus-guides/nostr/nostr-relay) - [Modified the BTCPay Server bonus guide according to these changes](https://minibolt.minibolt.info/bonus-guides/bitcoin/btcpay-server) - Used the [lndinit MiniBolt organization fork](https://github.com/minibolt-guide/lndinit), to add an [extra section to migrate an existing LND bbolt database to PostgreSQL](https://minibolt.minibolt.info/lightning/lightning/lightning-client#migrate-an-existing-bbolt-database-to-postgresql) (🚨⚠️[Experimental](https://github.com/lightninglabs/lndinit/pull/21) - use it behind your responsibility⚠️🚨) - [New Golang bonus guide](https://minibolt.minibolt.info/bonus-guides/system/go) as a common language for the [lndinit compilation](https://minibolt.minibolt.info/lightning/lightning/lightning-client#install-lndinit) - [Updated LND to v0.18](https://minibolt.minibolt.info/lightning/lightning/lightning-client#download-binaries) - [New Bitcoin Core extra section to renovate Tor & I2P addresses](https://minibolt.minibolt.info/bitcoin/bitcoin/bitcoin-client#renovate-your-bitcoin-core-tor-and-i2p-addresses) - [New Bitcoin Core extra section to generate a full `bitcoin.conf` file](https://minibolt.minibolt.info/bitcoin/bitcoin/bitcoin-client#generate-a-full-bitcoin.conf-example-file) - [Rebuilt some homepage sections and general structure](https://minibolt.minibolt.info//) - Deleted the `$` symbol of the commands to easy copy-paste to the terminal - [Deleted the initial incoming and the outgoing rules configuration of UFW, due to it being by default](https://minibolt.minibolt.info/system/system/security) --- 🪧 PD: If you want to use the old database backend of the LND or Nostr relay, follow the next extra sections: - [Use the default bbolt database backend for the LND](https://minibolt.minibolt.info/lightning/lightning/lightning-client#use-the-default-bbolt-database-backend) - [Use the default SQLite database backend for the Nostr relay](https://minibolt.minibolt.info/bonus-guides/bitcoin/nostr-relay#use-the-default-sqlite-database-backend) ⚠️**Attention**⚠️: [The migration process](https://minibolt.minibolt.info/lightning/lightning/lightning-client#migrate-an-existing-bbolt-database-to-postgresql) was tested on testnet mode from an existing bbolt database backend to a new PostgreSQL database using lndinit and the results were successful. However, It wasn't tested on mainnet, [according to the developer](https://github.com/lightninglabs/lndinit/pull/21), it is in experimental status which could damage your existing LND database.🚨 Use it behind your responsibility 🧼 --- **🔧 PR related**: https://github.com/minibolt-guide/minibolt/pull/93 ----------- #### ♻️ Migrate the PostgreSQL database location > **Attention!!** These instructions are invalid since the latest changes applied to the [PostgreSQL bonus guide](https://minibolt.minibolt.info/bonus-guides/system/postgresql). See more information on the recent associated post by clicking ~ > [HERE](https://habla.news/u/twofaktor@twofaktor.github.io/1735902560910) < ~ If you installed [NBXplorer + BTCPay Server](https://minibolt.minibolt.info/bonus-guides/bitcoin/btcpay-server) **before 05/06/2024**, it is probably you have the database of the PostgreSQL cluster on the default path (`/var/lib/postgresql/16/main/`), follow the next instructions to migrate it to the new dedicated location on `/data/postgresdb` folder: * With user `admin` create the dedicated PostgreSQL data folder ``` sudo mkdir /data/postgresdb ``` * Assign as the owner to the `postgres` user ``` sudo chown postgres:postgres /data/postgresdb ``` * Assign permissions of the data folder only to the `postgres` user ``` sudo chmod -R 700 /data/postgresdb ``` * Stop NBXplorer and BTCPay Server ``` sudo systemctl stop nbxplorer && sudo systemctl stop btcpayserver ``` * Stop PostgreSQL ``` sudo systemctl stop postgresql ``` * Use the rsync command to copy all files from the existing database on (`/var/lib/postgresql/16/main`) to the new destination directory (`/data/postgresdb`) ``` sudo rsync -av /var/lib/postgresql/16/main/ /data/postgresdb/ ``` Expected output: ``` sending incremental file list ./ PG_VERSION postgresql.auto.conf postmaster.opts postmaster.pid base/ base/1/ base/1/112 base/1/113 base/1/1247 base/1/1247_fsm base/1/1247_vm base/1/1249 base/1/1249_fsm base/1/1249_vm [...] pg_wal/000000010000000000000009 pg_wal/archive_status/ pg_xact/ pg_xact/0000 sent 164,483,875 bytes received 42,341 bytes 36,561,381.33 bytes/sec total size is 164,311,368 speedup is 1.00 ``` * Edit the PostgreSQL data directory on configuration, to redirect the store to the new location ``` sudo nano /etc/postgresql/16/main/postgresql.conf --linenumbers ``` * Replace the line 42 to this. Save and exit ``` data_directory = '/data/postgresdb' ``` * Start PostgreSQL to apply changes and monitor the correct status of the main instance and sub-instance monitoring sessions before ``` sudo systemctl start postgresql ``` * You can monitor the PostgreSQL main instance by the systemd journal and check the log output to ensure all is correct. You can exit the monitoring at any time with Ctrl-C ``` journalctl -fu postgresql ``` Example of the expected output: ``` Nov 08 11:51:10 minibolt systemd[1]: Stopped PostgreSQL RDBMS. Nov 08 11:51:10 minibolt systemd[1]: Stopping PostgreSQL RDBMS... Nov 08 11:51:13 minibolt systemd[1]: Starting PostgreSQL RDBMS... Nov 08 11:51:13 minibolt systemd[1]: Finished PostgreSQL RDBMS. ``` * You can monitor the PostgreSQL sub-instance by the systemd journal and check log output to ensure all is correct. You can exit monitoring at any time with Ctrl-C ``` journalctl -fu postgresql@16-main ``` Example of the expected output: ``` Nov 08 11:51:10 minibolt systemd[1]: Stopping PostgreSQL Cluster 16-main... Nov 08 11:51:11 minibolt systemd[1]: postgresql@16-main.service: Succeeded. Nov 08 11:51:11 minibolt systemd[1]: Stopped PostgreSQL Cluster 16-main. Nov 08 11:51:11 minibolt systemd[1]: postgresql@16-main.service: Consumed 1h 10min 8.677s CPU time. Nov 08 11:51:11 minibolt systemd[1]: Starting PostgreSQL Cluster 16-main... Nov 08 11:51:13 minibolt systemd[1]: Started PostgreSQL Cluster 16-main. ``` * Start NBXplorer and BTCPay Server again ``` sudo systemctl start nbxplorer && sudo systemctl start btcpayserver ``` * Monitor to make sure everything is as you left it. You can exit monitoring at any time by pressing Ctrl+C ``` journalctl -fu nbxplorer ``` --- ``` journalctl -fu btcpayserver ``` --- Enjoy it MiniBolter! 💙

@ fbf0e434:e1be6a39

# **Hackathon 概要** 台北区块链周的年度黑客松 [Taipei Blockchain Week 2024 - Hackathon](https://dorahacks.io/hackathon/tbw2024) 圆满结束，共收到223个项目提交，吸引了475名开发者参与。活动历时一个多月，于2024年12月12日至14日通过线上和线下报名结合的方式进行。活动的主题“Onboard”聚焦于推进Web3技术的采用，突出Solana、Ethereum和Bitcoin等生态系统中的创新。 参与者参与了各种活动，包括workshops和demo day，展示他们的项目并与行业专家、创始人和风险投资家互动。这种混合形式旨在提升项目质量和提供更多的社交机会。 组织者报告称，有500位精选的开发者参与其中，通过Discord和Telegram访问详细的赏金和社区连结。Hackathon 强调其在将台湾建立为区块链创新中心方面的作用，这与Taipei Blockchain Week的总体目标一致。它还突出了台湾的战略重要性、文化多样性和技术能力，同时强调了其安全和良好的国际会议环境。 # **Hackathon 获奖者** ### **Avalanche 奖项获奖者** - [Avax Blinks](https://dorahacks.io/buidl/20729) - 通过可共享链接简化Avalanche上的链上交易，用于支付和NFT购买。项目使用Next.js构建，强调移动优先的设计并增强社交媒体上的DeFi互动。 - [Ava the Portfolio Managing Agent](https://dorahacks.io/buidl/20749) - 使用AI进行策略优化，管理Avalanche上的DeFi组合。该解决方案利用Next.js、TypeScript和Avalanche区块链进行全面管理。 ### **0G 奖项获奖者** - [echoX](https://dorahacks.io/buidl/20733) - 去中心化的AI驱动交易聚合器，利用0G的Service Marketplace简化加密资产管理，专注于透明性和流动性聚合。 - [DeCentraChat](https://dorahacks.io/buidl/20714) - 提供带有安全区块链存储的去中心化AI模型推理，使用Solidity和像Wagmi、Next.js这样的框架开发，提供强大的平台交互。 ### **SOON 奖项获奖者** - [Memecoooins](https://dorahacks.io/buidl/20737) - 通过包含meme coins的神秘钱包简化加密投资，集成了SvelteKit、Solana和Raydium用于安全管理和交易。 - [BasketFi](https://dorahacks.io/buidl/20738) - 管理Solana上的代币篮子，支持无缝的交换和性能跟踪，并通过Jupiter和Solana的扩展功能进行集成。 ### **Zero Computing 奖项获奖者** - [Ikkyu](https://dorahacks.io/buidl/20756) - 通过Solana上的游戏化互动转变meme coins，利用ZKWASM和社区参与通过移动活动推广文化运动。 - [Yaminogemu](https://dorahacks.io/buidl/20302) - 使用BONK代币进行Solana上的GameFi和DeFi互动，通过无服务器架构提供安全的竞争和收入机会。 ### **BNB Chain 奖项获奖者** - [BNB-Voice](https://dorahacks.io/buidl/20736) - 在BNB Chain上提供基于区块链的开票，集成了Request Network以增强透明度，便于安全开票和分析。 - [Income Trust](https://dorahacks.io/buidl/20797) - 一个去中心化的信托基金，在Binance Smart Chain上进行收益管理，集成DeFi以及通过OpenZeppelin保证安全和灵活提款。 ### **Delphinus Labs 奖项获奖者** - [zkGuess](https://dorahacks.io/buidl/20758) - 在数字猜谜游戏中使用ZKWasm技术，强调Web3集成和区块链环境中的直观用户互动。 ### **Genopets 奖项获奖者** - [SolGame](https://dorahacks.io/buidl/8462) - 在Solana上实施赚取模式的地牢游戏，利用Metaplex NFT Marketplace Protocol进行去中心化的游戏奖励。 欲了解有关所有项目的更多详情，请访问[DoraHacks](https://dorahacks.io/hackathon/tbw2024/buidl)。 # **关于组织者** ### **台北区块链周 Taipei Blockchain Week** TBW是亚洲区块链领域的重要活动组织者。继上届活动成功活动吸引了超过2,000名与会者后，组织方将于12月11日至16日举办Taipei Blockchain Week 2023，预计将吸引超过5,000名参与者。活动旨在构建、连接和扩大区块链社群，重申促进行业增长和合作的承诺。凭借在区块链环境中的强大影响力，Taipei Blockchain Week 继续推广增强技术发展和采用的倡议和项目。

@ 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/859749

@ ed84ce10:cccf4c2a

# **Hackathon Summary** The [Taipei Blockchain Week 2024 - Hackathon](https://dorahacks.io/hackathon/tbw2024) concluded successfully, featuring 223 project submissions and participation from 475 developers. The event ran for over a month, culminating in both virtual and in-person sessions held from December 12 to 14, 2024. The central theme, "Onboard," emphasized advancing Web3 technology adoption, highlighting innovations within ecosystems such as Solana, Ethereum, and Bitcoin. Participants engaged in various activities, including workshops and a demo day, which enabled them to showcase their projects and interact with industry experts, founders, and venture capitalists. The hybrid format intended to enhance project quality and networking opportunities. Organizers reported that 500 selected builders participated, accessing detailed bounties and community connections via Discord and Telegram. The hackathon emphasized its role in establishing Taiwan as a hub for blockchain innovation, aligning with the broader objectives of Taipei Blockchain Week. It also underscored Taiwan's strategic importance, cultural diversity, and technological capacity, while highlighting its secure and well-connected environment for conferences and international collaboration. # **Hackathon Winners** ### **Avalanche Prize Winners** - [Avax Blinks](https://dorahacks.io/buidl/20729) - Simplifies on-chain transactions on Avalanche through shareable links for payments and NFT purchases. Built with Next.js, the project emphasizes mobile-first design and enhances DeFi interactions on social media. - [Ava the Portfolio Managing Agent](https://dorahacks.io/buidl/20749) - Manages DeFi portfolios on Avalanche using AI for strategy optimization. The solution utilizes Next.js, TypeScript, and the Avalanche blockchain for comprehensive management. ### **0G Prize Winners** - [echoX](https://dorahacks.io/buidl/20733) - A decentralized AI-driven trading aggregator that streamlines crypto management using 0G’s Service Marketplace, focusing on transparency and liquidity aggregation. - [DeCentraChat](https://dorahacks.io/buidl/20714) - Provides decentralized AI model inferences with secure blockchain storage, developed using Solidity and frameworks such as Wagmi and Next.js for robust platform interaction. ### **SOON Prize Winners** - [Memecoooins](https://dorahacks.io/buidl/20737) - Simplifies crypto investments through mystery wallets containing meme coins, integrating SvelteKit, Solana, and Raydium for secure management and transactions. - [BasketFi](https://dorahacks.io/buidl/20738) - Manages token baskets on Solana, allowing seamless swaps and performance tracking, with integration from Jupiter and Solana's scalability features. ### **Zero Computing Prize Winners** - [Ikkyu](https://dorahacks.io/buidl/20756) - Transforms meme coins through gamified interactions on Solana, employing ZKWASM and community engagement to promote cultural movements via mobile activities. - [Yaminogemu](https://dorahacks.io/buidl/20302) - Uses BONK tokens for GameFi and DeFi engagements on Solana, providing secure competition and income opportunities through a serverless architecture. ### **BNB Chain Prize Winners** - [BNB-Voice](https://dorahacks.io/buidl/20736) - Offers blockchain-based invoicing on the BNB Chain, facilitating secure invoicing and analytics with Request Network integration for enhanced transparency. - [Income Trust](https://dorahacks.io/buidl/20797) - A decentralized trust fund on Binance Smart Chain, integrating DeFi for yield management with OpenZeppelin for security and flexible withdrawals. ### **Delphinus Labs Prize Winners** - [zkGuess](https://dorahacks.io/buidl/20758) - Utilizes ZKWasm technology in a number-guessing game that emphasizes Web3 integration and intuitive user engagement within blockchain environments. ### **Genopets Prize Winners** - [SolGame](https://dorahacks.io/buidl/8462) - A dungeon game on Solana implementing Play-to-Earn models, leveraging the Metaplex NFT Marketplace Protocol for decentralized gaming rewards. For more details on all projects, visit [DoraHacks](https://dorahacks.io/hackathon/tbw2024/buidl). # **About the Organizer** ### **Taipei Blockchain Week** Taipei Blockchain Week is a significant event organizer in the blockchain sector. Following a previous successful event, which attracted over 2,000 attendees, the organization is hosting Taipei Blockchain Week 2023 from December 11-16, expecting more than 5,000 participants. The event aims to build, connect, and scale within the blockchain community, underscoring a commitment to fostering growth and collaboration in the industry. With a strong presence in the blockchain environment, Taipei Blockchain Week continues to promote initiatives and projects that enhance technological development and adoption.

@ 16d11430:61640947

Programming, once considered a niche skill, is now integral to the infrastructure of modern economies. However, as the pace of technological advancement accelerates, programmers face a unique and precarious psychosocial environment. Their profession is not only defined by its intellectual demands but also by its vulnerability to rapid obsolescence, economic shifts, and increasingly volatile employment trends. This article explores how Bitcoin and blockchain technology provide a critical safety net for programmers in this environment, while examining the trends that are shaping their lives and livelihoods. --- The Fragility of the Programming Skillset Programming is an inherently ephemeral skill. Languages, frameworks, and tools evolve rapidly, demanding continuous learning. This perpetual race can result in high levels of stress and burnout, especially when coupled with: 1. Job Insecurity: Policy changes, corporate restructuring, and global economic downturns can lead to sudden layoffs. For programmers, a brief hiatus from work can lead to skills becoming outdated. 2. Time Scarcity: The intense focus required in programming often leaves little room for socialization and personal development, compounding feelings of isolation. 3. Hyper-competitiveness: The global talent pool means programmers are not only competing locally but also against peers from lower-cost regions. --- The Role of Bitcoin and Blockchain in Programmer Resilience Blockchain technology, particularly Bitcoin, addresses several of the systemic vulnerabilities faced by programmers: 1. Direct Payments Without Intermediaries Platforms like the Lightning Network enable programmers to receive instant, borderless payments for freelance or contract work. This eliminates reliance on centralized payment processors, which can block funds or impose high fees. 2. Immutable Portfolios Blockchain technology can serve as a tamper-proof ledger for showcasing work and contributions. For example, Gitcoin uses blockchain to validate open-source contributions, providing a secure and transparent record of a programmer's expertise. 3. Decentralized Infrastructure With tools like smart contracts, programmers can set up automated agreements, ensuring they are paid for milestones reached. This reduces the risks of non-payment or contract disputes. --- Emerging Trends and Supporting Evidence 1. Layoffs and Economic Downturns In 2023, mass layoffs at major tech firms, including Meta, Amazon, and Google, highlighted the fragility of even the most skilled workers in traditional employment models. Layoff Tracker provides real-time data on these layoffs. 2. The Rise of Freelance Platforms Freelance platforms such as Upwork and Toptal report a growing trend in programmers seeking gig work instead of full-time employment. Freelancer Study 2023 highlights that more professionals are choosing freelancing for autonomy and diversification. 3. Blockchain Adoption in Payments The rise of platforms like OpenBazaar and Stacks demonstrates an increasing number of professionals using blockchain for direct payments and decentralized marketplaces. Bitcoin Usage Trends showcases how micropayments are growing in popularity for digital work. 4. Mental Health Challenges Reports from the World Health Organization indicate that tech professionals experience higher rates of anxiety and burnout than other professions. WHO Study on Burnout underscores the urgent need for systemic change. --- The Path Forward To mitigate the psychosocial challenges programmers face, the following steps are essential: 1. Adopt Blockchain for Payments and Portfolios By integrating blockchain into their professional lives, programmers can ensure transparency, security, and autonomy. 2. Foster Community and Collaboration Decentralized networks like Stack Overflow and GitHub are critical for collaboration and peer support. 3. Upskilling and Adaptability Lifelong learning must be embraced, but organizations should also invest in reskilling programs to retain talent. 4. Advocate for Policy Changes Governments and industry bodies must address the precarity of tech work through better labor protections and decentralized economic models. --- Conclusion As technology continues to reshape industries, programmers find themselves at the epicenter of change—but not without challenges. The ephemerality of their skills, coupled with the demands of their work, places them in a uniquely vulnerable position. However, the rise of Bitcoin and blockchain technology offers a lifeline by enabling autonomy, security, and resilience in an otherwise unstable environment. By embracing decentralized infrastructure, programmers can not only weather the current challenges but also help build a more equitable and sustainable future.

@ c8adf82a:7265ee75

I have Asperger’s I see life like a game I am super competitive I min max my life I am curious I am hardworking I am both scientist and engineer I rank global in most strategy games I was a pure atheist I had a thought to kill God I have been fat and fit I have been set up to jail I have been rich and poor and wealthy I am recovering from nerve damage I have everything that I want I felt most things a human can feel I don’t want recognition I can’t force you to listen I am purely doing this for the world I want you all to know I tried to prove the Bible wrong I am humbled beyond belief I am now a servant of Christ

@ ae6ce958:d0f02c7d

The digital transformation landscape has witnessed groundbreaking shifts with the adoption of blockchain technologies. Among these, DamageBDD stands out as a pioneering tool for behavior-driven development (BDD) enhanced by blockchain integration. By leveraging the Aeternity Name Service (AENS), DamageBDD.chain offers a decentralized and user-friendly way to access DamageBDD services, ensuring unprecedented decentralization and liquidity availability. As part of our vision, DamageBDD is preparing to integrate with the decentralized app (dApp) ecosystem, extending its functionality and enabling developers to build directly on top of DamageBDD’s blockchain-based verification tools. What is Aeternity AENS? The Aeternity Name Service (AENS) is a naming system that allows for the creation of human-readable, blockchain-secured addresses. Similar to how DNS simplifies access to websites, AENS maps complex blockchain addresses or smart contracts to easy-to-remember names, such as DamageBDD.chain. This service not only enhances user experience but also aligns with the ethos of decentralization by removing centralized gatekeepers. Why DamageBDD.chain? 1. Decentralized Access By hosting DamageBDD services under the DamageBDD.chain AENS domain, users bypass centralized intermediaries. All interactions, from accessing documentation to executing verification and payment processes, occur directly on the blockchain. 2. Seamless User Experience Remembering complex wallet or contract addresses can be cumbersome. With DamageBDD.chain, users can easily navigate and utilize the platform using a straightforward name, ensuring accessibility even for non-technical stakeholders. 3. Enhanced Liquidity Through DamageBDD’s integration with Aeternity's blockchain and AENS, liquidity is always available. This is because the system leverages Aeternity’s native AE tokens and compatible decentralized exchanges, ensuring a smooth flow of resources for project funding and payouts. 4. Immutable Verification DamageBDD is built on the premise of immutable verification of behavior-driven development tests. By anchoring this on Aeternity and accessing it via DamageBDD.chain, every test, milestone, and payout is transparently recorded and verifiable on-chain. Expanding into the dApp Ecosystem To further enhance its utility, DamageBDD is actively developing plans to integrate with the broader decentralized app (dApp) ecosystem. This evolution will allow developers to build and deploy dApps that leverage DamageBDD’s blockchain-based verification capabilities. Key benefits include: 1. Programmable Verification: Developers will be able to programmatically trigger BDD test verifications within their own dApps, creating a seamless workflow for quality assurance. 2. Custom dApp Integrations: Businesses can integrate DamageBDD into their decentralized applications for domain-specific use cases, such as supply chain validation, financial reporting, or compliance tracking. 3. On-Chain API Services: DamageBDD will expose on-chain APIs accessible via DamageBDD.chain, enabling dApps to interact directly with the platform for verification and payout processes. 4. Tokenized Incentives for Testing: With integration into dApps, organizations can incentivize contributors by offering tokenized rewards for successfully passing test cases and milestones. How It Works 1. Registration on AENS The DamageBDD.chain domain was registered using Aeternity's AENS protocol. This domain is tied to the DamageBDD smart contracts and associated services. 2. Accessing the Platform Users input DamageBDD.chain in their Aeternity-compatible wallets or applications (e.g., Superhero.com) to interact with the platform. The AENS resolves the human-readable name to the corresponding smart contract address. 3. Executing Transactions Developers can perform BDD-related actions such as verifying test cases, executing payouts, or accessing analytics directly through blockchain interactions tied to the DamageBDD smart contracts. 4. dApp Integration Once integrated into the dApp ecosystem, DamageBDD will allow decentralized applications to call its services via DamageBDD.chain, automating testing and verification for diverse workflows. 5. Ensuring Liquidity The platform uses AE tokens for operations, enabling instant liquidity through decentralized exchanges. Users can also integrate Bitcoin payments via the Lightning Network for added flexibility. Implications for the Future The integration of DamageBDD with the Aeternity AENS system is more than a technical enhancement; it’s a paradigm shift in how blockchain-based BDD solutions are accessed and utilized. With plans to expand into the dApp ecosystem, DamageBDD will become an indispensable tool for decentralized projects, offering seamless, secure, and programmable BDD services. Imagine a future where dApps across industries—from healthcare to finance—can automate behavior-driven testing, ensure compliance, and transparently reward contributors, all anchored to the immutable blockchain. Conclusion DamageBDD’s integration with the Aeternity AENS system underscores its commitment to decentralization and usability. By leveraging DamageBDD.chain, developers, testers, and enterprises gain secure, transparent, and decentralized access to a cutting-edge BDD platform. Coupled with instant liquidity availability, future dApp integrations, and immutable blockchain records, this approach positions DamageBDD as a leader in decentralized behavior-driven development. To experience the next evolution of BDD and decentralized application integration, look no further than DamageBDD.chain—where decentralization meets development excellence.

@ 16d11430:61640947

Banking has long been an essential pillar of modern life, serving as the gatekeeper for our financial transactions. Yet, when we step back and analyze the processes and systems that underpin our interactions with banks, a recurring theme emerges—deflection and subterfuge. This is especially apparent in cross-border transactions, where complexity and fear of non-compliance often overshadow the simplicity of what should be a straightforward process. A Personal Story of Complexity Imagine needing to transfer money from an account in one country to another. You are told that the funds are in your NRO (Non-Resident Ordinary) account, which has specific tax implications for outward remittances. Suddenly, the bank introduces additional requirements: a tax clearance certificate, a digital signature, and consultation with a Chartered Accountant (CA). These demands, often presented piecemeal, turn what should be a simple transfer into a bureaucratic maze. In this scenario, the bank is not denying your ability to transfer funds outright but instead uses a series of layered requirements to delay the process. Along the way, it fosters anxiety with warnings about penalties for non-compliance and risks to data security. For instance, suggesting that digital signatures “may not be safe” subtly undermines confidence in what should be a straightforward solution. The Tools of Deflection Banks employ several techniques to maintain control over financial transactions: 1. Partial Disclosure Often, the full scope of requirements is not revealed upfront. You may only learn of additional steps—such as tax forms (Form 15CA and 15CB)—after you’ve started the process. This approach creates dependency on the bank’s guidance and slows down the process. 2. Fear-Mongering Phrases like “tax implications,” “compliance issues,” and “serious complications” are used to emphasize potential risks, placing the emotional burden on the customer. Even when the risks are manageable, the language makes the process seem daunting and urgent. 3. Complexity by Design Repatriating funds from an NRO account requires a tax clearance certificate, which in turn involves engaging a CA and obtaining a digital signature. Each step adds cost, time, and friction, discouraging customers from completing their transactions. 4. Shifting Responsibility While the bank positions itself as a neutral enforcer of regulations, it shifts the burden of compliance entirely onto the customer. In the case of NRO accounts, this includes not only navigating complex tax laws but also securing external services to meet the bank’s requirements. The Broader Implications This dynamic is not just about one transaction—it reflects a broader systemic issue in how banks and financial institutions operate. By creating and maintaining complexity, banks ensure their centrality in financial systems. Every added layer of compliance generates revenue for intermediaries, from CAs to agencies offering digital signature services. At its core, this approach consolidates control, discouraging people from questioning the system while creating dependency on institutions to navigate it. A Stark Contrast: Decentralized Alternatives Contrast this with decentralized systems like Bitcoin, where transactions are transparent, direct, and free from intermediaries. In decentralized finance, complexity is replaced with clarity: the rules are encoded, and the system operates without fear-mongering or hidden requirements. While decentralized systems are not without their challenges, they highlight how much of the friction in traditional banking is artificial, designed to maintain control rather than provide true utility. Moving Forward: Empowering the Individual To navigate these challenges, customers must take an active role in understanding their rights and responsibilities: 1. Seek Clarity: Always insist on full, written disclosure of requirements upfront. 2. Be Informed: Familiarize yourself with relevant regulations, such as the RBI guidelines for repatriation of funds from NRO accounts. 3. Streamline Processes: Explore authorized solutions for digital signatures and tax compliance independently, avoiding unnecessary intermediaries. 4. Escalate When Necessary: If a bank creates undue delays or friction, consider escalating the issue to regulatory bodies like the RBI Ombudsman. Conclusion Banks operate within a system that thrives on opacity and control, using deflection and subterfuge to create dependency. However, by understanding the tools they use and asserting your rights, you can navigate these systems more effectively. The ultimate goal should be financial systems that are transparent, straightforward, and customer-centric—whether that’s through reforming traditional banks or embracing decentralized alternatives. Until then, it’s essential to recognize and address the subtle dynamics that keep customers in the dark.

@ 16d11430:61640947

Payment systems are the backbone of global commerce, enabling trillions of dollars in transactions annually. Traditional fiat-based payment processors, like Visa, Mastercard, and PayPal, dominate the landscape with widespread adoption and established infrastructures. However, Bitcoin and the Lightning Network have emerged as robust alternatives, offering unique advantages in resilience, efficiency, and decentralization. This article explores why Bitcoin Lightning infrastructure is more resilient than traditional payment systems, providing a nuanced comparison of their strengths and limitations. --- 1. Decentralization vs. Centralization Traditional Payment Systems Traditional systems are centralized, meaning they rely on intermediaries like banks, payment processors, and settlement networks. While centralization enables ease of management and compliance, it introduces critical single points of failure. Outages, regulatory interference, or cyberattacks targeting these centralized entities can disrupt the entire network. Bitcoin Lightning Network Bitcoin, by design, is a decentralized network where no single entity has control. The Lightning Network, built on top of Bitcoin, inherits this resilience. By distributing transaction processing across a peer-to-peer network, the Lightning Network minimizes risks of downtime or targeted attacks. Nodes operate independently, creating a system that is fault-tolerant and robust under various adverse conditions. --- 2. Resilience to Outages Traditional Payment Systems Centralized payment processors are vulnerable to outages caused by technical glitches, infrastructure failures, or cyberattacks. For example, payment processing services like Visa have experienced hours-long outages, causing significant disruptions for businesses and consumers. These outages highlight the fragility of relying on centralized servers. Bitcoin Lightning Network The Lightning Network operates on a globally distributed network of nodes. If one node goes offline, the network continues to function seamlessly. This redundancy ensures that the system remains operational even in the face of localized failures or attacks. Moreover, since the Lightning Network operates over Bitcoin, the underlying blockchain serves as a fallback mechanism for final settlement. --- 3. Transparency and Trust Traditional Payment Systems Fiat payment systems are opaque, requiring users to trust intermediaries. Chargebacks, fraud, and disputes are resolved through centralized authorities, often leading to delays and inconsistent outcomes. Trust is placed in banks and financial institutions to safeguard funds and execute transactions. Bitcoin Lightning Network Bitcoin’s public ledger ensures complete transparency, with every transaction recorded immutably on the blockchain. The Lightning Network leverages cryptographic proofs for secure and trustless transactions. Users retain full control over their funds, and the system eliminates the need for intermediaries, reducing risks of fraud and chargeback abuse. --- 4. Cost and Efficiency Traditional Payment Systems Intermediaries in fiat payment systems charge fees for processing transactions, often passing these costs to consumers and merchants. Cross-border payments are particularly expensive due to currency conversion fees and delays in settlement times. These inefficiencies make fiat systems costly and slow for international commerce. Bitcoin Lightning Network The Lightning Network significantly reduces transaction costs by enabling near-instant payments without intermediaries. Microtransactions, which are often impractical in traditional systems, become feasible on the Lightning Network due to its low fees. Additionally, cross-border payments are seamless, eliminating currency conversion delays and fees. --- 5. Security and Fraud Prevention Traditional Payment Systems Centralized payment systems are frequent targets for cyberattacks, including data breaches and fraud. Stolen credit card information can lead to significant financial and reputational damages. The reliance on personal identification information (PII) further exposes users to identity theft. Bitcoin Lightning Network The Lightning Network utilizes cryptographic protocols to secure transactions. Private keys and digital signatures ensure that only the rightful owner can authorize a transaction. Since the network operates on pseudonymous identities, the risk of identity theft is minimized. Additionally, by removing intermediaries, the Lightning Network reduces the attack surface for cybercriminals. --- 6. Accessibility and Financial Inclusion Traditional Payment Systems Fiat payment systems require users to have access to bank accounts and credit facilities. This dependency excludes millions of people in developing regions who lack access to formal banking infrastructure. Moreover, stringent KYC (Know Your Customer) and AML (Anti-Money Laundering) requirements create barriers for the unbanked population. Bitcoin Lightning Network Bitcoin is inherently inclusive, requiring only an internet connection and a wallet to participate. The Lightning Network enhances this inclusivity by enabling faster and cheaper transactions, making it accessible to individuals in underserved regions. By removing the need for traditional banking intermediaries, Bitcoin promotes financial sovereignty for the unbanked. --- 7. Global Reach and Interoperability Traditional Payment Systems Cross-border interoperability in fiat systems is limited by regulatory barriers, currency differences, and the need for correspondent banking relationships. International transactions often involve multiple intermediaries, resulting in delays and inefficiencies. Bitcoin Lightning Network The Lightning Network operates on a global scale, unrestricted by borders or currencies. Its interoperability allows users to transact with anyone, anywhere, without requiring additional infrastructure. This global accessibility positions Bitcoin as a truly universal payment system. --- 8. Resilience Against Censorship Traditional Payment Systems Centralized payment systems are susceptible to censorship by governments, financial institutions, or corporations. Accounts can be frozen, and transactions blocked, often without transparency or recourse. Bitcoin Lightning Network Bitcoin’s decentralized nature makes it highly resistant to censorship. The Lightning Network inherits this property, ensuring that no central authority can unilaterally block transactions. This resilience is particularly valuable in regions facing economic instability or authoritarian regimes. --- Conclusion While traditional payment systems have provided the foundation for global commerce, their centralized nature introduces vulnerabilities that Bitcoin and the Lightning Network address effectively. By leveraging decentralization, transparency, and cryptographic security, Bitcoin Lightning offers a more resilient and efficient alternative for the digital age. It empowers individuals with financial sovereignty, reduces costs, and fosters inclusivity, making it a compelling choice for the future of payments. However, the Lightning Network is not without challenges. Adoption remains limited compared to fiat systems, and the user experience can be complex for non-technical users. Overcoming these hurdles will be essential for Bitcoin to achieve mainstream acceptance. In the end, the resilience of Bitcoin and the Lightning Network lies in their ability to operate without reliance on centralized entities, ensuring that financial systems remain robust, accessible, and censorship-resistant in a rapidly evolving world.

@ 47259076:570c98c4

Did I choose the family I was born? Or was it random? Where do I come from? Why am I here? Where am I going? Perhaps more important than trying to answer those questions, is to know if they are answerable at all, because if it's impossible to know the answer, then attempting to would be a waste of time. What is wasting time anyways? Perhaps the intention to do something, even if that something is impossible, is a good thing. Perhaps the value is not in receiving expansive gifts, but in someone making the effort to reward you with anything, even if it's just a piece of paper with a nice message written by hand. No existential crisis is required, it's all genuine questions. Is the search for truth infinite? What is love? Are people born brave? Or they become brave? Where my desire to understand myself and the universe comes from? Are stars watching us? What stars think of us? Why born in this planet? Why some people have pleasure in doing evil acts? At what point should I attempt to control things or just let it go? One may plan too far in the future and die tomorrow One may never plan for the future and live until 110 years old, being a homeless What is energy? Where does it come from? Can we convert thought into energy? We have day and night, why not have a third element? Something non binary, something different Perhaps we already have the third element but our limited perception doesn't allow us to see Can we increase our perception? Why good music is harmonic? Why non human entities are so interested in humanity? What is the root of all problems? What is a problem? What is the price to pay to reach our full potential? Why?

@ fdb8c828:84c16368

I'm not really sure how to tell you about what you're about to read, other than it's an idea that I tried to express using words. I'm a literature girl, so think of this as a literature thing. That's why there's no capital letters. >art is pebbles on the beach imagine there is a sparkling shore and you have an open day to spend there. just you and the water washing up at intervals beside you. blue sky above, blue water at your feet and beyond the horizon. it fills your senses and makes you understand what infinity means. it’s a pulse. here you are, and you have to do something, although all you want to do is stare out at infinity and listen to it roar. but you have to do something, and naturally your eyes begin to search the ground for treasures. eventually you’re crouching at the edge of the pulse that echoes forever, picking up any small specimen that catches your attention. you lift it to your face, turn it over. finger its crevaces. maybe you smell it, taste it. until it feels like part of you, like the attention you gave it leaves a certain energy with it. you judge that it is good and place it in your pouch. at the end of this day, you spread all the pieces out and organize your collection. you wonder if the best one might sell at the gift shop. originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/395051

@ fdb8c828:84c16368

Hello, I'm happy you are here. It has been a while since I have made a post about my work of the past few years; however, you may have taken notice that I will occasionally pop into The Saloon with a few fresh lines. Today, I want to tell you about a poem I penned in 2016. Here is *asleep on a bench* in it's virgin form, the first draft:  I want to tell you a bit about what's going on here. I reference T.S. Eliot because I had just begun studying him in college, and his work was changing my chemistry. The opening lines, a kind of inscription device that Eliot himself used, are taken from [_The Lovesong of J. Alfred Prufrock_](https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poetrymagazine/poems/44212/the-love-song-of-j-alfred-prufrock), a poem that continues to change me, a poem I love dearly like a close friend. And in addition to the explosion of literature in my brain, I had traveled to England in the summer before beginning college classes, and there I walked the same places that many of the poets who changed my life had walked. I saw the gravesite of William Wordsworth, who famously [wandered lonely as a cloud](https://poets.org/poem/i-wandered-lonely-cloud), and I agreed with most everyone there in that town that his words were worth quite a lot, upon browsing their souvenir shelves. Going away to the England I dreamed of, returning to the ordinary place I grew up, then burying myself in books which opened up worlds that resonated with the deepest parts of me -- all of this came together at one moment and became this poem. I think it is the moment I was born. Here is *asleep on a bench* after a few rounds of polish:  Now, I do not believe this poem accomplishes what I feel a poem must. It is not universal. Too much possession of feeling obstructing a truth that you and I could share if I let it go. Still, each time I give it a read, each time I return to it with fresh eyes, I find the same rush of energy, the birth rush. This is one of two poems of mine that have been included in a literary magazine. It appears in a library's collection of works published 2018, but it doesn't match either of the versions you have just read. I continue to strive for excellence as a poet without taking any paved routes. Frankly, I don't know what I'm doing, and so much the better: I get to be free. Thanks for reading! originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/852487

@ 3efdaebb:3e0d2681

Hey Nostr! It’s App Store release day for Damus. Thanks again to our loyal Purple subscribers for helping us continue to improve the UX and pointing out important changes and fixes. Highlights of Version 1.12: ### Added - Render Gif and video files while composing posts (Swift Coder) - Add profile info text in stretchable banner with follow button (Swift Coder) - Paste Gif image similar to jpeg and png files (Swift Coder) ### Changed - Improved UX around the label for searching words (Daniel D’Aquino) - Improved accessibility support on some elements (Daniel D’Aquino) ### Fixed - Fixed issue where the "next" button would appear hidden and hard to click on the create account view (Daniel D’Aquino) - Fix non scrollable wallet screen (Swift Coder) - Fixed suggested users category titles to be localizable (Terry Yiu) - Fixed GradientFollowButton to have consistent width and autoscale text limited to 1 line (Terry Yiu) - Fixed right-to-left localization issues (Terry Yiu) - Fixed AddMuteItemView to trim leading and trailing whitespaces from mute text and disallow adding text with only whitespaces (Terry Yiu) - Fixed SideMenuView text to autoscale and limit to 1 line (Terry Yiu) - Fixed an issue where a profile would need to be input twice in the search to be found (Daniel D’Aquino) - Fixed non-breaking spaces in localized strings (Terry Yiu) - Fixed localization issue on Add mute item button (Terry Yiu) - Replace non-breaking spaces with regular spaces as Apple's NSLocalizedString macro does not seem to work with it (Terry Yiu) - Fixed localization issues in RelayConfigView (Terry Yiu) - Fix duplicate uploads (Swift Coder) - Remove duplicate pubkey from Follow Suggestion list (Swift Coder) - Fix Page control indicator (Swift Coder) - Fix damus sharing issues (Swift Coder) - Fixed issue where banner edit button is unclickable (Daniel D’Aquino) - Handle empty notification pages by displaying suitable text (Swift Coder)

@ 6be5cc06:5259daf0

A seguir, veja como instalar e configurar o **Privoxy** no **Pop!_OS**. --- ### **1. Instalar o Tor e o Privoxy** Abra o terminal e execute: ```bash sudo apt update sudo apt install tor privoxy ``` **Explicação:** - **Tor:** Roteia o tráfego pela rede Tor. - **Privoxy:** Proxy avançado que intermedia a conexão entre aplicativos e o Tor. --- ### **2. Configurar o Privoxy** Abra o arquivo de configuração do Privoxy: ```bash sudo nano /etc/privoxy/config ``` Navegue até a última linha (atalho: **`Ctrl`** + **`/`** depois **`Ctrl`** + **`V`** para navegar diretamente até a última linha) e insira: ```bash forward-socks5 / 127.0.0.1:9050 . ``` Isso faz com que o **Privoxy** envie todo o tráfego para o **Tor** através da porta **9050**. Salve (**`CTRL`** + **`O`** e **`Enter`**) e feche (**`CTRL`** + **`X`**) o arquivo. --- ### **3. Iniciar o Tor e o Privoxy** Agora, inicie e habilite os serviços: ```bash sudo systemctl start tor sudo systemctl start privoxy sudo systemctl enable tor sudo systemctl enable privoxy ``` **Explicação:** - **start:** Inicia os serviços. - **enable:** Faz com que iniciem automaticamente ao ligar o PC. --- ### **4. Configurar o Navegador Firefox** Para usar a rede **Tor** com o Firefox: 1. Abra o Firefox. 2. Acesse **Configurações** → **Configurar conexão**. 3. Selecione **Configuração manual de proxy**. 4. Configure assim: - **Proxy HTTP:** `127.0.0.1` - **Porta:** `8118` (porta padrão do **Privoxy**) - **Domínio SOCKS (v5):** `127.0.0.1` - **Porta:** `9050` 5. Marque a opção **"Usar este proxy também em HTTPS"**. 6. Clique em **OK**. --- ### **5. Verificar a Conexão com o Tor** Abra o navegador e acesse: ```text https://check.torproject.org/ ``` Se aparecer a mensagem **"Congratulations. This browser is configured to use Tor."**, a configuração está correta. --- ### **Dicas Extras** - **Privoxy** pode ser ajustado para bloquear anúncios e rastreadores. - Outros aplicativos também podem ser configurados para usar o **Privoxy**.

@ 5d4b6c8d:8a1c1ee3

 originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/859339

@ 000002de:c05780a7

> The Bellamy salute is a palm-out salute created by James B. Upham as the gesture that was to accompany the Pledge of Allegiance of the United States of America, whose text had been written by Francis Bellamy. It was also known as the "flag salute" during the period when it was used with the Pledge of Allegiance. Bellamy promoted the salute and it came to be associated with his name. Both the Pledge and its salute originated in 1892. It was also known as the "flag salute" during the period when it was used with the Pledge of Allegiance. Bellamy promoted the salute and it came to be associated with his name. Both the Pledge and its salute originated in 1892. Later, during the 1920s and 1930s, Italian fascists and Nazi Germans adopted a salute which was very similar, attributed to the Roman salute, a gesture that was popularly believed to have been used in ancient Rome.[1] This resulted in controversy over the use of the Bellamy salute in the United States. It was officially replaced by the hand-over-heart salute when Congress amended the Flag Code on December 22, 1942. ~ [Bellamy salute - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellamy_salute) originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/859191

@ 812cff5a:5c40aeeb

## ما هو أولاس (Olas) **أولاس تطبيق نوستر محاكي للانستغرام**  أولاس [OLAS](https://olas.app) هو أول تطبيق نوستر يتم تطويرة بشكل جدي لتقديم تجربة شبيهة بالانستغرام على نوستر. يركز التطبيق على عرض الصور والڤيديو على الصفحة الرئيسية مع قدرة على فلترة الصفحة. التطبيق مصمم أيضا ليعرض الڤيديو بشكل شبيه بالانستغرام رييلز. لكن بسبب بعض الامور التقنية الميزة لا تعمل بشكل جيد الان. ## ما الذي يميز تطبيق أولاس **أولاس يتبع نيپ-٨٦ (NIP-68) لعرض الصور والميديا** يتميز تطبيق أولاس بأنه يعتمد على منشورات نوستر من نوع ٢٠ (Kind-20) وهو نوع مخصص للصور والڤيديو يتبع تطوير [NIP-68](https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/blob/master/68.md). مما يعني ان المنشورات تظهر فقط على تطبيقات قادرة علة عرض هذه النوع.  وكون هذه هي الطريقة التي تم تصميم فيها التطبيق، أولاس لا يعرض المنشورات المتعارف عليها مثل تويتر أو من نوع ١ (kind-1) ليقدم للمستخدم تجربة جميلة فريدة من نوعها (حتى الأن). ## ضرورة تطوير تطبيقات متخصصة **التطبيقات المخصصة هي باب لجذب مستخدمين جدد** من الضروري تطوير تطبيقات شبهة بأولاس من حيث التصميم. أي ان التطبيق موجه لفئة محددة وواضحة. هذا النوع من التطبيقات يجذب مستخدمين غير مهتمين بالاخبار او المنشورات المكتوبة وكل اهتمامهم هو نشر ومشاركة الصور والڤيديو. ## كيف يمكنك دعم المشروع؟ **شارك في مبادرة السنة #olas365** أولاس حاليا متوفر كتطبيق تجريبي على iOS والويب. يمكنكم الإنضمام وتجربة التطبيق. لكن نود التنبيه ان التطبيق في مراحلة الأولى ويتم تطويره وتحديثه بشكل دوري. هذا الرابط لتحميل التطبيق: [Olas Testflight Link](https://testflight.apple.com/join/2FMVX2yM) مطور التطبيق: nostr:npub1l2vyh47mk2p0qlsku7hg0vn29faehy9hy34ygaclpn66ukqp3afqutajft

@ 3c7dc2c5:805642a8

## 🧠Quote(s) of the week: 'For the love of God, Bitcoin is not a 'scam', and it is not 'going away'. Do yourself some good by honestly and thoroughly researching it, away from mainstream media nonsense. You can thank me and thousands of others on here later.' 'Do you actually understand what it means when the whole world tries to squeeze into a fixed supply digital asset that never gets diluted, is audited every 10 minutes, and trades 24/7 as the most liquid asset on earth? If you do, you’re holding on for dear life.' -Bitcoin For Freedom ## 🧡Bitcoin news🧡 After a short break from the recap, I am back. I got a new place and I had to focus on that project. Now before I start with this week's Weekly Recap I want to remind all the political larpers (Trump voters etc) of one thing: THE PROMISE 1. Strategic Bitcoin Reserve 2. Free Ross day one THE REALITY 1. 47M Wrapped BTC 2. Maybe free Ross later 3. 4.7M tron 4. 47M Ethereum 5. 4.7 M litecoin 6. Pardoned J6 participants Oh, and he launched the biggest meme/shitcoin, and rug pulled the shit out of it. On the 12th of January: ➡️Eighth consecutive positive adjustment on the horizon. We saw nine in 2021 and 17 in 2018. This is insane. ➡️A Santander Bank report highlights El Salvador’s booming tourism industry, fueled by Bitcoin adoption. The country announced 3.9M tourists in 2024—a 22% YoY increase and nearly double the levels seen between 2013-2016. ➡️Bitcoin mining difficulty increased by 0.6101% today. The network has programmatically adjusted to a new difficulty level of 110,451,907,374,649 hashes, ensuring the target block time remains stable as global computing power on the network fluctuates. ➡️We now have 7 states, and counting, pushing a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve Bill: - New Hampshire - Alabama - Florida - Pennsylvania - Texas - Ohio - North Dakota On the 13th of January: ➡️Italy's largest bank Intesa Sanpaolo has started buying Bitcoin, according to leaked internal emails which celebrate the "first transaction" of €1m for 11 Bitcoin. ➡️The number of Bitcoin addresses holding over 100 BTC has surged by 8.6% since Trump’s election in November. ➡️Ming Shing Group from Hong Kong just acquired 500 Bitcoin for $47M. ➡️Semler Scientific has acquired 237 BTC for ~$23.3 million at ~$98,267 per Bitcoin and has generated a BTC Yield of 99.3% since adopting our BTC treasury strategy in May 2024. As of 1/10/2025, we held 2,321  Bitcoin acquired for ~$191.9 million at ~$82,687 per Bitcoin. ➡️$11.5 trillion BlackRock says that Bitcoin adoption is outpacing the internet and mobile phones. On the 14th of January: ➡️The Bitcoin network has 610,929x more hashing computational power than the combined total of the world’s top 500 supercomputers. On the 16th of January: ➡️'Someone just moved 11,000 Bitcoin worth $1.1 BILLION around the world for ONLY $1.50 The world's most efficient monetary network.' - Pete Rizzo ➡️XRP is down 80% from its bitcoin all-time high in 2017. Just don't do shitcoins, it's that simple. On the 17th of January: ➡️'They did it again! Bindseil and Schaaf published the article, 'Arguments Against a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve'. It is a wild ride, reaching peak FUD. Maybe even so wild that they had to publish it in a newspaper and not as an ECB blog post. This is ultra bullish' - Dr. Jan Wüstenfeld ➡️Metaplanet's market cap closes above $1 billion for the first time since adopting a Bitcoin Standard. ➡️Jeroen Blokland: ‘Nearly one-fifth of all U.S. states are formally weighing whether to have public funds invest in Bitcoin.’ I am afraid and convinced at the same time that soon, the EU will be the only region still aiming to introduce a central bank digital currency. As a result, it will trigger more polarization, and Europe will lose the Bitcoin battle, just as it hopelessly lost the technology and AI battle. ➡️'ETH was supposed to become deflationary after the "merge" But now the supply is almost back to where it was BEFORE the merge If you're still falling for this shit, you deserve to get scammed.' -Rajat Soni To make it even worse: 'The ETHBTC ratio is now lower than the day when Coinbase listed it in 2016. You would have been buying ETH at ~$13, but funny enough if you would have just bought and held Bitcoin, you would have actually outperformed it.' -Pledditor. ➡️ First union in Idaho bought Bitcoin. ➡️ California state officials embraced Bitcoin. ➡️Wyoming filed for Strategic Bitcoin Reserve bill. ➡️Massachusetts filed for Strategic Bitcoin Reserve bill. Up to 10% of the $9 Billion Commonwealth Stabilization Fund can be invested in Bitcoin On the 18th of January: ➡️ Swiss Bitcoin advocates are pushing for the Swiss National Bank to add Bitcoin to the national reserves - Bloomberg They need 100,000 signatures to put it to a national vote. ➡️3.47M Bitcoin addresses hold more than 0.1 BTC. If you own one of them you’re set for life. ➡️Donald Trump dropped a meme coin instead of stacking Bitcoin for a Strategic Reserve. If the president of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA can launch and promote a memecoin, then essentially it's OK (and not shamed) for anyone/anywhere to do so.  The grift to come is going to be unreal, even by CrApTo standards. A memecoin/shitcoin is a zero-sum* lottery. There is no wealth creation. Every buy order is simply matched by a sell order. After an initial spike, the price eventually crashes and the last buyers lose everything. That's the only thing I am going to share on the subject. [](https://i.ibb.co/jRctP3r/Ghpx9-BNWUAA2-Nxg.jpg) ➡️Arizona Strategic Bitcoin Reserve bill introduced The State can invest up to 10% from: 1) State general fund - $28B 2) State retirement funds - $50B ➡️ Bitwise bought +$200 MILLION Bitcoin for its ETF today. The biggest single-day inflow since launching last year. On the 19th of January: ➡️ Bitcoin Network System Explained in a Chart: [](https://i.ibb.co/RBrC5tw/Ghn8-Bv-BW8-AAi-Xu-X.jpg) On the 20th of January: ➡️Bitcoin mining difficulty hits a NEW ALL-TIME HIGH. ➡️YouTube rival Rumble started buying Bitcoin for its balance sheet on Friday - CEO ➡️Bitcoin went up 20x in Trump's first term as President. 10x this time? ## 💸Traditional Finance / Macro: 👉🏽no news ## 🏦Banks:  👉🏽Global central banks now hold more Gold than at any point in the past 45 years. Something is brewing. ## 🌎Macro/Geopolitics: On the 12th of January: 👉🏽Treasuries are entering their 6th year of the third great bond bear market of the last 240 years! On the 16th of January: 👉🏽EU Commission allows Thierry Breton to take up a new job at Bank of America despite a rule that requires a two-year waiting period before starting lobbying jobs. There are no rules for these corrupt EU (you fill in the blank). The rules apply only to citizens, not to the Brussels elite, and certainly not if you belong to the French political elite. In December I shared some news on the EU crusade against X. Let me explain this to you in simple terms. Breton, a man preaching about the ‘rule of law’ and X, while breaching the rules he signed up to himself: ‘Code of Conduct EU Commissioners’. Now read that again. Bitcoin only. Defund politicians. 👉🏽'The Congressional Budget Office just lowered the US population forecast by 11 million, to 372 million in 2054. This implies 6.3% growth over the next 30 years instead of the 10.5% previously expected. The agency also expects deaths to exceed births starting in 2033, 7 years earlier than in the 2024 estimates. Lower fertility rates and lower net immigration expectations were behind the outlook changes. Are we heading into a demographic crisis?' - TKL On the 17th of January: 👉🏽 Germany had 17 nuclear power plants. It shut them all down. Germany spent $1 Trillion for its energy revamp with the following results: - It is now totally dependent on Russian gas, French nuclear power electricity, and coal (the most polluting fossil fuel) - Its citizens pay the highest electricity price in Europe - It causes several times more CO2 per kWh than France Go woke, go broke. $1T for ruining both its economy and environment. Wunderbar! Just some data: In 2025, Europe is buying Russian gas at an unprecedented pace and spending billions of dollars on it, reports Politico. In the first 15 days of the year, the EU countries imported 837.3 thousand tons of Russian liquified natural gas (LNG). Just to show you how fucked up things are in the EU. EU companies are backstabbed by their own policymakers. 'Europe's carmakers risk hefty bill for carbon credit from Chinese rivals.' source: https://www.ft.com/content/677190d1-7d34-4506-a037-418baab67237 I read the article. It’mind-blowingng. It's like shooting a two-barrelled shotgun in your own nuts. On this point, EU regulators are destroying an entire part of the economy (Car manufacturing + subcontractors) and are giving the keys to Chinese companies. Go woke, go broke. China is making new coal plants at a rate that cancels German / EU efforts 10X or maybe 100x over. Now from an economic perspective: 'European equities are more or less where they were at the beginning of the century. Overregulation and bureaucracy throttling innovation, and belief in left redistribution nonsense instead of hard work and entrepreneurship have their price.' -Michael A. Arouet [](https://i.ibb.co/DWCV5pV/Ght-HId-Wc-AINW2x.jpg) 👉🏽Treasuries have experienced their worst rolling 10-year return in 90 YEARS, now at -0.5%. People out here still stacking U.S. gov bonds instead of Bitcoin. Data: U.S. Treasury bonds: -42% - Bitcoin: +809% 'The “smart money” is buying 30-year treasury bonds with a nominal yield of 1.20% on the whim that another investor (or central bank) will buy it from them at a higher price.' -Dylan Leclair On the 18th of January: 👉🏽Argentina has officially reached its first budget surplus in 14 years. Vamos! Under Milei’s leadership, Argentina turned a $7.94B trade deficit in 2023 into a record-smashing $18-19B surplus in 2024, surpassing the previous high of $16.89B in 2009. His push to boost energy exports from the Vaca Muerta shale reserves and ramp up grain sales is paying off, making Argentina a global exporting powerhouse again. With inflation already down from nearly 300% to 117.8%, Milei’s economic reforms are proving their worth. Argentinian President Javier Milei announces "Zero deficit is a reality...promises are fulfilled." Let me refrain from the above: ➡️Less state ➡️Less government expenses ➡️Capitalism ➡️Free market 👉🏽Wealth exodus accelerated by 157% in 2024: One millionaire leaves Britain every 45 minutes under Labour — Telegraph 157% increase in the outflow of millionaires since Labour came to power - including losing over 10,000 millionaires & 12 billionaires. All these people created wealth in the U.K. through living and spending. On the 19th of January: 👉🏽U.S. Housing Market 16.2% of Home Purchase Deals were canceled last month, the highest cancellation rate in history If for some reason people still believe Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme, well that's their fault. Let me share with you the real Ponzi scheme. The following chart summarizes the impact of demographics on European pension systems really well: [](https://i.ibb.co/r7QkYsv/Gh-J7j41-Wg-AEah31.jpg) A ticking time bomb! The regulatory burdens suffered by citizens are imposed by unelectable bureaucrats! Study Bitcoin. ## 🎁If you have made it this far I would like to give you a little gift: Some fountain of Lyn Alden's wisdom: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZlcrLZkNA8 Lyn Alden is a macro analyst, investment strategist, and the author of Broken Money. In this episode of What Bitcoin Did, they discuss the impact of fiscal policy on inflation, the Federal Reserve's constraints under fiscal dominance, and the role of tariffs in shaping the economic landscape. They also get into a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve, and what Donald Trump’s Administration will mean for Bitcoin. Credit: I have used multiple sources! The complete Weekly Recap will be accessible on my Bitcoin Friday page on Habla. Enriched with detailed charts, illustrative images, and comprehensive macroeconomic news to provide context and clarity. My savings account: Bitcoin The tool I recommend for setting up a Bitcoin savings plan: PocketBitcoin especially suited for beginners or people who want to invest in Bitcoin with an automated investment plan once a week or monthly. Use the code BITCOINFRIDAY Get your Bitcoin out of exchanges. Save them on a hardware wallet, run your own node...be your own bank. Not your keys, not your coins. It's that simple.⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀ Do you think this post is helpful to you? If so, please share it and support my work with a zap. ▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃ ⭐ Many thanks⭐ Felipe - Bitcoin Friday! ▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃

@ f3b691eb:aa9a5c31

I know there are a ton of people working on onboarding resources for new users. Informational sites, user guides, wallet info etc. Where do you send new users? originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/859149

@ 16d11430:61640947

In a world drowning in Monopoly money, where people celebrate government-mandated inflation as "economic growth," it takes a special kind of clarity—nay, cynicism—to rise above the fiat circus. This is your guide to shedding your fiat f**ks and embracing the serene chaos of sound money, all while laughing at the absurdity of a world gone fiat-mad. --- 1. Don’t Feed the Clowns You know the clowns I’m talking about: central bankers in their tailored suits and smug smirks, wielding "tools" like interest rates and quantitative easing. Their tools are as real as a magician's wand, conjuring trillions of dollars out of thin air to keep their Ponzi economy afloat. Rule #1: Don’t engage. If a clown offers you a hot take about the "strength of the dollar," smile, nod, and silently wonder how many cups of coffee their paycheck buys this month. Spoiler: fewer than last month. --- 2. Turn Off the Fiat News Do you really need another breathless headline about the next trillion-dollar deficit? Or the latest clickbait on why you should care about the stock market's emotional rollercoaster? Mainstream media exists to distract you, to keep you tethered to their illusion of importance. Turn it off. Replace it with something sound, like the Bitcoin whitepaper. Or Nietzsche. At least Nietzsche knew we were doomed. --- 3. Mock Their Inflationary Gospel Fiat apologists will tell you that inflation is "necessary" and that 2% a year is a "healthy target." Sure, because a little robbery every year keeps society functioning, right? Ask them this: "If 2% is healthy, why not 20%? Why not 200%? Why not Venezuela?" Fiat logic is like a bad acid trip: entertaining at first, but it quickly spirals into existential horror. --- 4. Celebrate the Fiat Freakshow Sometimes, the best way to resist the fiat clown show is to revel in its absurdity. Watch politicians print money like teenagers running up a credit card bill at Hot Topic, then watch the economists applaud it as "stimulus." It’s performance art, really. Andy Warhol could never. --- 5. Build in the Chaos While the fiat world burns, Bitcoiners build. This is the ultimate "not giving a fiat f**k" move: creating a parallel economy, one satoshi at a time. Run your Lightning node, stack sats, and laugh as the fiat circus consumes itself in a flaming pile of its own debt. Let them argue about who gets to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic. You’re busy designing lifeboats. --- 6. Adopt a Fiat-Free Lifestyle Fiat-free living means minimizing your entanglement with their clown currency. Buy meat, not ETFs. Trade skills, not IOUs. Tip your barber in Bitcoin and ask if your landlord accepts Lightning. If they say no, chuckle and say, “You’ll learn soon enough.” Every satoshi spent in the real economy is a slap in the face to the fiat overlords. --- 7. Find the Humor in Collapse Here’s the thing: the fiat system is unsustainable. You know it, I know it, even the clowns know it. The whole charade is destined to collapse under its own weight. When it does, find solace in the absurdity of it all. Imagine the central bankers explaining hyperinflation to the public: "Turns out we can't print infinity after all." Pure comedy gold. --- 8. Stay Ruthlessly Optimistic Despite the doom and gloom, there’s hope. Bitcoin is hope. It’s the lifeboat for humanity, the cheat code to escape the fiat matrix. Cynicism doesn’t mean nihilism; it means seeing the rot for what it is and choosing to build something better. So, don’t just reject the fiat clown show—replace it. Create a world where money is sound, transactions are sovereign, and wealth is measured in energy, not debt. --- Final Thought: Burn the Tent Down Aldous Huxley once envisioned a dystopia where people are so distracted by their own hedonistic consumption that they don’t realize they’re enslaved. Sound familiar? The fiat clown show is Brave New World on steroids, a spectacle designed to keep you pacified while your wealth evaporates. But here’s the punchline: they can only enslave you if you care. By rejecting their system, you strip them of their power. So let them juggle their debts, inflate their bubbles, and print their trillions. You’ve got Bitcoin, and Bitcoin doesn’t give a fiat f**k. Welcome to the satirical resistance. Now go stack some sats.

@ 6b7c438e:fc81aab3

Taryn Christiansen @ DoraHacksSpecial thanks to Eric Zhang for in-depth discussions.A mirror post on Dora Research Blog is available: https://research.dorahacks.io/2024/12/24/free-speech-foundation Intro:This article will argue that truth-based justifications for free speech are inappropriate within the social media context.1 Flooding the market with more information doesn’t necessarily force truth to emerge and bob at the surface. No matter how much information is pumped into a space filled with falsehoods and deception, if the right mechanisms aren’t in place, the area will only grow more chaotic and overcrowded, and therefore all the more easier to get lost in it. As an instrument to obtain knowledge of the truth, free speech has to be properly used, and people need to know how to use it.That isn’t to say that the tap should be shut off and that free speech should be curtailed; other justifications are perfectly reasonable, as will be seen below. But the idea that what we’re up to on social media is seeking out the truth only produces more confusion about what we collectively take to be sources of trustworthy information that is accurate and sincere. We would be better off if social media were viewed as an information network that is distinct from other spaces that are generally considered places where we obtain reliably true beliefs.But other spaces have the potential to be a more appropriate target for truth-based justifications for free speech, one of which is Nostr. Because of Nostr’s fully decentralized and open nature, which allows for innovation at all levels of its protocol, people have more opportunity to create valuable content that will only be distributed across the network because it is in fact valuable. The algorithms on social media force content to be valuable because there are standards that aim at maximizing user engagement in cheap and overstimulating ways. It doesn’t matter to these mechanisms whether something is true or not. What matters first is whether something promotes the ends of the social media companies, which are primarily driven by maximizing profits through ads and attention. Achieving this goal means reducing users' autonomy in picking and choosing what content to consume. Nostr aims to give the users their autonomy back by freeing developers to build both relays and clients. If users can make decisions that aren’t influenced by social media’s algorithmic decision-making, then it can be discerned whether truth is naturally relevant to people in these kinds of information networks, as well as whether people really desire to care for the truth.Section 1:It should be assumed at this point in history2, especially in liberal democracies, that the freedom to express one’s mind is inseparable from a basic conception of human dignity. If one is prohibited from freely discussing and challenging prevailing beliefs or forced to conform to a point of view that was not arrived at by using one’s own rational and reflective faculties, then human dignity suffers. There’s a reason Socrates went around the Athenian marketplace and tirelessly questioned the people he encountered there. He wasn’t interested in forcing people to submit to specific beliefs. Socrates wanted people to realize and reflect on whether what they believed was true or not, and therefore if it was something worth believing in. But integral to this project is the idea that people have to think through the questions themselves and not rely on an authority. Authority may be right; it may hold true beliefs and assert rational demands, but it doesn’t mean anything unless people themselves know the way to them. This requires the individual to be willing to develop what’s necessary for this.John Milton was right when he wrote in his 1644 pamphlet Areopagatica, which was directed against the English Parlament’s order for licensing books, that “A man may be a heretic in the truth… If he believes things only because his pastor says so, or the assembly so determines, without knowing other reasons, though his belief be true, yet the very truth he holds becomes his heresy.” People must be free to reason for themselves, to arrive at truths through the use of their own faculties, to develop their individual conscience, which, by its nature, must be exercised by the individual’s will and not by an externally imposed authority. Immanuel Kant’s call to the Enlightenment, Sapere aude! - “Have courage to use your own reason!”3 - is a call to actualize human dignity through the use of one’s reason. These faculties cannot be cultivated unless the individual can express him or herself freely.Woke culture is an illustrative example of how there is a connection between free speech and human dignity. It shows that when the strategy is to problematize and silence people, no matter how noble or virtuous the goal is believed to be, it only perpetuates a cycle of frustration and anger. The problem with woke culture isn’t necessarily their ideals. We all would agree, or should at least, that people should respect the basic dignity of others, treat everyone as persons, empathize with those with a different experience, and learn and grow from one another’s unique perspective. These are all good things; they’re profoundly valuable. The issue is how woke culture formulated and implemented their interpretations of what these notions amount to, what they call for, and what moral duties they demand. One of its principal goals has been to discern how historical oppressors should atone for previous wrongdoings. Many have come to understand this as meaning that those who come from those lineages are, in some sense, problematic and that, therefore, proponents of wokism have the duty to silence them, to condemn them, to act as if they are a net negative to the social good, and to impose a punishment of silence to atone for the past. This has been a grave mistake. Instead of engaging in a dialogue to reach the other person’s conscience, those who bore this duty have tended to sermonize in a sanctimonious, demeaning way, which only shuts people down and turns off the parts of the brain that promote learning and development, and turns on what generates combative and defensive behavior. The typical approach in woke culture has been enormously undemocratic in spirit due to its preference to force people to adopt reasons rather than opening people up to consider them in their proper light, namely, as claims about morality that make demands on the conscience of the person, which can only be properly understood and felt through the use of his or her own faculties. Woke culture, which offers some genuine insight into the world's contemporary moral situation, failed to respect the dignity of those they wished to persuade by using coercive measures instead of appealing to their conscience. Free speech is absolutely necessary in an endeavor like this because only by upholding such a social practice will everyone’s basic dignity be respected, which is integral to people being open to changing their minds. Moral debates within society should never devolve into a contest of wills. This only undermines the foundation of a democratic community, the basic pillar being human dignity.4But although free speech bears a necessary connection to human dignity, it does not bear the same relation to truth. For free speech to bear a proper relation to truth, one where free speech produces a high probability of tracking it, those seeking out truth must have the right psychological orientation toward it; otherwise, the two easily come apart. In his recent book Nexus, Yoel Noah Harari presents a clear way of seeing this. Harari criticizes what he calls the ‘naive view of information,’ which “argues that by gathering and processing much more information than individuals can, big networks achieve a better understanding of medicine, physics, economics, and numerous other fields, which makes the network not only powerful but wise.” The notion of wisdom is key. While it’s theoretically possible that an information network can be wise (especially with the development of better AI), it will be useless unless human beings have some idea about what wisdom is. If they don’t, then they’ll have to just assume that the information being presented was properly arrived at, i.e., with the wisdom necessary for obtaining truth, which will, in effect, create a servility to the information network and not to the human faculties necessary for discerning and knowing the truth. To use a distinction made by Plato, they will have an opinion about the truth, not knowledge. To know means to understand the reasons why something is the case, not just that it is the case.Harari’s book is important because the naive view of information he presents is prevalent and is most often expressed in the marketplace of ideas metaphor. In essence, the metaphor suggests that free speech operates like a free market because, by allowing individuals to pursue and satisfy their preferences freely, the truth will somehow outcompete falsehoods. Either because people’s preferences are more deeply satisfied by truth, and/or because the beliefs people hold will only have any real value (or utility) when they are true, when they accurately represent reality. But in a marketplace, “people don’t reliably ‘buy’ truths. People buy the ideas they like. And people don’t reliably like truths better than falsehoods. What the invisible hand does, all going well, is efficiently allocate goods to people based on what they want.”5 For truth to reliably outcompete falsehoods, consumers must have a particular orientation around truth. Unless we think ideas are true based solely on their utility, which is itself not a very useful notion, more has to be said as to why consumers would desire the truth over anything else in a marketplace of ideas. Everyone has opinions they cherish and hold to be, in some way, fundamental to themselves and their identities. It is perfectly conceivable that someone will reject any truth that conflicts with these deeply valued sentiments. For a free competition of ideas to track and produce true information, consumers have to want truth to win out, and this desire should motivate the consumer’s decision-making. In other words, one must bear a special psychological orientation toward truth for the marketplace metaphor to be an appropriate model for understanding free speech as being justified for the sake of truth. Again, free speech is important for other reasons, such as human dignity. But whether free speech is justified for the sake of truth is a separate question, and until the proper stance is taken toward truth, truth-based justifications are inapplicable.The fact that the distribution of more and more information doesn’t bear a necessary connection to truth can also be gleaned from historical examples. When a technology revolutionizes human information networks, which allows for information to be shared more efficiently and in larger quantities than ever before, the society that implements it does not therefore obtain a higher fidelity to truth. The opposite is equally plausible. This is the problem facing social media. If truth-based justifications are an appropriate way to justify free speech practices on such platforms, social media must create an environment that promotes the proper psychological orientation toward truth. What matters is whether they can care for the truth rather than adopt a stance that promotes what the philosopher Harry Frankfurt called bullsh*t, which means to be indifferent toward truth. Before explaining this further, let’s look at a historical example that demonstrates the following: First, as new technology arrives and transforms information networks, the information that is consequently distributed can equally promote both what is true and what is not; and second, and more philosophically, the technology can also reorient a society’s relationship to truth, which in turn affects how the society arrives at knowledge.Section 2:Take the invention of the Gutenberg printing press in 1440. Before its inception, the Catholic Church made Western Europe effectively an echo chamber. They dominated the information networks by controlling what could be printed, distributed, and accredited as knowledge. The vast majority of the population couldn’t read, and only a select few could read the Holy writings, which contained information that was considered the highest truth attainable by human beings. Only a select few were blessed enough to be able to handle this sort of information. Because all other information flowed from this central institution, everyone else depended on the Church for what to believe. The reality of that situation, and what it must have felt like to be in such a dependent position, can begin to be imagined by considering the following: “In the thirteenth century the library of Oxford University consisted of a few books kept in a chest under St. Mary’s Church. In 1424 the library of Cambridge University boasted a grand total of only 122 books. An Oxford University decree from 1409 stipulated that ‘all recent texts’ studied at the university must be unanimously approved ‘by a panel of twelve theologians appointed by the archbishop.’”6 When the quantity of information is this low, and in the context of the Catholic Church, is also greatly limited in diversity, it’s difficult even to imagine anything outside the worldview that is being imposed.Now, alongside the Church’s control of information networks, the production efficiency of copyists and scribes who had to manufacture the books was dismally low. It exponentially grew when the printing press automated the work. The historian Sir John Harold Clapham wrote, “A man born in 1453, the year of the fall of Constantinople, could look back from his fiftieth year on a lifetime in which about eight million books had been printed, more perhaps than all the scribes of Europe had produced since Constantine founded his city in A.D. 330.”7 The restriction on information and people’s inability to consider anything outside of the prevailing tradition, as well as the technological and productive inefficiency of the time, left most people in darkness, with no way out other than by following the dim, consoling light cast by the Church. The printing press changed all of this. “It revolutionized the world,” as the philosopher Francis Bacon said.The printing press gave people the autonomy to print and distribute ideas that the Church didn’t authorize and thereby provided the platform necessary for the Reformation to take hold, which started with Martin Luther in the early sixteenth century. There were previous attempts at reform, but the printing press made a momentous difference. The concurrence of the printing press and the Reformation revealed the corrosive corruption within the Catholic Church. People were finely able to learn about the degenerate tendencies within the institution, which the Church was previously able to stifle because it controlled the information networks. The buying and selling of Church positions and indulgences that allowed people to pay their way out of purgatory, political intrigue, nepotism, bribery, and immoral consolidation of wealth through taxes was disclosed as a consequence of the printing press. The notion that the Church was the medium by which people moved toward God’s grace collapsed, and people saw that “it had become a means of securing worldly prestige, power, and wealth for those who were clever and ruthless enough to bend it to their will.”8But this historical occurrence also unleashed a flurry of misinformation. The religious wars that followed the Reformation were devastating, and millions of people died, an exceptional case being the Thirty Years War (1618-48). The dissemination of Luther’s 95 theses regarding the corruption of the Church spread like wildfire across Europe after he posted them in 1516 on the Church Castle in Wittenberg, Germany, which the printing press made possible. It would only make sense, then, that the Church would follow suit and take advantage of the technology to combat what it held to be heresy and to reinstate its power as the dominant influence in the West (for an amalgam of reasons, of course.) All sides involved in these religious disputes didn’t merely use the printing press to disseminate accurate information. They used it to spread misinformation to satisfy their political interests, intensifying the ensuing wars and battles between the various emerging religious sects and the rising monarchies.This demonstrates the first point: the printing press, which was a revolution in human information networks, produced both true and false information. There was no causal, historical determinacy one way or the other. While it disclosed truths about Church corruption, it was also used as a means to spread political propaganda that fueled the religious wars.Now, as for the second, more philosophical point, the Reformation also reoriented people’s relation to truth by democratizing matters of faith. Whether one believes the Reformation was, in this respect, an overall good or not, from a liberal democratic point of view, it has to be considered good. The Reformation placed faith into the hands of the individual conscience, rendering considerations about one’s standing in relation to God to have a personal, rather than institutional, significance. Before, “the Church was the keeper and protector of Christian truths and the harbor of salvation for those at sea in sin.”9 Luther rejected this picture of salvation and believed one could be saved through faith and scripture alone, without an intermediary. Luther thought that one’s spiritual significance did not depend on authority. He didn’t see the Church as some emanation from God or a reflection of a Divine order that the individual participated in and was guided by to reach salvation. Individuals are solely responsible for their spiritual significance and capacity to reach a higher truth in God. In one of his more heroic acts, he translated the bible into vernacular German from the traditional Latin (which was considered the holy language, the only one appropriate for capturing religious truths). He gave common people access to what was previously sealed off from them. The individual, free from external imposition and constraint, can privately attain truth on his or her own.Luther formulated a radical inner freedom that broke with some of the Church’s fundamental precepts. There was, of course, an inner freedom already present in Catholicism, but Luther placed it at the center of things rather than as revolving around an institution. Before Luther, St. Augustine went to great lengths to demonstrate the spiritual significance of an inner life, and Luther was an Augustinian monk. But Luther went much further than him. In one of his lectures on YouTube, the philosopher Michael Sugrue observes that this amounted to a kind of Copernican Revolution in religion. That is to say that, rather than the Church being the axis by which things revolve around and where one finds his or her salvation, rather than identifying with an institution by which one finds freedom within a corporate body in which lies their place amongst others in a perfectly ordered, hierarchical, and harmonious cosmos, the individual became the center axis of spiritual and religious matters. It’s easy to see, then, how this theological idea possesses the potential to develop into the idea of individual rights and liberties. Luther provided a kind of autonomy10 for the individual, where whether one is saved is bound up with one’s inner conscience and not with external works or good deeds that the Church facilitates. The individual is an irreducible unit of value that is not subsumed by any other worldly object. And the individual's value rests in their conscience and capacity to receive God’s grace. This idea has sparks of the modern sense of human dignity, and it will create a conflagration throughout Europe as it develops. If there is no Church or institution to settle one’s moral, spiritual, and intellectual significance, one is left to use one’s faculties for guidance. And because it is one’s faculties that attain truth and spiritual salvation, they are the center of value in human life, which bears a natural right for protection.At the Diet of Worms in 1521, where Luther had to answer to charges of heresy because of his theological work, the Church demanded that he recant. He refused. But the reasons for his refusal are the most important. He demanded that the Church show him through scripture and reason alone that he was wrong and not through the dictates of authority. His protest demonstrated that the individual can reach the truth through his or her own means. The Church’s decline began far before this historical moment, but Luther made the decisive blow that the printing press made possible. The Church fragmented as a consequence, which, to Catholics, meant truth itself was fragmented and resulted in a proliferation of denominations scattered across Europe.Section 3:What was so subversive about Luther in this respect is that he divorced sanctification, the process by which one lives in the image of Christ, i.e., a life of virtue, from self-transformation. Although Luther carved out the individual as an irreducible unit of value, this also severed the individual from a stable and definite path that assuaged one’s existential suffering: “The Church… assured the individual of her unconditional love to all her children and offered a way to acquire the conviction of being forgiven and loved by God. The relationship to God was more one of confidence and love than of doubt and fear.”11 Luther believed that one was saved through faith alone and by no other means. He thought that because human beings are all sinners, their wills cannot do anything to reach salvation and spiritual peace. How, then, can one tell if they have been saved? There is no longer an authority to adjudicate this. The individual can discover the truth for themself and so must determine what this means on their own. Several centuries later, Kant gave voice to the duty he believed to arise from this new freedom:Thus, it is difficult for any individual man to work himself out of the immaturity that has all but become his nature. He has even become fond of this state and for the time being is actually incapable of using his own understanding, for no one has ever allowed him to attempt it. Rules and formulas, those mechanical aids to the rational use, or rather misuse, of his natural gifts, are the shackles of a permanent immaturity. Whoever threw them off would still make only an uncertain leap over the smallest ditch, since he is unaccustomed to this kind of free movement. Consequently, only a few have succeeded, by cultivating their own minds, in freeing themselves from immaturity and pursuing a secure course.So, while much was gained during the Reformation, the reorientation around truth also had consequences. Self-transformation, the effort of will, the idea of having an inner and outer journey that culminates into something larger and more significant, took on radically different meanings under Luther and the future Protestant countries. To see this, we can turn to Dante’s Divine Comedy, which demonstrates part of what was lost under Luther.Section 4:In Dante’s Divine Comedy, the culmination of the Medieval worldview before Luther, Dante embarks on a Christian pilgrimage that ends in his being saved. Just as with the above, it’s crucial to understand that the point here will not be exclusively religious but universal in the sense that religion, as manifested across all cultures, didn’t create this experience but was the medium by which it has been expressed and made sense of; it provides it a voice. This goes back to William James and his book The Varieties of Religious Experience. There is the private aspect of religious experience, and then there is the institutional component within which the private side takes shape. Buddhists practice meditation and strive to contemplate Nirvana; the Christian prays and goes to mass; the Stoics distance themselves from their inaccurate emotional representations and contemplate what is rational and in his or her control; and so forth. As James points out, what is fundamental to all religious experience, in the private sense, are two aspects: there is an uneasiness, which, “reduced to its simplest terms, is a sense that there is something wrong about us as we naturally stand;” and two, a solution, which “is a sense that we are saved from the wrongness by making proper connection with the higher powers (508).” The first aspect means the self is in conflict, is divided, and desires unification. In religious language, the self seeks salvation and an experience of being saved from their situation, which is characterized by suffering due to inner division and conflict. This can take on an existential mode, as with Leo Tolstoy in his book Confessions, or it can be highly moral. In Tolstoy’s book Confessions, he relates a story of a traveler being chased by a beast that imaginatively captures the relevant phenomena:Seeking to save himself from the fierce animal, the traveler jumps into a well with no water in it; but at the bottom of this well he sees a dragon waiting with open mouth to devour him. And the unhappy man, not daring to go out lest he should be the prey of the beast, not daring to jump to the bottom lest he should be devoured by the dragon, clings to the branches of a wild bush which grows out of one of the cracks of the well. His hands weaken, and he feels that he must soon give way to certain fate; but still he clings, and sees two mice, one white, the other black, evenly moving round the bush to which he hangs, and gnawing off its roots. The traveler sees this and knows that he must inevitably perish; but while thus hanging he looks about him and finds on the leaves of the bush some drops of honey. These he reaches with his tongue and licks them off with rapture. Thus I hang upon the boughs of life, knowing that the inevitable dragon of death is waiting ready to tear me, and I cannot comprehend why I am thus made a martyr. I try to suck the honey which formerly consoled me; but the honey pleases me no longer, and day and night the white mouse and the black mouse gnaw the branch to which I cling. I can see but one thing: the inevitable dragon and the mice—I cannot turn my gaze away from them.”12Clearly, Tolstoy is suffering from a serious existential episode in which he can’t find a purpose or meaning in life that will clear away his anxiety, which is represented in the dragon, which time, represented in the mice, slowly draws him near. This is his “uneasiness.” He must find a solution, then, because his situation is unlivable.Religion has historically addressed this need. In the Middle Ages, the Church was the institution through which people expressed this experience and resolved their inner conflicts, tensions, and divisions. Let’s turn to Dante’s Divine Comedy to see how the private aspect of this experience is made sense of through Christain’s notion of the pilgrimage.The poem begins with Dante suddenly becoming aware of himself, “Midway upon life’s journey,” as he says, and terrified by the fact that he’s lost in a dark world, having “gone astray,” and is in despair because he has begun to lose all hope for himself. “We know nothing of how Dante has gone astray, only that he has, and that he must undertake a journey, therefore, to save his soul.”13 He is, like Tolstoy, experiencing an “uneasiness” (though in more of a moral rather than existential sense; God is always present for Dante.) So, he has discovered that he has been living wrongly, that he’d strayed from the right path, from the way, and despite his attempts to free himself of his sins and burdens, he’s unable to do it alone. Although it’s unclear why Dante has lost his way, “the journey itself is clearer. It will take him through the entire Christian spiritual universe.”14The Roman poet Virgil is sent to initiate and lead him on this path forward. Virgil represents all of Classical learning, from the Greeks to the Romans. Though they were pagans, they represent the highest one can do as a non-Christian, which is to reach, as Aristotle said, the contemplative life15, where one can reflect on the Whole, on the cosmos. But because they didn’t have faith, they could never experience a fullness of being or completeness that produces the solution to the uneasiness that James discussed. According to Christian doctrine, only Christians may experience this. Thus, they had to remain in Hell.Now, for Dante to move down through Hell, climb up Purgatory, and then transcend into Heaven, he must engage with the Classical world by wrestling with the questions they set out to answer, which is an immensely difficult aim to take on; one that will transform the self as it moves through an activity and process of the soul, intellect, mind, or whatever it is that is the center in which human development toward the Good, as Plato would say, takes place. What’s fascinating about this ascent is that, in the Medieval worldview, it wasn’t merely an internal endeavor; it also bore a deep and profound relationship to the external world. By embarking on the Christian pilgrimage, one was, in a sense, becoming closer and closer to reality, to truth, to what is most real, which corresponded with a transformation of the self that is accompanied by an experience of fulfillment. As one ascends, one climbs what was called the Great Chain of Being, a metaphysical (ontological) thesis that was first articulated by Aristotle, which was adopted by, and adapted to, Christian thought in the thirteenth century.The Chain of Being introduces a vertical aspect to reality rather than merely a horizontal one. At the top is the highest Truth, and the lowest is the least real, i.e., the lowest level of being, which consists of matter and material objects, whereas the highest consists of what is immaterial, like consciousness or mind. And so everything and everyone grows increasingly heavier as Dante moves downward through Hell due to being weighed down by an attachment to the material, earthly substance, which produces a growing despair and lack of fulfillment. As Dante moves upward from Purgatory to Heaven, things become lighter and immaterial in proportion to how much something embodies the spiritual, divine substance, which is achieved through directing one’s desire toward the right objects, toward what is more real and true. In Plato’s allegory of the cave, as one breaks free from the chains and shadows at the bottom and climbs toward the exit where the sun can be seen, one also gains more and more insight into reality as things are illuminated more clearly through the light. Like Purgatory, the ascent up the cave is profound and challenging. But the initial insight of seeing into reality, which reveals that what was previously experienced was illusory, produces the desire to see even further into what now appears absolute and true. This desire pulls and aims Dante upward as he climbs higher toward reality and up the Great Chain of Being. The economist and philosopher E.F. Schumacher16 put the significance of this view as follows:The ability to see the Great Truth of the hierarchic structure of the world, which makes it possible to distinguish between higher and lower Levels of Being, is one of the indispensable conditions of understanding. Without it, it is not possible to find out where everything has its proper and legitimate place. Everything, everywhere, can be understood only when its Level of Being is fully taken into account. Many things are true at a low Level of Being and become absurd at a higher level, and of course vice versa.Dante’s pilgrimage, then, aims toward attaining a higher level of being than when he found himself lost in the forest. By turning inward, by engaging in a contemplative mode of being that engages the self in pursuit of an inner harmony that resonates with an external, hierarchic order, Dante is striving to attain a kind of freedom that is somewhat alien to us today. We can think of the notion of freedom in a negative and a positive sense. In the negative sense, freedom is understood as freedom from something; from external constraint, for example. The First Amendment is typically interpreted along these lines. Everyone is free to speak their minds because the state should not be allowed to interfere with our freedom to do so. All are free to do as they please as long as they do not infringe on another person’s right to do so.The positive sense is much different. It is a freedom for something. In Dante’s Hell, everyone found themselves there because they (at minimum) acted free purely in the negative sense. They lived their lives as they saw fit, without regard to any higher form of life. They didn’t act for the sake of a virtuous purpose (although that’s not quite right regarding the virtuous pagans and a few others.) To be free in the positive sense means to act according to a higher aim. When Socrates refused to renounce the philosophical life and was put to death, he made that decision based on a principle grounded in his inner conscience, which he took to express something sacred and higher, which always spoke to him when he was about to do wrong. He accepted the death penalty because the unexamined life wasn’t worth living; it had no purpose toward a higher aim17. 17Dante’s Divine Comedy provides a narrative by which the uneasiness one experiences in life, as articulated by James, can reach a solution and resolve the inner conflict and division by providing a framework by which the individual moves closer to reality, to what is most real, and up the Chain of Being.Section 5:Now, the pilgrimage captured in Dante’s poem was not something anyone could take up, at least not in its full dramatic content; it was obviously something only a select few could embark on, and this depended on the situation one was born into, like whether one was wealthy enough to receive an education. One’s salvation in the social order was rarely epic or heroic in nature; it typically meant following the structure imposed upon the individual by the Church. Just as how the cosmos was hierarchically ordered, so was society. The reasons for the social order were Divinely decreed. The social structure was immovable in a way because shifting the social order and rearranging it would violate scripture and God’s Word. Hence people were, as we would judge today, unfree and restricted. However, as psychologist Erick Fromm writes, “although a person was not free in the modem sense, neither was he alone and isolated. In having a distinct, unchangeable, and unquestionable place in the social world from the moment of birth, man was rooted in a structuralized whole, and thus life had a meaning which left no place, and no need, for doubt. A person was identical with his role in society; he was a peasant, an artisan, a knight, and not an individual who happened to have this or that occupation. The social order was conceived as a natural order, and being a definite part of it gave a feeling of security and of belonging.”18 Luther’s devastating blow against the Church in the Reformation rejected the social order and the Chain of Being and set in motion the release of the individual from the bondage they were restrained in. But by freeing the individual, he also eliminated the necessary self-transformation that played a substantial role in the Medieval worldview. Luther democratized salvation, spirituality, and questions about meaning in one’s life.This Copernican revolution in religious matters allowed for a radical reorientation toward truth, which relied on the printing press's efficiency in producing and distributing information.There were, of course, other factors that contributed to the Catholic Church's decline. The literal Copernican revolution and the rise of science being an obvious example. But what became increasingly less present in the scientific worldview that was emerging then is the idea that, as one gains knowledge of the world, one also goes through a transformative experience like Dante’s. The notion that knowledge of truth and reality converges with a meaningful and spiritual ethical development has mostly fallen off. Science’s aim is pure objectivity. For much of history, what is ‘objective’ is also intrinsically beneficial to the subject coming into contact with it. Values in scientific judgment and knowledge are a transgression, a violation of scientific precept, and are opposed to the whole epistemic enterprise (meaning a method by which knowledge is gained.) Science does not care about how one feels, what one desires in life, or what meaning one may find in it and simply presents facts as a body of indifferent and empirically verified knowledge.This is, of course, a caricature, as Thomas Kuhn19 argued in the twentieth century. Scientists certainly value their theories and are not merely attempting to refute them through experimentation. Theories allow scientists to have a grip on the world and a language of concepts that can be used to describe it accurately. This conceptual framework gives the world a theoretically intelligible and discernible order. And so once the anomalies and unsolved problems in a scientific paradigm grow serious enough, those working within it enter into a crisis until a new paradigm emerges (as is what happened when moving from Newtonian mechanics to Eistenin’s relativity.) Still, moving from one paradigm to the next isn’t believed to be an ethical progression. It’s a movement from one framework to the next. Unlike the Medieval worldview, it is generally held that science says nothing about human values and how one ought to live. Being a scientist does not suggest that someone is wise like a Socrates or Plato.Unlike the Church in the Middle Ages, which, in terms of knowledge, played a similar role to science today, science is not an institution that is in the business of handing out ethical and moral guidance. A scientist would likely balk (or should balk) at the idea of being viewed as someone who has gone through an ethical self-transformation to gain the knowledge that he or she has solely because of becoming a scientist. Being one of course requires an enormous amount of discipline, effort, and intelligence, which is, in a way, transformative, but in a different sense than what Dante embarked on. Today, knowledge of truth and reality does not necessarily correspond with an ethical progression.This idea of not requiring ethical self-transformation to gain the highest forms of knowledge is most noticeable in Rene Descartes’ philosophy in the seventeenth century. Descartes set out to rebuild a foundation through which knowledge could be rebuilt from the ruins left by the Church’s decline.20 The Church had lost its viability as something that could be believed to provide reliable knowledge for the social body. It was no longer psychologically obvious that the Church was the principal source and authority of appeal when dealing with matters of truth. Referring to scripture, for instance, could no longer be done by relying on what the Papacy had interpreted it as meaning. Luther (and others) undermined this immediacy for many. The United States faces a similar situation today. There is a diminishing trust in the democratic institutions that have historically served as distributors of trustworthy knowledge. Descartes attempted to deal with a similar crisis by discovering foundations immune from doubt. And he believed himself to have discovered such a foundation through his Cogito: I think, therefore I am. I can doubt all of my mental representations of the world, such as those of tables and chairs and coffee mugs, as well as my particular thoughts and feelings, and even the existence of my own body and sense experience. For all I know, I may be dreaming or being deceived by an evil demon into believing all kinds of imaginary and false representations of things. I can’t affirm or deny this with any certainty. But I cannot doubt that I am doubting; that much is certain. And since doubting is a property of thinking, I can’t doubt that I am thinking.Therefore, I am a thinking thing, an immaterial substance that is distinct from the physical bodies liable to doubt21. This is the most fundamental truth that not even reason could call into question. It’s radically different from truth as understood on the Chain of Being model. There is no ethical transformation involved in realizing this indubitable proposition. It’s self-evident to anyone rational and clear-minded (or so Descartes thinks.) And this is certainly how many people today think of knowledge. And in some cases, quite rightly. Take human rights as an example. John Locke22, a momentous figure who shaped the language of rights and how modernity thinks about them, argued that human rights are self-evident in the same sense as a geometric axiom. It just appears before the mind as something incapable of being doubted (to a clear, rational mind, of course, who has done the proper thinking, like someone who has rightly apprehended a geometric axiom.) The US’s founding document memorializes Locke’s claim: “We hold these truths to be self-evident.” The deepest, most profound truths about humanity are ‘obvious’ to any rational mind. This is, of course, a good thing. It is good that people intuitively find one another intrinsically and irreducibly valuable. But when this notion is taken for granted, when, as we’ll soon see with John Stuart Mill, an idea grows ossified, fixed, and dogmatic, it loses its potency and desired effect. But if one arrives at the idea of human rights through a transformative process, where one realizes the concept through a process of development and growth that culminates in seeing the profound value within a conscious human being, the notion of rights is animating and action-producing; it stirs and moves the motivation of those who go through this process. In other words, it produces a particular psychological orientation around what is believed to be true.Section 6:So, information technologies do not merely distribute previously unavailable information that is then propagated across a network. Nor does the production of such information bear a natural, necessary connection to truth. They can do both, but much more is at play. The printing press allowed for the conditions necessary for the Reformation to occur, and its occurrence produced a radical shift in the Medieval worldview. Truth was hierarchically organized, and those at the top had exclusive access. The Reformation leveled this structure and diffused the notion that all Christians are equal regarding Divine knowledge. There was no need for an authoritative intermediary to facilitate people’s relation to God. People could do it themselves through faith and scripture alone. But this also meant that all the social practices instituted for the purposes of coming into contact with truth, all the rituals and rites used to reinforce the beliefs of when and how truth manifests itself, slowly went with it. Therefore, people’s orientation around truth, how they conceived of it, where it resided, and how one knew it, was disrupted. People weren’t merely given previously unavailable information; the entire information landscape was turned upside down. This can reveal new terrain within the landscape that can lead to deep and valuable truths, such as human rights and liberties, and it can also conceal older, previously established truths, like the notion of transformative experiences being necessary for coming into closer contact with reality.Similarly to the printing press, social media poses a historical parallel. We can see this by looking at the most famous defense of free speech for the sake of truth, namely, John Stuart Mill’s essay On Liberty. We’ll see that, like how the printing press reoriented people’s relation to truth, social media is doing so by increasingly shifting how we conceive of, participate in, and come to know the truth. As a social practice, it’s shifting the culture toward different ways of arriving at truth. It's difficult to say whether it is categorically good or bad. But the focus here will be on what would certainly be a momentous loss in our social practices regarding truth, namely, a departure from Enlightenment values.There is a developing tendency to determine the truth through sheer will rather than discussion and a dwindling desire to correct this error. People seem to care less about deliberation, compromise, tolerance, and the general agreement that the goal is to come to an inclusive decision that is in the best interests of people who share a basic respect for each other’s dignity. All political orientations have growing factions that believe the content of other’s beliefs determines how they should be viewed and treated. Rather than work toward building a community that is able to cooperate with one another and agree on a uniting set of values, the cultural attitude is moving toward a competition between wills for power. But it’s not only behaviorally motivated by power; there is also the belief that all effort by a group toward an ideal is entirely reducible to power. That very well may be true. But if it is, democracy is in a precarious position. So, if we value democracy, we should steer back toward the proper path. For Mill’s account to work, which is crucial if we wish to justify free speech for the sake of truth in Enlightenment, democratic terms23, social media should not be viewed as a truth-seeking information network24. Mill believed free speech is necessary for human flourishing in a democratic society. If it’s the people who are going to be involved in the deliberative processes of society and be the ones choosing what is best, then the people must be able to discuss and exchange ideas, opinions, and beliefs freely. However, just like how the Medieval view operated within a certain orientation around truth, which provided a framework through which truth could be arrived at, so it is with democracy. And like the printing press, social media has placed enormous tension on our democratic orientation. So, if we desire to maintain democratic values derived from the Enlightenment, then we have to take a certain stance toward social media, one that eschews the expectation that truth is situated within its environments, where we expect to discuss, debate, hash things out, and arrive at truth.Now, On Liberty offers two sets of reasons supporting free speech, the first being epistemic, meaning that the benefits have to do with knowledge, while the other set is psychologically beneficial. The first set argues that free speech is an overall good for society because if what someone says is true or partially true, both possibilities benefit a democracy. If what is said is true, it will benefit because it professes a truth that will add to the preexisting stock of knowledge. If partially true, this also contributes to preexisting knowledge; “and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied.” The second psychological set of benefits is primarily derived from the utterance of false beliefs, which have no direct epistemic benefit because they do not contribute any knowledge to form beliefs around. If what is said is wholly false, the opportunity to defend and contest it will also be an overall good because it will demand that the bearers of that knowledge account for the reasons for its truth. Mill expresses this well: “Unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds.” This then produces a further psychological benefit. By remaining a prejudice and not as something rationally grasped, “the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost or enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect on the character and conduct; the dogma becoming a mere formal profession, inefficacious for good, but cumbering the ground and preventing the growth of any real and heartfelt conviction from reason or personal experience.” Therefore, contesting what is true will keep beliefs from devolving into prejudice or dogma.Section 7:The first thing to observe about Mill’s reasons for free speech is that the first set of epistemic reasons really depends on the second set (the psychological ones). But it’s peculiar to speak of the latter as ‘benefits’ because of this. It’s more accurate to say that a certain psychological orientation must give rise to them. We can think of this as a kind of feedback loop that produces the benefits Mill is speaking of. One must have the proper psychological orientation toward truth to break into this loop. That is to say that the members within a society must hold a psychological orientation toward truth that allows for the free expression of true, partially true, and false beliefs to be a net good, i.e., to bring about the best possible consequences within a democratic community. With the psychological reasons offered for free speech, notice that the benefit is derived from the speakers and listeners within the community being open to receiving true, partially true, or false utterances. The beliefs they hold must be perpetually open to revision because they may or may not be in possession of the actual true ones; they understand that their knowledge is an ongoing process, something that is constantly unfolding, and so hold a particular stance toward the free expression of beliefs.They would understand that, even in the best instances of human knowledge, the most stable kind (like knowledge of physics), it is still susceptible to be overturned by future evidence, as was the case with Newtonian mechanics and Einsteinian relativity. That is not to say truth is therefore unattainable, but only that there should be a fair degree of epistemic humility within a democratic, truth-seeking community, given that our best knowledge often falls far short of absolute certainty. As the psychological reasons specify, if the people within the community hold their beliefs as prejudices or dogmas that are fixed and unchangeable, they will be unreceptive to being challenged. So whatever anyone utters, whether true, false, or in between, it won’t provide the benefits Mill intended. There must be a certain psychological orientation toward truth for Mill’s argument to succeed.Let’s now specify what this orientation should look like and see how it’s vital in upholding free speech arguments for the sake of truth. There are three components to this orientation: (i) certain beliefs, (ii) certain desires, and (iii) certain attitudes born out of (i) and (ii). (i) consists of two beliefs. The first belief is that truth exists, and the second is that it is, in principle, knowable. (ii) consists of two desires as well. The first desire is to attain human flourishing, and the second is that truth is constitutive of this aim. Given that there is truth, one must also have the desire to attain it. But this is also a special kind of desire; it’s a desire that fulfills what must be viewed as a higher need, one that is constitutive of human flourishing or happiness. We can call this a fulfillment need. This means that we desire truth because it occupies a natural place in the space of human good. We will lack something fundamental to our flourishing if we don’t have contact with truth; we therefore both desire it and have a powerful motivation to attain it because we desire to flourish. Fulfillment needs should be understood as part of what constitutes this principal end in life that characterizes human excellence.For those who know Greek philosophy, this will sound familiar. As Aristotle says in his Ethics, all things aim at some final good. Achieving this good means for something to actualize its potential and attain excellence. The final aim of human beings is to flourish, or, in Greek, to attain eudaimonia, and to attain this means to achieve human excellence. Excellence, says Aristotle, means to fulfill the particular function assigned to a thing's nature. An eye’s function is to see, a car’s function is to drive, while the seed’s function is to grow into a plant. Human beings’ nature is to be rational, to optimize their cognition, to reduce error, and to reach the truth. Again, since the ultimate aim is to flourish, and because seeking truth is constitutive of that goal, we desire to know the truth as a fulfillment need, which helps satisfy the principal good in human life. Now, while Aristotle’s claim about human nature is of course disputable, if Mill’s argument for free speech is to work, and it’s important that it does, Aristotle’s account of human beings, or something resembling it, must be held within a democratic community.That being said, there’s a deep plausibility to the notion that humans have a fundamental need to be in contact with the truth, and presuming rationality is necessary for this, Aristotle may very well be right. In his lecture series Awakening From The Meaning Crisis, John Vervaeke offers a powerful example to illustrate this. Imagine your parents one day asking you to follow them into a hidden room you had never seen before inside your house on your eighteenth birthday. When you enter, you see a wall of monitors showing old footage of you throughout your life. Your parents then turn to you and say that your entire life has been an FBI experiment; everything has been manufactured. The love you thought to be sincere and nourishing, all the support you’ve received throughout the years, the holidays you have come to cherish, and the memories and feelings you’ve come to have are, in the most profound sense, fake. None of it was real. Your parents then tell you that you have two options. You can either act as if this incident had never happened and move on as usual, or you can move out and move on with your life. What’s the desirable option? Most of us would choose the latter. Why? Because none of what was thought to be real turned out to be true. It was all fabricated, illusory, and bore no substantive relation to reality. For the majority of us (although hopefully everyone), there is no going back to the way things previously were. The truth makes a fundamental difference in the decision-making between the two options. By discovering that our life is untrue, we feel a deep absence, a lack of fulfillment, an incompleteness on account of what we’ve learned about ourselves. An essential aspect of the decision to move on, then, is a deep motivation to discover what is in fact true. It’s like Dante when he discovers himself lost in the dark forest. We’ve been led astray, and now we desire to find the right path, which is the one that converges with truth, with what is most real. This is what happens to Jim Carrey in The Truman Show when he decides to leave that disturbing, manufactured simulation dome he was raised in. He could have stayed, but he was psychologically unable to. By obtaining this new self-knowledge, he would have never achieved eudaimonia. He would have remained stuck in life because he would have been bullsh*tting himself (again, I mean this in a technical sense and not simply as an explicative, which will be explained below.)This brings us to (iii), which is to bear a particular attitude toward truth provided (i) and (ii). The proper attitude toward truth is one of care. To care for the truth means to know how to reliably arrive at it, which means utilizing the relevant cognitive processes in forming true beliefs. Recall the quote at the beginning of the article from John Milton, which expressed that it is a heresy to arrive at a belief in the wrong way, namely, by not properly using one’s own reason. It matters, then, how we form our beliefs, and what matters is which cognitive processes are used to get there. For ease of presentation, we can use the psychologist Daniel Kahneman’s formulation of these cognitive processes from his book Thinking, Fast and Slow. Kahneman lays out two cognitive systems, System 1 and System 2. “System 1 operates automatically and quickly, with little or no effort and no sense of voluntary control.” Whereas “System 2 allocates attention to the effortful mental activities that demand it, including complex computations. The operations of System 2 are often associated with the subjective experience of agency, choice, and concentration (p. 21).” To see the difference, take the two following examples of arithmetic: “2 + 2 = ?” We have an immediate cognitive reflex to such an equation, and little to no effort is required. Filling in the answer resulted from System 1. “17 x 24 =?” Now this equation typically demands more effort. A reasoning process is engaged to determine the answer that requires concentrated effort and isn’t reflexively provided. Such a process is supplied by System 2. For another example, say someone is hiking and spots a tree in the distance. If such a person cares nothing for botany, then the object will have a great deal of transparency, and the person will carry on about their day. Such a process would be within System 1. But if the person is a trained botanist and has never seen this kind of tree before (say they’re in a foreign country), they may begin to observe it, inspect it, and direct their effort toward retrieving the relevant information that may help identify the tree. That person has engaged System 2.Caring for the truth means knowing how to optimize these two systems so that System 1 and System 2 are in a recurring dialogue with one another, with the aim to arrive at the truth. Now, there are at least two aspects to this idea of care. The first can be classed as having to do with general skills in critical thinking, which primarily consists of analysis. Examples are things like working out one’s cognitive biases and reducing error. In essence, being successful in this regard means being able to reason well and work through problems rationally. Take a case of confirmation bias, for example. Imagine a republican voter who believes certain conspiracy theories about the democratic party and who is watching a presidential debate and hears the Republican candidate make an assertion attributing misconduct to the Democratic candidate. Because the assertion confirms the prior beliefs of the voter who is watching, it will be easy for that person to immediately agree with what was said. Engaging System 2 is effortful and costly in mental energy, and so it is easier, as well as cognitively more pleasurable, to passively (probably unconsciously) consent to System 1’s impulse, which presents the Republican candidate’s statement as attractive and belief-worthy. If this person cares for the truth, however, he or she would engage System 2 upon receiving what System 1 has provided with the aim of verifying whether the assertion accurately represents or corresponds to reality. Perhaps the person reasons through the assertion. If the candidate said something like, "Inflation has skyrocketed due to the current administration, which she’s a part of,” the voter watching may reason that, while it’s true inflation has risen, her position in the administration bears little to no significance on that outcome; therefore, the assertion is misinformed. Or perhaps the voter doesn’t understand government structure very well and does research, visits several sources, and concludes based on the information that the assertion is misinformed and implies an invalid conclusion. Whatever the route taken, the voter is presented with the potential to make a cognitive error through System 1, and because he or she cares for the truth, System 2 is utilized to solve the task presented.Competence in this aspect of care, which means to be a competent critical thinker, consists of knowing how to obtain propositional knowledge, which is knowledge that accurately represents reality. One has the tools and skills to work through assertions, analyze arguments, and appropriately form beliefs according to the evidence. One can situationally respond by engaging System 2 when one detects that System 1 is presented with information expressing propositions about the world. Someone who has mastered these skills has developed dispositions that engage the relevant cognitive behavior under the relevant conditions. In other words, such a person knows how to instinctively and properly respond to the appropriate cognitive stimuli.25The second aspect of caring for truth is deeper than this and, like Dante’s journey, more transformative. Caring for truth in this sense means optimizing System 1 and System 2 by using them to shape one’s conception of the good. What reason, for example, would this argument, rather than another one, be more relevant to someone competent in critical thinking? Why care about what this person has to say rather than that one? Answers to these questions will suggest the underlying conception of the good that is assumed when one finds one set of information more salient. In other words, the second aspect of caring for truth means understanding one’s conception of eudaimonia, or flourishing, which is one’s final aim and idea of human excellence. Critical thinking in the propositional sense is a highly valuable set of skills that is fundamental to the whole project of pursuing truth. But what it consists of does not provide a final criteria to judge what one should believe about human flourishing and what it amounts to. It plays a vital role in articulating and grasping this goal but won’t deliver it. In other words, critical thinking is a powerful tool in reaching one’s goals, but it itself cannot bestow the goals themselves. This requires the second aspect of caring for truth, which means optimizing System 1 and System 2 to become aware of what final end is guiding their operation. Regardless of how much one engages in critical thinking, irrespective of one’s mastery of logic and reasoning, if one never utilizes these skills toward understanding what provides the salience of one set of information over another, they may never satisfy their fulfillment need for truth.Tolstoy’s book, The Death of Ivan Illych, illustrates this. In the story the Russian protagonist, Ivan Illych, lives his life in pursuit of what is pleasant. He shuns the annoyances and discomforts that arise in life and views them, in a way, as unnatural, as occurrences that disrupt how life should be. His goal in life is to maximize pleasure and avoid pain and suffering. He’s not, however, a Don Quixote or an extreme hedonist; he’s not trying to experience all the possible pleasures one may have. He wants to live a successful and acceptable life that commands the esteem of his colleagues, makes his family happy, comfortable, and at ease, and allows him to pass through life with as few disturbances as possible. He holds a very familiar and common conception of the good.And Ivan does in fact find this success. He rises to be a great and respectable judge in Russia. He’s highly competent, makes a substantial living, and can buy and provide his family with whatever he pleases. Yet he finds himself running into the disturbances he’s always tried to avoid. He’s constantly fighting with his wife:There remained only rare periods of amorousness that came over the spouses, but they did not last long. These were islands that they would land on temporarily, but then they would put out again to the sea of concealed enmity that expressed itself in estrangement from each other. This estrangement might have upset Ivan Ilyich, if he had considered that it ought not to be so, but by now he took this situation not only as normal, but as the goal of his activity in the family. His goal consisted in freeing himself more and more from these unpleasantnesses and in giving them a character of harmlessness and decency; and he achieved it by spending less and less time with his family, and when he was forced to do so, he tried to secure his position by the presence of outsiders.He’s experiencing the “uneasiness” formulated by William James above. His solution is not to reflect on his final end in life, his conception of the good, his idea of human flourishing and excellence, but to find other means to attain it, which is to turn away from what he’s representing as unnatural and frustrating. He’s not deficient in critical thinking; he’s a highly competent and successful judge. He lacks the wisdom and self-knowledge necessary for reflecting on and evaluating what makes some things and not others salient for him, which is his goal in life to live pleasantly. There’s a reason why he finds spending less time with his family a more obvious solution than trying to get at the root of why it is he feels so frustrated and annoyed at the fact that he’s not feeling fulfilled despite his success; and he’s not utilizing System 1 and System 2 to investigate that reason, i.e., he’s not caring for truth in the second sense. It’s only until he is faced with a random, coincidental death that he realizes he hadn’t been searching for a solution to his “uneasiness” that converged with truth. Not truth in the propositional sense, but truth regarding human flourishing and excellence. Insofar as he was unable or unwilling to direct his cognition toward what was guiding it, he remained incapable of progressing and transforming toward an aim that would afford him self-awareness, self-knowledge, and, ultimately, eudaimonia.Both aspects of caring for truth matter if Mill’s benefits are to be obtained. It matters propositionally (the first aspect of care) because critical thinking and analysis are necessary for seeing information clearly and discerning whether something maps onto the world. But caring for the first aspect alone will only clear the fog, so to speak, and allow one to see the landscape with more specificity and definition. It will provide knowledge about the causal regularities that govern the territory and the predictable patterns that follow from them. It will not, however, indicate what to do with that knowledge or inform one of what it means. For free speech to be justified for the sake of truth, which means free speech plays a substantial, instrumental role in sorting out the true information from the false, people must care for the truth. They have to find it salient in the right ways. If people don’t care and don’t share the proper desire to pursue it, then no amount of discussion will necessarily bring the community any closer to the truth. They may easily settle for something else.Section 8:The claim, then, is that social media does not warrant truth-based justifications for free speech. Because social media platforms don’t promote or incentivize the psychological orientation necessary for truth-seeking but reward the opposite behaviors, the idea that one is seeking truth within such a context is false. The view that social media as a public space is best characterized as a social practice that aims toward truth has generated an insidious confusion within the culture, and we would be better off by evaluating it differently. Social media is certainly an information network, but it’s wrong to presume all information networks are oriented toward truth production.To see this, think of a university. The principal purpose of this institution is to generate knowledge (there are other purposes, of course, but put those aside.) Now, there are many parts to the structure of a university, but let’s zoom in on the classroom environment. Within it, there’s a hierarchy in place. The teacher’s purpose is to guide the students through a curriculum, get them to think critically about the information, debate and discuss it, foster their abilities to engage with it, cultivate the necessary faculties for this, and to ensure that they learn something specific about the given information, as well as something general about learning, something they can use in all cases. To achieve this, the teacher must orient the students around truth-seeking, i.e., he or she must teach the students to care for the truth, as explained above. The teacher must challenge the students’ cognitive biases. Logical errors, bad reasoning, and lack of critical thinking have to be checked, corrected, and reinforced by the teacher.Ideally, the teacher will also help the students think critically about their conceptions of the good. In the ideal scenario, the teacher not only challenges their cognition but also fosters their ability to question what human flourishing and excellence looks like. It’s ideal because claiming that this is absolutely necessary for an information network to warrant being evaluated as a truth-seeking social practice is, perhaps, too high. But it is what one should aim for. However, it’s important to bear this in mind because it will be shown that, even if the threshold is lowered in this sense, social media still fails at what any information network that is correlated with truth should provide, which is to promote the proper analytical skills in getting clearer about reality.Now, an important reason universities are trusted as truth-seeking information networks is partly because of the teacher's role in distributing that information. It’s trusted as an institution because those who go through it are supposed to have been guided by experts who demonstrate how to pursue knowledge. Students who leave the institution are expected to have participated in a social practice that taught them to be competent in their field (and hopefully to be a good human being as well, whatever that means precisely) and who can now further distribute and utilize their knowledge by applying it to other domains within society. The teacher’s function within the institution is essential to this goal and fundamental to the trust granted to the institution itself. Let’s call this function a Socratic function.27Social media doesn’t have a Socratic function, and any information network trusted as a distributor of knowledge should have something resembling it. Worse than this, however, is that social media actually promotes cognitive behavior that is opposed to the whole project of pursuing truth. As an overarching, general pattern, social media reinforces and incentivizes things like cognitive bias (the immediate and intuitive presentations of System 1.) The whole business model is aimed at maximizing attention. People easily become addicted to these platforms and binge content endlessly. The only way to achieve this is by easing the user’s cognitive effort as much as possible and stimulating them with dopamine responses, allowing the user to enter a semi-hypnotic state. Of course, not everyone is affected like this; most people can assert moderation when using social media. But in an ideal world, one where social media is optimally thriving, everyone would be glued to their screens. Practical circumstances of course make this impossible, and therefore it wouldn’t truly be in social media’s interests because no one would show up for work, but if we turn the dial on the business goals of these platforms to the max, then this would be the logical consequence; it would maximize profits.Social media serves many purposes, though, and the claim is certainly not that it is, for these reasons, entirely bad. It’s only the contexts, circumstances, and situations in which it is reflexively represented as a competent and trusted information network that deals in matters of knowledge and truth that it creates an overall deficit. This is because of the intellectual and ethical confusion it produces, which is caused by its lack of a Socratic function that incentivizes and reinforces the proper psychological orientation around truth-seeking. Again, it has the opposite aim, which is to ease the effort of System 2 as much as it can and allow System 1, with all its cognitive vulnerabilities, to be at the helm. Because of this aim, social media has a Sophistic function, which contrasts the Socratic one, whose defining characteristic is to be a bullsh*tter. As mentioned above, this notion is a technical one and needs to be properly explained.The notion of bullsht comes from the American philosopher Harry Frankfurt and his essay Bullsht. Sam Harris uses this term often, especially regarding social media. First, let’s clarify what it means to lie. Lying involves an intent to deceive on the part of the person lying, who wishes to get the other to believe something contrary to the truth. The seventeen-year-old who sneaks out, gets caught, and tells their parents that they forgot their phone at their friend’s house and went to get it in the middle of the night is lying because they’re trying to deceive their parents into believing something false about reality. But reality is still salient to their aim. Although attempting to distort it, they still have reality in their conscious field of intentions, motives, and desires, i.e., they care about truth rather than caring for it. Someone who bullshts, on the other hand, has no regard for truth. It provides no reason for consideration on its own, independent of the bullshtter’s aim. Whereas the truth matters for the liar, it’s of no concern whether what one says is true or false in the case of bullsht. The bullshter’s enterprise is characteristically different than the lier in this regard. The liar “is attempting to lead us away from a correct apprehension of reality; we are not to know that he wants us to believe something he supposes to be false… The fact about himself that the bullshitter hides, on the other hand, is that the truth-values of his statements are of no central interest to him; what we are not to understand is that his intention is neither to report the truth nor to conceal it.”26The classic archetype of a bullshtter is the salesman. The truth about whether the product sold is efficient, useful, or whatever else is indifferent to the salesman. What matters, and what distinguishes one who is good from one who is not (in the sense of achieving their goal to sell the product, pure and simple,) is whether they can deceive the consumer into believing that the bullshtter is asserting something they themselves believe. There are few constraints on what a bullshtter may say to achieve their aim. Whatever helps satisfy their goal is fair play. The liar is unable to be creative like this. They must strategically and purposefully contend with the truth by believing they know it. If the liar doesn’t in fact know the truth, this will likely spoil their plans. They will be unable to grasp the situation and will likely misunderstand what the circumstances call for. A bullshtter doesn’t need to know the truth at all. They just need to make the other person think that they do. The truth conditions of their beliefs and assertions are, by itself, irrelevant.Social media is a bullshtter in incentivizing and rewarding behavior that employs bullsht. It therefore has a Sophistic function. The chief culprit for this is, of course, the algorithms. The algorithm's aim is to curate content that maximizes user engagement and attention. Whether what it presents a user with is true or false is a matter of indifference. It can matter in a sense, but only if the user is disposed toward viewing content that is oriented around truth, which is of no concern to the algorithms. The function is to bullsht the user by minimizing cognitive effort and maximizing the incentives that will keep their attention, e.g., by triggering dopamine responses through a constant succession of content patterned according to the user’s preferences. If the user desires content that aims at truthfully representing reality, he or she has to maneuver through a minefield of bullsht. There is no Socratic function that guides them through it, as there would be in any other social practice that is considered an information network whose purpose is to distribute knowledge. The proper psychological orientation that warrants discussions about how free speech is necessary for pursuing truth within a given context is entirely absent within the social media model.Hence Mill’s influential argument for the utility of free speech for the sake of truth doesn’t apply to social media. Let’s reflect on what Mill said after this long discussion. Recall the epistemic benefits he argued for. He said that letting everyone freely express their minds produces the best outcomes within a democratic community, regardless of whether what one says is true, partially true, or false. If the truth doesn’t move people, and if the general tendency to find truth salient is absent, then letting everyone say what they think is self-undermining. Why would truth matter if everyone free to speak their mind disregards it? Seeing truth as a reason for a social practice means truth is fundamental to the aims that characterize the institution, and this means being properly oriented around it, which means caring for it.Section 9:I want to end now with a discussion about how this all relates to Nostr and how it has the potential to be an information network that performs much better than social media as a context concerned with knowledge and truth. The principal reason that will be considered here is Nostr’s pursuit of a fully decentralized model that aims at user autonomy. Autonomy makes a crucial difference between an information network that more reliably tracks truth and one that is indifferent to it.Social media reduces users' autonomy by trying to use them as a means toward further ends, namely, their attention, engagement, and data. The algorithm's job is to sort through users’ information and curate it in ways that maximize profit. This generally results in the spread of bullsht because what determines information as worth spreading does not depend on that information’s truth value. However, when users can curate their own content by judging for themselves what information they wish to retrieve from relays; when it’s left to each user to decide what content is valuable and what isn’t; when users themselves can determine what is worth censuring and not be subject to the interests of a centralized server, the aim is clearly to place autonomy back into their hands. What’s important, though, is that autonomy has a certain purpose in the Nostr context: to allow people to create at all protocol levels. Part of what a centralized server does is create a fixed infrastructure that greatly restricts what users may do on the platform (the chief restriction being to yield as much profit as possible for shareholders.) Creators especially are affected by this because the value they contribute to the platforms is filtered through what will necessarily constrain it. Nostr, however, is different. What largely motivates the value of autonomy is the desire to let creators create content freely and without outside constraints, which, of course, is to provide them freedom of expression. By users having the freedom to build and the autonomy to curate and choose what content is personally valuable to a user, truth becomes highly relevant within the context. Now, if Mill is right when he says that only true beliefs have any utility (and false beliefs necessarily lead one astray in some sense,) users who produce content will be highly incentivized to track the truth, to have an accurate representation of it, because to fail at this will result in unappealing content due to its lack of value. No centralized authority is supposed to be able to force something to appear valuable; it’s up to the users to determine this. And if something will endure and not fade once the reasons why it may have trended disappear, it needs to track the truth. If it doesn’t, if it only matters to people because it is sensational or cheap, if it’s bullsht, it will always lose in the long run.Since people on Nostr have the autonomy to build and curate their own content, unlike social media, there is less at play that can ossify the network. There must be a great deal of motion because, in principle, no user or client can monopolize the space. This built-in fluidity captures an important aspect of truth-seeking, which John Milton expressed when saying, “Knowledge thrives by exercise… Truth is compared in scripture to a streaming fountain; if her waters flow not in a perpetual progression, they sicken into a muddy pool of conformity and tradition.” Everyone has to earn their success on Nostr, so the principal way to do this is to create something valuable. Again, if Mill is right, the value must largely be derived from the truth that the content represents, creating an incentive to care for the truth. Bullsh*t can’t be forcefully distributed because it maximizes some desired metric. Information is chiefly distributed by individual users valuing it.Nostr provides a way to see if Mill was right in thinking only true beliefs have any real value. Since the intention is to move away from social media’s business model, there is an opportunity to determine whether people will naturally choose the truth through their own autonomous decision-making. If there are no algorithms that aim to seize and maximize user attention, people are free to choose what content they wish to consume. It is a choice whether truth prevails over its opposite in the Nostr context because individuals are incentivized to contribute what they want to see. And if things go astray, people can fix it by creating something better.Notes:For a similar but far more elaborate, comprehensive, and complex argument of this kind, see John Vervaeke’s Awakening From the Meaning Crisis on YouTube.For an elaboration on free speech justifications, see Greenawalt, K. (2007). Free Speech Justifications. Colombia Law Review.For a history of Free speech, see Jacob Mchangama’s book Free Speech: Socrates to Social Media.Kant, I. (1784). What is Enlightenment? (p. 1). Hacket Publishing.This is not to suggest wokism is the sole culprit of this cultural trend. It’s one example amongst others on all parts of the political spectrum. But it’s an important example because wokism aims to be virtuous and moral. Therefore, it’s a good example because it is important to question whether their moral claims are correct. Furthermore, a plausible reply on the part of one who may subscribe to something like wokism (whatever that means precisely) is that it isn’t the duty of those who have been oppressed to teach those they consider to be oppressors. The duty falls on the latter. This is a challenging question to settle, and it makes up the potentially unbridgable gulf between wokism and its opponents. But if empathy is a virtue (or a vital moral response), it’s central that everyone exercises it, not just those who are held to be guilty of something.Simpson, R. M. (2024). The Connected City of Ideas. Daedalus.Harari, N. Y. (2024). Nexus. Random House.Eisenstein, E. L. (1979). The Printing Press as an Agent of Change (p. 45). Cambridge University Press.Melchert, N. (2007). The Great Conversation (p. 304). Oxford University Press.Melchert, N. (2007). The Great Conversation. Oxford University Press.Wagner, C. (2012). Scientia Moralitas (Moral Autonomy and Responsibility - The Reformation’s Legacy in Today’s Society). Scientia Moralitas Research Institute.Fromm, E. (1941). Escape From Freedom (p. 54). Discus.James, W. (1902). The Varieties of Religious Experience (p. 54). Penguin Classics.Dreyfus, H., & Kelly, S. D. (2011). All Things Shining: Reading the Western Classics to Find Meaning in a Secular Age (p. 122). Free Press.Dreyfus, H., & Kelly, S. D. (2011). All Things Shining: Reading the Western Classics to Find Meaning in a Secular Age (p. 122). Free Press.Aristotle, A. (1953). Ethics (p. 122). Penguin Classics.Schumacher, E. (1977). A Guide For the Perplexed. Harper Colophon Books.As Isaiah Berlin makes clear in his essay Two Concepts of Liberty, it is easy to see how positive freedom may easily lead to foolish and immoral action due to its purposeful nature. It is quite challenging to dissuade someone that what they believe to be their purpose in life, their ultimate meaning, relies on false premises.Fromm, E. (1941). Escape From Freedom. Discus.Chalmers, A. (1974). What is this thing called Science? Hacket Publishing.Descartes, R. (2010). Meditations on First Philosophy. Oxford World's Classics.See Bertrand Russel’s The History of Western Philosophy for how Descartes's argument is logically invalid. He can’t doubt that some process of thinking is occurring, but whether something is doing the thinking isn’t obvious.Locke, J. Two Treatises on Government.Justice Holmes made the Marketplace metaphor popular in Abrams v United States (1919), and has become a central precedent in free speech cases.For a similar argument, see Nevin Chellappah’s “Is John Stuart Mill’s Account of Free Speech Sustainable In the Age of Social Media?”Ryle, G. (1949). The Concept of Mind. Penguin.Frankfurt, H. (1986). Bullshit. Princeton University Press.To see the Socratic function in real time, watch The Joe Rogan Experience episode #2171. Eric Weinstein demonstrates what it means for an expert to engage with someone outside their respective field who claims to have knowledge that overturns the discipline but with no professional training to back it up. His attitude demonstrates a care for truth. @yakihonne

@ 6b7c438e:fc81aab3

Taryn Christiansen @ DoraHacksSpecial thanks to Eric Zhang for in-depth discussions.A mirror post on Dora Research Blog is available: https://research.dorahacks.io/2024/12/24/free-speech-foundation Intro:This article will argue that truth-based justifications for free speech are inappropriate within the social media context.1 Flooding the market with more information doesn’t necessarily force truth to emerge and bob at the surface. No matter how much information is pumped into a space filled with falsehoods and deception, if the right mechanisms aren’t in place, the area will only grow more chaotic and overcrowded, and therefore all the more easier to get lost in it. As an instrument to obtain knowledge of the truth, free speech has to be properly used, and people need to know how to use it.That isn’t to say that the tap should be shut off and that free speech should be curtailed; other justifications are perfectly reasonable, as will be seen below. But the idea that what we’re up to on social media is seeking out the truth only produces more confusion about what we collectively take to be sources of trustworthy information that is accurate and sincere. We would be better off if social media were viewed as an information network that is distinct from other spaces that are generally considered places where we obtain reliably true beliefs.But other spaces have the potential to be a more appropriate target for truth-based justifications for free speech, one of which is Nostr. Because of Nostr’s fully decentralized and open nature, which allows for innovation at all levels of its protocol, people have more opportunity to create valuable content that will only be distributed across the network because it is in fact valuable. The algorithms on social media force content to be valuable because there are standards that aim at maximizing user engagement in cheap and overstimulating ways. It doesn’t matter to these mechanisms whether something is true or not. What matters first is whether something promotes the ends of the social media companies, which are primarily driven by maximizing profits through ads and attention. Achieving this goal means reducing users' autonomy in picking and choosing what content to consume. Nostr aims to give the users their autonomy back by freeing developers to build both relays and clients. If users can make decisions that aren’t influenced by social media’s algorithmic decision-making, then it can be discerned whether truth is naturally relevant to people in these kinds of information networks, as well as whether people really desire to care for the truth.Section 1:It should be assumed at this point in history2, especially in liberal democracies, that the freedom to express one’s mind is inseparable from a basic conception of human dignity. If one is prohibited from freely discussing and challenging prevailing beliefs or forced to conform to a point of view that was not arrived at by using one’s own rational and reflective faculties, then human dignity suffers. There’s a reason Socrates went around the Athenian marketplace and tirelessly questioned the people he encountered there. He wasn’t interested in forcing people to submit to specific beliefs. Socrates wanted people to realize and reflect on whether what they believed was true or not, and therefore if it was something worth believing in. But integral to this project is the idea that people have to think through the questions themselves and not rely on an authority. Authority may be right; it may hold true beliefs and assert rational demands, but it doesn’t mean anything unless people themselves know the way to them. This requires the individual to be willing to develop what’s necessary for this.John Milton was right when he wrote in his 1644 pamphlet Areopagatica, which was directed against the English Parlament’s order for licensing books, that “A man may be a heretic in the truth… If he believes things only because his pastor says so, or the assembly so determines, without knowing other reasons, though his belief be true, yet the very truth he holds becomes his heresy.” People must be free to reason for themselves, to arrive at truths through the use of their own faculties, to develop their individual conscience, which, by its nature, must be exercised by the individual’s will and not by an externally imposed authority. Immanuel Kant’s call to the Enlightenment, Sapere aude! - “Have courage to use your own reason!”3 - is a call to actualize human dignity through the use of one’s reason. These faculties cannot be cultivated unless the individual can express him or herself freely.Woke culture is an illustrative example of how there is a connection between free speech and human dignity. It shows that when the strategy is to problematize and silence people, no matter how noble or virtuous the goal is believed to be, it only perpetuates a cycle of frustration and anger. The problem with woke culture isn’t necessarily their ideals. We all would agree, or should at least, that people should respect the basic dignity of others, treat everyone as persons, empathize with those with a different experience, and learn and grow from one another’s unique perspective. These are all good things; they’re profoundly valuable. The issue is how woke culture formulated and implemented their interpretations of what these notions amount to, what they call for, and what moral duties they demand. One of its principal goals has been to discern how historical oppressors should atone for previous wrongdoings. Many have come to understand this as meaning that those who come from those lineages are, in some sense, problematic and that, therefore, proponents of wokism have the duty to silence them, to condemn them, to act as if they are a net negative to the social good, and to impose a punishment of silence to atone for the past. This has been a grave mistake. Instead of engaging in a dialogue to reach the other person’s conscience, those who bore this duty have tended to sermonize in a sanctimonious, demeaning way, which only shuts people down and turns off the parts of the brain that promote learning and development, and turns on what generates combative and defensive behavior. The typical approach in woke culture has been enormously undemocratic in spirit due to its preference to force people to adopt reasons rather than opening people up to consider them in their proper light, namely, as claims about morality that make demands on the conscience of the person, which can only be properly understood and felt through the use of his or her own faculties. Woke culture, which offers some genuine insight into the world's contemporary moral situation, failed to respect the dignity of those they wished to persuade by using coercive measures instead of appealing to their conscience. Free speech is absolutely necessary in an endeavor like this because only by upholding such a social practice will everyone’s basic dignity be respected, which is integral to people being open to changing their minds. Moral debates within society should never devolve into a contest of wills. This only undermines the foundation of a democratic community, the basic pillar being human dignity.4But although free speech bears a necessary connection to human dignity, it does not bear the same relation to truth. For free speech to bear a proper relation to truth, one where free speech produces a high probability of tracking it, those seeking out truth must have the right psychological orientation toward it; otherwise, the two easily come apart. In his recent book Nexus, Yoel Noah Harari presents a clear way of seeing this. Harari criticizes what he calls the ‘naive view of information,’ which “argues that by gathering and processing much more information than individuals can, big networks achieve a better understanding of medicine, physics, economics, and numerous other fields, which makes the network not only powerful but wise.” The notion of wisdom is key. While it’s theoretically possible that an information network can be wise (especially with the development of better AI), it will be useless unless human beings have some idea about what wisdom is. If they don’t, then they’ll have to just assume that the information being presented was properly arrived at, i.e., with the wisdom necessary for obtaining truth, which will, in effect, create a servility to the information network and not to the human faculties necessary for discerning and knowing the truth. To use a distinction made by Plato, they will have an opinion about the truth, not knowledge. To know means to understand the reasons why something is the case, not just that it is the case.Harari’s book is important because the naive view of information he presents is prevalent and is most often expressed in the marketplace of ideas metaphor. In essence, the metaphor suggests that free speech operates like a free market because, by allowing individuals to pursue and satisfy their preferences freely, the truth will somehow outcompete falsehoods. Either because people’s preferences are more deeply satisfied by truth, and/or because the beliefs people hold will only have any real value (or utility) when they are true, when they accurately represent reality. But in a marketplace, “people don’t reliably ‘buy’ truths. People buy the ideas they like. And people don’t reliably like truths better than falsehoods. What the invisible hand does, all going well, is efficiently allocate goods to people based on what they want.”5 For truth to reliably outcompete falsehoods, consumers must have a particular orientation around truth. Unless we think ideas are true based solely on their utility, which is itself not a very useful notion, more has to be said as to why consumers would desire the truth over anything else in a marketplace of ideas. Everyone has opinions they cherish and hold to be, in some way, fundamental to themselves and their identities. It is perfectly conceivable that someone will reject any truth that conflicts with these deeply valued sentiments. For a free competition of ideas to track and produce true information, consumers have to want truth to win out, and this desire should motivate the consumer’s decision-making. In other words, one must bear a special psychological orientation toward truth for the marketplace metaphor to be an appropriate model for understanding free speech as being justified for the sake of truth. Again, free speech is important for other reasons, such as human dignity. But whether free speech is justified for the sake of truth is a separate question, and until the proper stance is taken toward truth, truth-based justifications are inapplicable.The fact that the distribution of more and more information doesn’t bear a necessary connection to truth can also be gleaned from historical examples. When a technology revolutionizes human information networks, which allows for information to be shared more efficiently and in larger quantities than ever before, the society that implements it does not therefore obtain a higher fidelity to truth. The opposite is equally plausible. This is the problem facing social media. If truth-based justifications are an appropriate way to justify free speech practices on such platforms, social media must create an environment that promotes the proper psychological orientation toward truth. What matters is whether they can care for the truth rather than adopt a stance that promotes what the philosopher Harry Frankfurt called bullsh*t, which means to be indifferent toward truth. Before explaining this further, let’s look at a historical example that demonstrates the following: First, as new technology arrives and transforms information networks, the information that is consequently distributed can equally promote both what is true and what is not; and second, and more philosophically, the technology can also reorient a society’s relationship to truth, which in turn affects how the society arrives at knowledge.Section 2:Take the invention of the Gutenberg printing press in 1440. Before its inception, the Catholic Church made Western Europe effectively an echo chamber. They dominated the information networks by controlling what could be printed, distributed, and accredited as knowledge. The vast majority of the population couldn’t read, and only a select few could read the Holy writings, which contained information that was considered the highest truth attainable by human beings. Only a select few were blessed enough to be able to handle this sort of information. Because all other information flowed from this central institution, everyone else depended on the Church for what to believe. The reality of that situation, and what it must have felt like to be in such a dependent position, can begin to be imagined by considering the following: “In the thirteenth century the library of Oxford University consisted of a few books kept in a chest under St. Mary’s Church. In 1424 the library of Cambridge University boasted a grand total of only 122 books. An Oxford University decree from 1409 stipulated that ‘all recent texts’ studied at the university must be unanimously approved ‘by a panel of twelve theologians appointed by the archbishop.’”6 When the quantity of information is this low, and in the context of the Catholic Church, is also greatly limited in diversity, it’s difficult even to imagine anything outside the worldview that is being imposed.Now, alongside the Church’s control of information networks, the production efficiency of copyists and scribes who had to manufacture the books was dismally low. It exponentially grew when the printing press automated the work. The historian Sir John Harold Clapham wrote, “A man born in 1453, the year of the fall of Constantinople, could look back from his fiftieth year on a lifetime in which about eight million books had been printed, more perhaps than all the scribes of Europe had produced since Constantine founded his city in A.D. 330.”7 The restriction on information and people’s inability to consider anything outside of the prevailing tradition, as well as the technological and productive inefficiency of the time, left most people in darkness, with no way out other than by following the dim, consoling light cast by the Church. The printing press changed all of this. “It revolutionized the world,” as the philosopher Francis Bacon said.The printing press gave people the autonomy to print and distribute ideas that the Church didn’t authorize and thereby provided the platform necessary for the Reformation to take hold, which started with Martin Luther in the early sixteenth century. There were previous attempts at reform, but the printing press made a momentous difference. The concurrence of the printing press and the Reformation revealed the corrosive corruption within the Catholic Church. People were finely able to learn about the degenerate tendencies within the institution, which the Church was previously able to stifle because it controlled the information networks. The buying and selling of Church positions and indulgences that allowed people to pay their way out of purgatory, political intrigue, nepotism, bribery, and immoral consolidation of wealth through taxes was disclosed as a consequence of the printing press. The notion that the Church was the medium by which people moved toward God’s grace collapsed, and people saw that “it had become a means of securing worldly prestige, power, and wealth for those who were clever and ruthless enough to bend it to their will.”8But this historical occurrence also unleashed a flurry of misinformation. The religious wars that followed the Reformation were devastating, and millions of people died, an exceptional case being the Thirty Years War (1618-48). The dissemination of Luther’s 95 theses regarding the corruption of the Church spread like wildfire across Europe after he posted them in 1516 on the Church Castle in Wittenberg, Germany, which the printing press made possible. It would only make sense, then, that the Church would follow suit and take advantage of the technology to combat what it held to be heresy and to reinstate its power as the dominant influence in the West (for an amalgam of reasons, of course.) All sides involved in these religious disputes didn’t merely use the printing press to disseminate accurate information. They used it to spread misinformation to satisfy their political interests, intensifying the ensuing wars and battles between the various emerging religious sects and the rising monarchies.This demonstrates the first point: the printing press, which was a revolution in human information networks, produced both true and false information. There was no causal, historical determinacy one way or the other. While it disclosed truths about Church corruption, it was also used as a means to spread political propaganda that fueled the religious wars.Now, as for the second, more philosophical point, the Reformation also reoriented people’s relation to truth by democratizing matters of faith. Whether one believes the Reformation was, in this respect, an overall good or not, from a liberal democratic point of view, it has to be considered good. The Reformation placed faith into the hands of the individual conscience, rendering considerations about one’s standing in relation to God to have a personal, rather than institutional, significance. Before, “the Church was the keeper and protector of Christian truths and the harbor of salvation for those at sea in sin.”9 Luther rejected this picture of salvation and believed one could be saved through faith and scripture alone, without an intermediary. Luther thought that one’s spiritual significance did not depend on authority. He didn’t see the Church as some emanation from God or a reflection of a Divine order that the individual participated in and was guided by to reach salvation. Individuals are solely responsible for their spiritual significance and capacity to reach a higher truth in God. In one of his more heroic acts, he translated the bible into vernacular German from the traditional Latin (which was considered the holy language, the only one appropriate for capturing religious truths). He gave common people access to what was previously sealed off from them. The individual, free from external imposition and constraint, can privately attain truth on his or her own.Luther formulated a radical inner freedom that broke with some of the Church’s fundamental precepts. There was, of course, an inner freedom already present in Catholicism, but Luther placed it at the center of things rather than as revolving around an institution. Before Luther, St. Augustine went to great lengths to demonstrate the spiritual significance of an inner life, and Luther was an Augustinian monk. But Luther went much further than him. In one of his lectures on YouTube, the philosopher Michael Sugrue observes that this amounted to a kind of Copernican Revolution in religion. That is to say that, rather than the Church being the axis by which things revolve around and where one finds his or her salvation, rather than identifying with an institution by which one finds freedom within a corporate body in which lies their place amongst others in a perfectly ordered, hierarchical, and harmonious cosmos, the individual became the center axis of spiritual and religious matters. It’s easy to see, then, how this theological idea possesses the potential to develop into the idea of individual rights and liberties. Luther provided a kind of autonomy10 for the individual, where whether one is saved is bound up with one’s inner conscience and not with external works or good deeds that the Church facilitates. The individual is an irreducible unit of value that is not subsumed by any other worldly object. And the individual's value rests in their conscience and capacity to receive God’s grace. This idea has sparks of the modern sense of human dignity, and it will create a conflagration throughout Europe as it develops. If there is no Church or institution to settle one’s moral, spiritual, and intellectual significance, one is left to use one’s faculties for guidance. And because it is one’s faculties that attain truth and spiritual salvation, they are the center of value in human life, which bears a natural right for protection.At the Diet of Worms in 1521, where Luther had to answer to charges of heresy because of his theological work, the Church demanded that he recant. He refused. But the reasons for his refusal are the most important. He demanded that the Church show him through scripture and reason alone that he was wrong and not through the dictates of authority. His protest demonstrated that the individual can reach the truth through his or her own means. The Church’s decline began far before this historical moment, but Luther made the decisive blow that the printing press made possible. The Church fragmented as a consequence, which, to Catholics, meant truth itself was fragmented and resulted in a proliferation of denominations scattered across Europe.Section 3:What was so subversive about Luther in this respect is that he divorced sanctification, the process by which one lives in the image of Christ, i.e., a life of virtue, from self-transformation. Although Luther carved out the individual as an irreducible unit of value, this also severed the individual from a stable and definite path that assuaged one’s existential suffering: “The Church… assured the individual of her unconditional love to all her children and offered a way to acquire the conviction of being forgiven and loved by God. The relationship to God was more one of confidence and love than of doubt and fear.”11 Luther believed that one was saved through faith alone and by no other means. He thought that because human beings are all sinners, their wills cannot do anything to reach salvation and spiritual peace. How, then, can one tell if they have been saved? There is no longer an authority to adjudicate this. The individual can discover the truth for themself and so must determine what this means on their own. Several centuries later, Kant gave voice to the duty he believed to arise from this new freedom:Thus, it is difficult for any individual man to work himself out of the immaturity that has all but become his nature. He has even become fond of this state and for the time being is actually incapable of using his own understanding, for no one has ever allowed him to attempt it. Rules and formulas, those mechanical aids to the rational use, or rather misuse, of his natural gifts, are the shackles of a permanent immaturity. Whoever threw them off would still make only an uncertain leap over the smallest ditch, since he is unaccustomed to this kind of free movement. Consequently, only a few have succeeded, by cultivating their own minds, in freeing themselves from immaturity and pursuing a secure course.So, while much was gained during the Reformation, the reorientation around truth also had consequences. Self-transformation, the effort of will, the idea of having an inner and outer journey that culminates into something larger and more significant, took on radically different meanings under Luther and the future Protestant countries. To see this, we can turn to Dante’s Divine Comedy, which demonstrates part of what was lost under Luther.Section 4:In Dante’s Divine Comedy, the culmination of the Medieval worldview before Luther, Dante embarks on a Christian pilgrimage that ends in his being saved. Just as with the above, it’s crucial to understand that the point here will not be exclusively religious but universal in the sense that religion, as manifested across all cultures, didn’t create this experience but was the medium by which it has been expressed and made sense of; it provides it a voice. This goes back to William James and his book The Varieties of Religious Experience. There is the private aspect of religious experience, and then there is the institutional component within which the private side takes shape. Buddhists practice meditation and strive to contemplate Nirvana; the Christian prays and goes to mass; the Stoics distance themselves from their inaccurate emotional representations and contemplate what is rational and in his or her control; and so forth. As James points out, what is fundamental to all religious experience, in the private sense, are two aspects: there is an uneasiness, which, “reduced to its simplest terms, is a sense that there is something wrong about us as we naturally stand;” and two, a solution, which “is a sense that we are saved from the wrongness by making proper connection with the higher powers (508).” The first aspect means the self is in conflict, is divided, and desires unification. In religious language, the self seeks salvation and an experience of being saved from their situation, which is characterized by suffering due to inner division and conflict. This can take on an existential mode, as with Leo Tolstoy in his book Confessions, or it can be highly moral. In Tolstoy’s book Confessions, he relates a story of a traveler being chased by a beast that imaginatively captures the relevant phenomena:Seeking to save himself from the fierce animal, the traveler jumps into a well with no water in it; but at the bottom of this well he sees a dragon waiting with open mouth to devour him. And the unhappy man, not daring to go out lest he should be the prey of the beast, not daring to jump to the bottom lest he should be devoured by the dragon, clings to the branches of a wild bush which grows out of one of the cracks of the well. His hands weaken, and he feels that he must soon give way to certain fate; but still he clings, and sees two mice, one white, the other black, evenly moving round the bush to which he hangs, and gnawing off its roots. The traveler sees this and knows that he must inevitably perish; but while thus hanging he looks about him and finds on the leaves of the bush some drops of honey. These he reaches with his tongue and licks them off with rapture. Thus I hang upon the boughs of life, knowing that the inevitable dragon of death is waiting ready to tear me, and I cannot comprehend why I am thus made a martyr. I try to suck the honey which formerly consoled me; but the honey pleases me no longer, and day and night the white mouse and the black mouse gnaw the branch to which I cling. I can see but one thing: the inevitable dragon and the mice—I cannot turn my gaze away from them.”12Clearly, Tolstoy is suffering from a serious existential episode in which he can’t find a purpose or meaning in life that will clear away his anxiety, which is represented in the dragon, which time, represented in the mice, slowly draws him near. This is his “uneasiness.” He must find a solution, then, because his situation is unlivable.Religion has historically addressed this need. In the Middle Ages, the Church was the institution through which people expressed this experience and resolved their inner conflicts, tensions, and divisions. Let’s turn to Dante’s Divine Comedy to see how the private aspect of this experience is made sense of through Christain’s notion of the pilgrimage.The poem begins with Dante suddenly becoming aware of himself, “Midway upon life’s journey,” as he says, and terrified by the fact that he’s lost in a dark world, having “gone astray,” and is in despair because he has begun to lose all hope for himself. “We know nothing of how Dante has gone astray, only that he has, and that he must undertake a journey, therefore, to save his soul.”13 He is, like Tolstoy, experiencing an “uneasiness” (though in more of a moral rather than existential sense; God is always present for Dante.) So, he has discovered that he has been living wrongly, that he’d strayed from the right path, from the way, and despite his attempts to free himself of his sins and burdens, he’s unable to do it alone. Although it’s unclear why Dante has lost his way, “the journey itself is clearer. It will take him through the entire Christian spiritual universe.”14The Roman poet Virgil is sent to initiate and lead him on this path forward. Virgil represents all of Classical learning, from the Greeks to the Romans. Though they were pagans, they represent the highest one can do as a non-Christian, which is to reach, as Aristotle said, the contemplative life15, where one can reflect on the Whole, on the cosmos. But because they didn’t have faith, they could never experience a fullness of being or completeness that produces the solution to the uneasiness that James discussed. According to Christian doctrine, only Christians may experience this. Thus, they had to remain in Hell.Now, for Dante to move down through Hell, climb up Purgatory, and then transcend into Heaven, he must engage with the Classical world by wrestling with the questions they set out to answer, which is an immensely difficult aim to take on; one that will transform the self as it moves through an activity and process of the soul, intellect, mind, or whatever it is that is the center in which human development toward the Good, as Plato would say, takes place. What’s fascinating about this ascent is that, in the Medieval worldview, it wasn’t merely an internal endeavor; it also bore a deep and profound relationship to the external world. By embarking on the Christian pilgrimage, one was, in a sense, becoming closer and closer to reality, to truth, to what is most real, which corresponded with a transformation of the self that is accompanied by an experience of fulfillment. As one ascends, one climbs what was called the Great Chain of Being, a metaphysical (ontological) thesis that was first articulated by Aristotle, which was adopted by, and adapted to, Christian thought in the thirteenth century.The Chain of Being introduces a vertical aspect to reality rather than merely a horizontal one. At the top is the highest Truth, and the lowest is the least real, i.e., the lowest level of being, which consists of matter and material objects, whereas the highest consists of what is immaterial, like consciousness or mind. And so everything and everyone grows increasingly heavier as Dante moves downward through Hell due to being weighed down by an attachment to the material, earthly substance, which produces a growing despair and lack of fulfillment. As Dante moves upward from Purgatory to Heaven, things become lighter and immaterial in proportion to how much something embodies the spiritual, divine substance, which is achieved through directing one’s desire toward the right objects, toward what is more real and true. In Plato’s allegory of the cave, as one breaks free from the chains and shadows at the bottom and climbs toward the exit where the sun can be seen, one also gains more and more insight into reality as things are illuminated more clearly through the light. Like Purgatory, the ascent up the cave is profound and challenging. But the initial insight of seeing into reality, which reveals that what was previously experienced was illusory, produces the desire to see even further into what now appears absolute and true. This desire pulls and aims Dante upward as he climbs higher toward reality and up the Great Chain of Being. The economist and philosopher E.F. Schumacher16 put the significance of this view as follows:The ability to see the Great Truth of the hierarchic structure of the world, which makes it possible to distinguish between higher and lower Levels of Being, is one of the indispensable conditions of understanding. Without it, it is not possible to find out where everything has its proper and legitimate place. Everything, everywhere, can be understood only when its Level of Being is fully taken into account. Many things are true at a low Level of Being and become absurd at a higher level, and of course vice versa.Dante’s pilgrimage, then, aims toward attaining a higher level of being than when he found himself lost in the forest. By turning inward, by engaging in a contemplative mode of being that engages the self in pursuit of an inner harmony that resonates with an external, hierarchic order, Dante is striving to attain a kind of freedom that is somewhat alien to us today. We can think of the notion of freedom in a negative and a positive sense. In the negative sense, freedom is understood as freedom from something; from external constraint, for example. The First Amendment is typically interpreted along these lines. Everyone is free to speak their minds because the state should not be allowed to interfere with our freedom to do so. All are free to do as they please as long as they do not infringe on another person’s right to do so.The positive sense is much different. It is a freedom for something. In Dante’s Hell, everyone found themselves there because they (at minimum) acted free purely in the negative sense. They lived their lives as they saw fit, without regard to any higher form of life. They didn’t act for the sake of a virtuous purpose (although that’s not quite right regarding the virtuous pagans and a few others.) To be free in the positive sense means to act according to a higher aim. When Socrates refused to renounce the philosophical life and was put to death, he made that decision based on a principle grounded in his inner conscience, which he took to express something sacred and higher, which always spoke to him when he was about to do wrong. He accepted the death penalty because the unexamined life wasn’t worth living; it had no purpose toward a higher aim17. 17Dante’s Divine Comedy provides a narrative by which the uneasiness one experiences in life, as articulated by James, can reach a solution and resolve the inner conflict and division by providing a framework by which the individual moves closer to reality, to what is most real, and up the Chain of Being.Section 5:Now, the pilgrimage captured in Dante’s poem was not something anyone could take up, at least not in its full dramatic content; it was obviously something only a select few could embark on, and this depended on the situation one was born into, like whether one was wealthy enough to receive an education. One’s salvation in the social order was rarely epic or heroic in nature; it typically meant following the structure imposed upon the individual by the Church. Just as how the cosmos was hierarchically ordered, so was society. The reasons for the social order were Divinely decreed. The social structure was immovable in a way because shifting the social order and rearranging it would violate scripture and God’s Word. Hence people were, as we would judge today, unfree and restricted. However, as psychologist Erick Fromm writes, “although a person was not free in the modem sense, neither was he alone and isolated. In having a distinct, unchangeable, and unquestionable place in the social world from the moment of birth, man was rooted in a structuralized whole, and thus life had a meaning which left no place, and no need, for doubt. A person was identical with his role in society; he was a peasant, an artisan, a knight, and not an individual who happened to have this or that occupation. The social order was conceived as a natural order, and being a definite part of it gave a feeling of security and of belonging.”18 Luther’s devastating blow against the Church in the Reformation rejected the social order and the Chain of Being and set in motion the release of the individual from the bondage they were restrained in. But by freeing the individual, he also eliminated the necessary self-transformation that played a substantial role in the Medieval worldview. Luther democratized salvation, spirituality, and questions about meaning in one’s life.This Copernican revolution in religious matters allowed for a radical reorientation toward truth, which relied on the printing press's efficiency in producing and distributing information.There were, of course, other factors that contributed to the Catholic Church's decline. The literal Copernican revolution and the rise of science being an obvious example. But what became increasingly less present in the scientific worldview that was emerging then is the idea that, as one gains knowledge of the world, one also goes through a transformative experience like Dante’s. The notion that knowledge of truth and reality converges with a meaningful and spiritual ethical development has mostly fallen off. Science’s aim is pure objectivity. For much of history, what is ‘objective’ is also intrinsically beneficial to the subject coming into contact with it. Values in scientific judgment and knowledge are a transgression, a violation of scientific precept, and are opposed to the whole epistemic enterprise (meaning a method by which knowledge is gained.) Science does not care about how one feels, what one desires in life, or what meaning one may find in it and simply presents facts as a body of indifferent and empirically verified knowledge.This is, of course, a caricature, as Thomas Kuhn19 argued in the twentieth century. Scientists certainly value their theories and are not merely attempting to refute them through experimentation. Theories allow scientists to have a grip on the world and a language of concepts that can be used to describe it accurately. This conceptual framework gives the world a theoretically intelligible and discernible order. And so once the anomalies and unsolved problems in a scientific paradigm grow serious enough, those working within it enter into a crisis until a new paradigm emerges (as is what happened when moving from Newtonian mechanics to Eistenin’s relativity.) Still, moving from one paradigm to the next isn’t believed to be an ethical progression. It’s a movement from one framework to the next. Unlike the Medieval worldview, it is generally held that science says nothing about human values and how one ought to live. Being a scientist does not suggest that someone is wise like a Socrates or Plato.Unlike the Church in the Middle Ages, which, in terms of knowledge, played a similar role to science today, science is not an institution that is in the business of handing out ethical and moral guidance. A scientist would likely balk (or should balk) at the idea of being viewed as someone who has gone through an ethical self-transformation to gain the knowledge that he or she has solely because of becoming a scientist. Being one of course requires an enormous amount of discipline, effort, and intelligence, which is, in a way, transformative, but in a different sense than what Dante embarked on. Today, knowledge of truth and reality does not necessarily correspond with an ethical progression.This idea of not requiring ethical self-transformation to gain the highest forms of knowledge is most noticeable in Rene Descartes’ philosophy in the seventeenth century. Descartes set out to rebuild a foundation through which knowledge could be rebuilt from the ruins left by the Church’s decline.20 The Church had lost its viability as something that could be believed to provide reliable knowledge for the social body. It was no longer psychologically obvious that the Church was the principal source and authority of appeal when dealing with matters of truth. Referring to scripture, for instance, could no longer be done by relying on what the Papacy had interpreted it as meaning. Luther (and others) undermined this immediacy for many. The United States faces a similar situation today. There is a diminishing trust in the democratic institutions that have historically served as distributors of trustworthy knowledge. Descartes attempted to deal with a similar crisis by discovering foundations immune from doubt. And he believed himself to have discovered such a foundation through his Cogito: I think, therefore I am. I can doubt all of my mental representations of the world, such as those of tables and chairs and coffee mugs, as well as my particular thoughts and feelings, and even the existence of my own body and sense experience. For all I know, I may be dreaming or being deceived by an evil demon into believing all kinds of imaginary and false representations of things. I can’t affirm or deny this with any certainty. But I cannot doubt that I am doubting; that much is certain. And since doubting is a property of thinking, I can’t doubt that I am thinking.Therefore, I am a thinking thing, an immaterial substance that is distinct from the physical bodies liable to doubt21. This is the most fundamental truth that not even reason could call into question. It’s radically different from truth as understood on the Chain of Being model. There is no ethical transformation involved in realizing this indubitable proposition. It’s self-evident to anyone rational and clear-minded (or so Descartes thinks.) And this is certainly how many people today think of knowledge. And in some cases, quite rightly. Take human rights as an example. John Locke22, a momentous figure who shaped the language of rights and how modernity thinks about them, argued that human rights are self-evident in the same sense as a geometric axiom. It just appears before the mind as something incapable of being doubted (to a clear, rational mind, of course, who has done the proper thinking, like someone who has rightly apprehended a geometric axiom.) The US’s founding document memorializes Locke’s claim: “We hold these truths to be self-evident.” The deepest, most profound truths about humanity are ‘obvious’ to any rational mind. This is, of course, a good thing. It is good that people intuitively find one another intrinsically and irreducibly valuable. But when this notion is taken for granted, when, as we’ll soon see with John Stuart Mill, an idea grows ossified, fixed, and dogmatic, it loses its potency and desired effect. But if one arrives at the idea of human rights through a transformative process, where one realizes the concept through a process of development and growth that culminates in seeing the profound value within a conscious human being, the notion of rights is animating and action-producing; it stirs and moves the motivation of those who go through this process. In other words, it produces a particular psychological orientation around what is believed to be true.Section 6:So, information technologies do not merely distribute previously unavailable information that is then propagated across a network. Nor does the production of such information bear a natural, necessary connection to truth. They can do both, but much more is at play. The printing press allowed for the conditions necessary for the Reformation to occur, and its occurrence produced a radical shift in the Medieval worldview. Truth was hierarchically organized, and those at the top had exclusive access. The Reformation leveled this structure and diffused the notion that all Christians are equal regarding Divine knowledge. There was no need for an authoritative intermediary to facilitate people’s relation to God. People could do it themselves through faith and scripture alone. But this also meant that all the social practices instituted for the purposes of coming into contact with truth, all the rituals and rites used to reinforce the beliefs of when and how truth manifests itself, slowly went with it. Therefore, people’s orientation around truth, how they conceived of it, where it resided, and how one knew it, was disrupted. People weren’t merely given previously unavailable information; the entire information landscape was turned upside down. This can reveal new terrain within the landscape that can lead to deep and valuable truths, such as human rights and liberties, and it can also conceal older, previously established truths, like the notion of transformative experiences being necessary for coming into closer contact with reality.Similarly to the printing press, social media poses a historical parallel. We can see this by looking at the most famous defense of free speech for the sake of truth, namely, John Stuart Mill’s essay On Liberty. We’ll see that, like how the printing press reoriented people’s relation to truth, social media is doing so by increasingly shifting how we conceive of, participate in, and come to know the truth. As a social practice, it’s shifting the culture toward different ways of arriving at truth. It's difficult to say whether it is categorically good or bad. But the focus here will be on what would certainly be a momentous loss in our social practices regarding truth, namely, a departure from Enlightenment values.There is a developing tendency to determine the truth through sheer will rather than discussion and a dwindling desire to correct this error. People seem to care less about deliberation, compromise, tolerance, and the general agreement that the goal is to come to an inclusive decision that is in the best interests of people who share a basic respect for each other’s dignity. All political orientations have growing factions that believe the content of other’s beliefs determines how they should be viewed and treated. Rather than work toward building a community that is able to cooperate with one another and agree on a uniting set of values, the cultural attitude is moving toward a competition between wills for power. But it’s not only behaviorally motivated by power; there is also the belief that all effort by a group toward an ideal is entirely reducible to power. That very well may be true. But if it is, democracy is in a precarious position. So, if we value democracy, we should steer back toward the proper path. For Mill’s account to work, which is crucial if we wish to justify free speech for the sake of truth in Enlightenment, democratic terms23, social media should not be viewed as a truth-seeking information network24. Mill believed free speech is necessary for human flourishing in a democratic society. If it’s the people who are going to be involved in the deliberative processes of society and be the ones choosing what is best, then the people must be able to discuss and exchange ideas, opinions, and beliefs freely. However, just like how the Medieval view operated within a certain orientation around truth, which provided a framework through which truth could be arrived at, so it is with democracy. And like the printing press, social media has placed enormous tension on our democratic orientation. So, if we desire to maintain democratic values derived from the Enlightenment, then we have to take a certain stance toward social media, one that eschews the expectation that truth is situated within its environments, where we expect to discuss, debate, hash things out, and arrive at truth.Now, On Liberty offers two sets of reasons supporting free speech, the first being epistemic, meaning that the benefits have to do with knowledge, while the other set is psychologically beneficial. The first set argues that free speech is an overall good for society because if what someone says is true or partially true, both possibilities benefit a democracy. If what is said is true, it will benefit because it professes a truth that will add to the preexisting stock of knowledge. If partially true, this also contributes to preexisting knowledge; “and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied.” The second psychological set of benefits is primarily derived from the utterance of false beliefs, which have no direct epistemic benefit because they do not contribute any knowledge to form beliefs around. If what is said is wholly false, the opportunity to defend and contest it will also be an overall good because it will demand that the bearers of that knowledge account for the reasons for its truth. Mill expresses this well: “Unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds.” This then produces a further psychological benefit. By remaining a prejudice and not as something rationally grasped, “the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost or enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect on the character and conduct; the dogma becoming a mere formal profession, inefficacious for good, but cumbering the ground and preventing the growth of any real and heartfelt conviction from reason or personal experience.” Therefore, contesting what is true will keep beliefs from devolving into prejudice or dogma.Section 7:The first thing to observe about Mill’s reasons for free speech is that the first set of epistemic reasons really depends on the second set (the psychological ones). But it’s peculiar to speak of the latter as ‘benefits’ because of this. It’s more accurate to say that a certain psychological orientation must give rise to them. We can think of this as a kind of feedback loop that produces the benefits Mill is speaking of. One must have the proper psychological orientation toward truth to break into this loop. That is to say that the members within a society must hold a psychological orientation toward truth that allows for the free expression of true, partially true, and false beliefs to be a net good, i.e., to bring about the best possible consequences within a democratic community. With the psychological reasons offered for free speech, notice that the benefit is derived from the speakers and listeners within the community being open to receiving true, partially true, or false utterances. The beliefs they hold must be perpetually open to revision because they may or may not be in possession of the actual true ones; they understand that their knowledge is an ongoing process, something that is constantly unfolding, and so hold a particular stance toward the free expression of beliefs.They would understand that, even in the best instances of human knowledge, the most stable kind (like knowledge of physics), it is still susceptible to be overturned by future evidence, as was the case with Newtonian mechanics and Einsteinian relativity. That is not to say truth is therefore unattainable, but only that there should be a fair degree of epistemic humility within a democratic, truth-seeking community, given that our best knowledge often falls far short of absolute certainty. As the psychological reasons specify, if the people within the community hold their beliefs as prejudices or dogmas that are fixed and unchangeable, they will be unreceptive to being challenged. So whatever anyone utters, whether true, false, or in between, it won’t provide the benefits Mill intended. There must be a certain psychological orientation toward truth for Mill’s argument to succeed.Let’s now specify what this orientation should look like and see how it’s vital in upholding free speech arguments for the sake of truth. There are three components to this orientation: (i) certain beliefs, (ii) certain desires, and (iii) certain attitudes born out of (i) and (ii). (i) consists of two beliefs. The first belief is that truth exists, and the second is that it is, in principle, knowable. (ii) consists of two desires as well. The first desire is to attain human flourishing, and the second is that truth is constitutive of this aim. Given that there is truth, one must also have the desire to attain it. But this is also a special kind of desire; it’s a desire that fulfills what must be viewed as a higher need, one that is constitutive of human flourishing or happiness. We can call this a fulfillment need. This means that we desire truth because it occupies a natural place in the space of human good. We will lack something fundamental to our flourishing if we don’t have contact with truth; we therefore both desire it and have a powerful motivation to attain it because we desire to flourish. Fulfillment needs should be understood as part of what constitutes this principal end in life that characterizes human excellence.For those who know Greek philosophy, this will sound familiar. As Aristotle says in his Ethics, all things aim at some final good. Achieving this good means for something to actualize its potential and attain excellence. The final aim of human beings is to flourish, or, in Greek, to attain eudaimonia, and to attain this means to achieve human excellence. Excellence, says Aristotle, means to fulfill the particular function assigned to a thing's nature. An eye’s function is to see, a car’s function is to drive, while the seed’s function is to grow into a plant. Human beings’ nature is to be rational, to optimize their cognition, to reduce error, and to reach the truth. Again, since the ultimate aim is to flourish, and because seeking truth is constitutive of that goal, we desire to know the truth as a fulfillment need, which helps satisfy the principal good in human life. Now, while Aristotle’s claim about human nature is of course disputable, if Mill’s argument for free speech is to work, and it’s important that it does, Aristotle’s account of human beings, or something resembling it, must be held within a democratic community.That being said, there’s a deep plausibility to the notion that humans have a fundamental need to be in contact with the truth, and presuming rationality is necessary for this, Aristotle may very well be right. In his lecture series Awakening From The Meaning Crisis, John Vervaeke offers a powerful example to illustrate this. Imagine your parents one day asking you to follow them into a hidden room you had never seen before inside your house on your eighteenth birthday. When you enter, you see a wall of monitors showing old footage of you throughout your life. Your parents then turn to you and say that your entire life has been an FBI experiment; everything has been manufactured. The love you thought to be sincere and nourishing, all the support you’ve received throughout the years, the holidays you have come to cherish, and the memories and feelings you’ve come to have are, in the most profound sense, fake. None of it was real. Your parents then tell you that you have two options. You can either act as if this incident had never happened and move on as usual, or you can move out and move on with your life. What’s the desirable option? Most of us would choose the latter. Why? Because none of what was thought to be real turned out to be true. It was all fabricated, illusory, and bore no substantive relation to reality. For the majority of us (although hopefully everyone), there is no going back to the way things previously were. The truth makes a fundamental difference in the decision-making between the two options. By discovering that our life is untrue, we feel a deep absence, a lack of fulfillment, an incompleteness on account of what we’ve learned about ourselves. An essential aspect of the decision to move on, then, is a deep motivation to discover what is in fact true. It’s like Dante when he discovers himself lost in the dark forest. We’ve been led astray, and now we desire to find the right path, which is the one that converges with truth, with what is most real. This is what happens to Jim Carrey in The Truman Show when he decides to leave that disturbing, manufactured simulation dome he was raised in. He could have stayed, but he was psychologically unable to. By obtaining this new self-knowledge, he would have never achieved eudaimonia. He would have remained stuck in life because he would have been bullsh*tting himself (again, I mean this in a technical sense and not simply as an explicative, which will be explained below.)This brings us to (iii), which is to bear a particular attitude toward truth provided (i) and (ii). The proper attitude toward truth is one of care. To care for the truth means to know how to reliably arrive at it, which means utilizing the relevant cognitive processes in forming true beliefs. Recall the quote at the beginning of the article from John Milton, which expressed that it is a heresy to arrive at a belief in the wrong way, namely, by not properly using one’s own reason. It matters, then, how we form our beliefs, and what matters is which cognitive processes are used to get there. For ease of presentation, we can use the psychologist Daniel Kahneman’s formulation of these cognitive processes from his book Thinking, Fast and Slow. Kahneman lays out two cognitive systems, System 1 and System 2. “System 1 operates automatically and quickly, with little or no effort and no sense of voluntary control.” Whereas “System 2 allocates attention to the effortful mental activities that demand it, including complex computations. The operations of System 2 are often associated with the subjective experience of agency, choice, and concentration (p. 21).” To see the difference, take the two following examples of arithmetic: “2 + 2 = ?” We have an immediate cognitive reflex to such an equation, and little to no effort is required. Filling in the answer resulted from System 1. “17 x 24 =?” Now this equation typically demands more effort. A reasoning process is engaged to determine the answer that requires concentrated effort and isn’t reflexively provided. Such a process is supplied by System 2. For another example, say someone is hiking and spots a tree in the distance. If such a person cares nothing for botany, then the object will have a great deal of transparency, and the person will carry on about their day. Such a process would be within System 1. But if the person is a trained botanist and has never seen this kind of tree before (say they’re in a foreign country), they may begin to observe it, inspect it, and direct their effort toward retrieving the relevant information that may help identify the tree. That person has engaged System 2.Caring for the truth means knowing how to optimize these two systems so that System 1 and System 2 are in a recurring dialogue with one another, with the aim to arrive at the truth. Now, there are at least two aspects to this idea of care. The first can be classed as having to do with general skills in critical thinking, which primarily consists of analysis. Examples are things like working out one’s cognitive biases and reducing error. In essence, being successful in this regard means being able to reason well and work through problems rationally. Take a case of confirmation bias, for example. Imagine a republican voter who believes certain conspiracy theories about the democratic party and who is watching a presidential debate and hears the Republican candidate make an assertion attributing misconduct to the Democratic candidate. Because the assertion confirms the prior beliefs of the voter who is watching, it will be easy for that person to immediately agree with what was said. Engaging System 2 is effortful and costly in mental energy, and so it is easier, as well as cognitively more pleasurable, to passively (probably unconsciously) consent to System 1’s impulse, which presents the Republican candidate’s statement as attractive and belief-worthy. If this person cares for the truth, however, he or she would engage System 2 upon receiving what System 1 has provided with the aim of verifying whether the assertion accurately represents or corresponds to reality. Perhaps the person reasons through the assertion. If the candidate said something like, "Inflation has skyrocketed due to the current administration, which she’s a part of,” the voter watching may reason that, while it’s true inflation has risen, her position in the administration bears little to no significance on that outcome; therefore, the assertion is misinformed. Or perhaps the voter doesn’t understand government structure very well and does research, visits several sources, and concludes based on the information that the assertion is misinformed and implies an invalid conclusion. Whatever the route taken, the voter is presented with the potential to make a cognitive error through System 1, and because he or she cares for the truth, System 2 is utilized to solve the task presented.Competence in this aspect of care, which means to be a competent critical thinker, consists of knowing how to obtain propositional knowledge, which is knowledge that accurately represents reality. One has the tools and skills to work through assertions, analyze arguments, and appropriately form beliefs according to the evidence. One can situationally respond by engaging System 2 when one detects that System 1 is presented with information expressing propositions about the world. Someone who has mastered these skills has developed dispositions that engage the relevant cognitive behavior under the relevant conditions. In other words, such a person knows how to instinctively and properly respond to the appropriate cognitive stimuli.25The second aspect of caring for truth is deeper than this and, like Dante’s journey, more transformative. Caring for truth in this sense means optimizing System 1 and System 2 by using them to shape one’s conception of the good. What reason, for example, would this argument, rather than another one, be more relevant to someone competent in critical thinking? Why care about what this person has to say rather than that one? Answers to these questions will suggest the underlying conception of the good that is assumed when one finds one set of information more salient. In other words, the second aspect of caring for truth means understanding one’s conception of eudaimonia, or flourishing, which is one’s final aim and idea of human excellence. Critical thinking in the propositional sense is a highly valuable set of skills that is fundamental to the whole project of pursuing truth. But what it consists of does not provide a final criteria to judge what one should believe about human flourishing and what it amounts to. It plays a vital role in articulating and grasping this goal but won’t deliver it. In other words, critical thinking is a powerful tool in reaching one’s goals, but it itself cannot bestow the goals themselves. This requires the second aspect of caring for truth, which means optimizing System 1 and System 2 to become aware of what final end is guiding their operation. Regardless of how much one engages in critical thinking, irrespective of one’s mastery of logic and reasoning, if one never utilizes these skills toward understanding what provides the salience of one set of information over another, they may never satisfy their fulfillment need for truth.Tolstoy’s book, The Death of Ivan Illych, illustrates this. In the story the Russian protagonist, Ivan Illych, lives his life in pursuit of what is pleasant. He shuns the annoyances and discomforts that arise in life and views them, in a way, as unnatural, as occurrences that disrupt how life should be. His goal in life is to maximize pleasure and avoid pain and suffering. He’s not, however, a Don Quixote or an extreme hedonist; he’s not trying to experience all the possible pleasures one may have. He wants to live a successful and acceptable life that commands the esteem of his colleagues, makes his family happy, comfortable, and at ease, and allows him to pass through life with as few disturbances as possible. He holds a very familiar and common conception of the good.And Ivan does in fact find this success. He rises to be a great and respectable judge in Russia. He’s highly competent, makes a substantial living, and can buy and provide his family with whatever he pleases. Yet he finds himself running into the disturbances he’s always tried to avoid. He’s constantly fighting with his wife:There remained only rare periods of amorousness that came over the spouses, but they did not last long. These were islands that they would land on temporarily, but then they would put out again to the sea of concealed enmity that expressed itself in estrangement from each other. This estrangement might have upset Ivan Ilyich, if he had considered that it ought not to be so, but by now he took this situation not only as normal, but as the goal of his activity in the family. His goal consisted in freeing himself more and more from these unpleasantnesses and in giving them a character of harmlessness and decency; and he achieved it by spending less and less time with his family, and when he was forced to do so, he tried to secure his position by the presence of outsiders.He’s experiencing the “uneasiness” formulated by William James above. His solution is not to reflect on his final end in life, his conception of the good, his idea of human flourishing and excellence, but to find other means to attain it, which is to turn away from what he’s representing as unnatural and frustrating. He’s not deficient in critical thinking; he’s a highly competent and successful judge. He lacks the wisdom and self-knowledge necessary for reflecting on and evaluating what makes some things and not others salient for him, which is his goal in life to live pleasantly. There’s a reason why he finds spending less time with his family a more obvious solution than trying to get at the root of why it is he feels so frustrated and annoyed at the fact that he’s not feeling fulfilled despite his success; and he’s not utilizing System 1 and System 2 to investigate that reason, i.e., he’s not caring for truth in the second sense. It’s only until he is faced with a random, coincidental death that he realizes he hadn’t been searching for a solution to his “uneasiness” that converged with truth. Not truth in the propositional sense, but truth regarding human flourishing and excellence. Insofar as he was unable or unwilling to direct his cognition toward what was guiding it, he remained incapable of progressing and transforming toward an aim that would afford him self-awareness, self-knowledge, and, ultimately, eudaimonia.Both aspects of caring for truth matter if Mill’s benefits are to be obtained. It matters propositionally (the first aspect of care) because critical thinking and analysis are necessary for seeing information clearly and discerning whether something maps onto the world. But caring for the first aspect alone will only clear the fog, so to speak, and allow one to see the landscape with more specificity and definition. It will provide knowledge about the causal regularities that govern the territory and the predictable patterns that follow from them. It will not, however, indicate what to do with that knowledge or inform one of what it means. For free speech to be justified for the sake of truth, which means free speech plays a substantial, instrumental role in sorting out the true information from the false, people must care for the truth. They have to find it salient in the right ways. If people don’t care and don’t share the proper desire to pursue it, then no amount of discussion will necessarily bring the community any closer to the truth. They may easily settle for something else.Section 8:The claim, then, is that social media does not warrant truth-based justifications for free speech. Because social media platforms don’t promote or incentivize the psychological orientation necessary for truth-seeking but reward the opposite behaviors, the idea that one is seeking truth within such a context is false. The view that social media as a public space is best characterized as a social practice that aims toward truth has generated an insidious confusion within the culture, and we would be better off by evaluating it differently. Social media is certainly an information network, but it’s wrong to presume all information networks are oriented toward truth production.To see this, think of a university. The principal purpose of this institution is to generate knowledge (there are other purposes, of course, but put those aside.) Now, there are many parts to the structure of a university, but let’s zoom in on the classroom environment. Within it, there’s a hierarchy in place. The teacher’s purpose is to guide the students through a curriculum, get them to think critically about the information, debate and discuss it, foster their abilities to engage with it, cultivate the necessary faculties for this, and to ensure that they learn something specific about the given information, as well as something general about learning, something they can use in all cases. To achieve this, the teacher must orient the students around truth-seeking, i.e., he or she must teach the students to care for the truth, as explained above. The teacher must challenge the students’ cognitive biases. Logical errors, bad reasoning, and lack of critical thinking have to be checked, corrected, and reinforced by the teacher.Ideally, the teacher will also help the students think critically about their conceptions of the good. In the ideal scenario, the teacher not only challenges their cognition but also fosters their ability to question what human flourishing and excellence looks like. It’s ideal because claiming that this is absolutely necessary for an information network to warrant being evaluated as a truth-seeking social practice is, perhaps, too high. But it is what one should aim for. However, it’s important to bear this in mind because it will be shown that, even if the threshold is lowered in this sense, social media still fails at what any information network that is correlated with truth should provide, which is to promote the proper analytical skills in getting clearer about reality.Now, an important reason universities are trusted as truth-seeking information networks is partly because of the teacher's role in distributing that information. It’s trusted as an institution because those who go through it are supposed to have been guided by experts who demonstrate how to pursue knowledge. Students who leave the institution are expected to have participated in a social practice that taught them to be competent in their field (and hopefully to be a good human being as well, whatever that means precisely) and who can now further distribute and utilize their knowledge by applying it to other domains within society. The teacher’s function within the institution is essential to this goal and fundamental to the trust granted to the institution itself. Let’s call this function a Socratic function.27Social media doesn’t have a Socratic function, and any information network trusted as a distributor of knowledge should have something resembling it. Worse than this, however, is that social media actually promotes cognitive behavior that is opposed to the whole project of pursuing truth. As an overarching, general pattern, social media reinforces and incentivizes things like cognitive bias (the immediate and intuitive presentations of System 1.) The whole business model is aimed at maximizing attention. People easily become addicted to these platforms and binge content endlessly. The only way to achieve this is by easing the user’s cognitive effort as much as possible and stimulating them with dopamine responses, allowing the user to enter a semi-hypnotic state. Of course, not everyone is affected like this; most people can assert moderation when using social media. But in an ideal world, one where social media is optimally thriving, everyone would be glued to their screens. Practical circumstances of course make this impossible, and therefore it wouldn’t truly be in social media’s interests because no one would show up for work, but if we turn the dial on the business goals of these platforms to the max, then this would be the logical consequence; it would maximize profits.Social media serves many purposes, though, and the claim is certainly not that it is, for these reasons, entirely bad. It’s only the contexts, circumstances, and situations in which it is reflexively represented as a competent and trusted information network that deals in matters of knowledge and truth that it creates an overall deficit. This is because of the intellectual and ethical confusion it produces, which is caused by its lack of a Socratic function that incentivizes and reinforces the proper psychological orientation around truth-seeking. Again, it has the opposite aim, which is to ease the effort of System 2 as much as it can and allow System 1, with all its cognitive vulnerabilities, to be at the helm. Because of this aim, social media has a Sophistic function, which contrasts the Socratic one, whose defining characteristic is to be a bullsh*tter. As mentioned above, this notion is a technical one and needs to be properly explained.The notion of bullsht comes from the American philosopher Harry Frankfurt and his essay Bullsht. Sam Harris uses this term often, especially regarding social media. First, let’s clarify what it means to lie. Lying involves an intent to deceive on the part of the person lying, who wishes to get the other to believe something contrary to the truth. The seventeen-year-old who sneaks out, gets caught, and tells their parents that they forgot their phone at their friend’s house and went to get it in the middle of the night is lying because they’re trying to deceive their parents into believing something false about reality. But reality is still salient to their aim. Although attempting to distort it, they still have reality in their conscious field of intentions, motives, and desires, i.e., they care about truth rather than caring for it. Someone who bullshts, on the other hand, has no regard for truth. It provides no reason for consideration on its own, independent of the bullshtter’s aim. Whereas the truth matters for the liar, it’s of no concern whether what one says is true or false in the case of bullsht. The bullshter’s enterprise is characteristically different than the lier in this regard. The liar “is attempting to lead us away from a correct apprehension of reality; we are not to know that he wants us to believe something he supposes to be false… The fact about himself that the bullshitter hides, on the other hand, is that the truth-values of his statements are of no central interest to him; what we are not to understand is that his intention is neither to report the truth nor to conceal it.”26The classic archetype of a bullshtter is the salesman. The truth about whether the product sold is efficient, useful, or whatever else is indifferent to the salesman. What matters, and what distinguishes one who is good from one who is not (in the sense of achieving their goal to sell the product, pure and simple,) is whether they can deceive the consumer into believing that the bullshtter is asserting something they themselves believe. There are few constraints on what a bullshtter may say to achieve their aim. Whatever helps satisfy their goal is fair play. The liar is unable to be creative like this. They must strategically and purposefully contend with the truth by believing they know it. If the liar doesn’t in fact know the truth, this will likely spoil their plans. They will be unable to grasp the situation and will likely misunderstand what the circumstances call for. A bullshtter doesn’t need to know the truth at all. They just need to make the other person think that they do. The truth conditions of their beliefs and assertions are, by itself, irrelevant.Social media is a bullshtter in incentivizing and rewarding behavior that employs bullsht. It therefore has a Sophistic function. The chief culprit for this is, of course, the algorithms. The algorithm's aim is to curate content that maximizes user engagement and attention. Whether what it presents a user with is true or false is a matter of indifference. It can matter in a sense, but only if the user is disposed toward viewing content that is oriented around truth, which is of no concern to the algorithms. The function is to bullsht the user by minimizing cognitive effort and maximizing the incentives that will keep their attention, e.g., by triggering dopamine responses through a constant succession of content patterned according to the user’s preferences. If the user desires content that aims at truthfully representing reality, he or she has to maneuver through a minefield of bullsht. There is no Socratic function that guides them through it, as there would be in any other social practice that is considered an information network whose purpose is to distribute knowledge. The proper psychological orientation that warrants discussions about how free speech is necessary for pursuing truth within a given context is entirely absent within the social media model.Hence Mill’s influential argument for the utility of free speech for the sake of truth doesn’t apply to social media. Let’s reflect on what Mill said after this long discussion. Recall the epistemic benefits he argued for. He said that letting everyone freely express their minds produces the best outcomes within a democratic community, regardless of whether what one says is true, partially true, or false. If the truth doesn’t move people, and if the general tendency to find truth salient is absent, then letting everyone say what they think is self-undermining. Why would truth matter if everyone free to speak their mind disregards it? Seeing truth as a reason for a social practice means truth is fundamental to the aims that characterize the institution, and this means being properly oriented around it, which means caring for it.Section 9:I want to end now with a discussion about how this all relates to Nostr and how it has the potential to be an information network that performs much better than social media as a context concerned with knowledge and truth. The principal reason that will be considered here is Nostr’s pursuit of a fully decentralized model that aims at user autonomy. Autonomy makes a crucial difference between an information network that more reliably tracks truth and one that is indifferent to it.Social media reduces users' autonomy by trying to use them as a means toward further ends, namely, their attention, engagement, and data. The algorithm's job is to sort through users’ information and curate it in ways that maximize profit. This generally results in the spread of bullsht because what determines information as worth spreading does not depend on that information’s truth value. However, when users can curate their own content by judging for themselves what information they wish to retrieve from relays; when it’s left to each user to decide what content is valuable and what isn’t; when users themselves can determine what is worth censuring and not be subject to the interests of a centralized server, the aim is clearly to place autonomy back into their hands. What’s important, though, is that autonomy has a certain purpose in the Nostr context: to allow people to create at all protocol levels. Part of what a centralized server does is create a fixed infrastructure that greatly restricts what users may do on the platform (the chief restriction being to yield as much profit as possible for shareholders.) Creators especially are affected by this because the value they contribute to the platforms is filtered through what will necessarily constrain it. Nostr, however, is different. What largely motivates the value of autonomy is the desire to let creators create content freely and without outside constraints, which, of course, is to provide them freedom of expression. By users having the freedom to build and the autonomy to curate and choose what content is personally valuable to a user, truth becomes highly relevant within the context. Now, if Mill is right when he says that only true beliefs have any utility (and false beliefs necessarily lead one astray in some sense,) users who produce content will be highly incentivized to track the truth, to have an accurate representation of it, because to fail at this will result in unappealing content due to its lack of value. No centralized authority is supposed to be able to force something to appear valuable; it’s up to the users to determine this. And if something will endure and not fade once the reasons why it may have trended disappear, it needs to track the truth. If it doesn’t, if it only matters to people because it is sensational or cheap, if it’s bullsht, it will always lose in the long run.Since people on Nostr have the autonomy to build and curate their own content, unlike social media, there is less at play that can ossify the network. There must be a great deal of motion because, in principle, no user or client can monopolize the space. This built-in fluidity captures an important aspect of truth-seeking, which John Milton expressed when saying, “Knowledge thrives by exercise… Truth is compared in scripture to a streaming fountain; if her waters flow not in a perpetual progression, they sicken into a muddy pool of conformity and tradition.” Everyone has to earn their success on Nostr, so the principal way to do this is to create something valuable. Again, if Mill is right, the value must largely be derived from the truth that the content represents, creating an incentive to care for the truth. Bullsh*t can’t be forcefully distributed because it maximizes some desired metric. Information is chiefly distributed by individual users valuing it.Nostr provides a way to see if Mill was right in thinking only true beliefs have any real value. Since the intention is to move away from social media’s business model, there is an opportunity to determine whether people will naturally choose the truth through their own autonomous decision-making. If there are no algorithms that aim to seize and maximize user attention, people are free to choose what content they wish to consume. It is a choice whether truth prevails over its opposite in the Nostr context because individuals are incentivized to contribute what they want to see. And if things go astray, people can fix it by creating something better.Notes:For a similar but far more elaborate, comprehensive, and complex argument of this kind, see John Vervaeke’s Awakening From the Meaning Crisis on YouTube.For an elaboration on free speech justifications, see Greenawalt, K. (2007). Free Speech Justifications. Colombia Law Review.For a history of Free speech, see Jacob Mchangama’s book Free Speech: Socrates to Social Media.Kant, I. (1784). What is Enlightenment? (p. 1). Hacket Publishing.This is not to suggest wokism is the sole culprit of this cultural trend. It’s one example amongst others on all parts of the political spectrum. But it’s an important example because wokism aims to be virtuous and moral. Therefore, it’s a good example because it is important to question whether their moral claims are correct. Furthermore, a plausible reply on the part of one who may subscribe to something like wokism (whatever that means precisely) is that it isn’t the duty of those who have been oppressed to teach those they consider to be oppressors. The duty falls on the latter. This is a challenging question to settle, and it makes up the potentially unbridgable gulf between wokism and its opponents. But if empathy is a virtue (or a vital moral response), it’s central that everyone exercises it, not just those who are held to be guilty of something.Simpson, R. M. (2024). The Connected City of Ideas. Daedalus.Harari, N. Y. (2024). Nexus. Random House.Eisenstein, E. L. (1979). The Printing Press as an Agent of Change (p. 45). Cambridge University Press.Melchert, N. (2007). The Great Conversation (p. 304). Oxford University Press.Melchert, N. (2007). The Great Conversation. Oxford University Press.Wagner, C. (2012). Scientia Moralitas (Moral Autonomy and Responsibility - The Reformation’s Legacy in Today’s Society). Scientia Moralitas Research Institute.Fromm, E. (1941). Escape From Freedom (p. 54). Discus.James, W. (1902). The Varieties of Religious Experience (p. 54). Penguin Classics.Dreyfus, H., & Kelly, S. D. (2011). All Things Shining: Reading the Western Classics to Find Meaning in a Secular Age (p. 122). Free Press.Dreyfus, H., & Kelly, S. D. (2011). All Things Shining: Reading the Western Classics to Find Meaning in a Secular Age (p. 122). Free Press.Aristotle, A. (1953). Ethics (p. 122). Penguin Classics.Schumacher, E. (1977). A Guide For the Perplexed. Harper Colophon Books.As Isaiah Berlin makes clear in his essay Two Concepts of Liberty, it is easy to see how positive freedom may easily lead to foolish and immoral action due to its purposeful nature. It is quite challenging to dissuade someone that what they believe to be their purpose in life, their ultimate meaning, relies on false premises.Fromm, E. (1941). Escape From Freedom. Discus.Chalmers, A. (1974). What is this thing called Science? Hacket Publishing.Descartes, R. (2010). Meditations on First Philosophy. Oxford World's Classics.See Bertrand Russel’s The History of Western Philosophy for how Descartes's argument is logically invalid. He can’t doubt that some process of thinking is occurring, but whether something is doing the thinking isn’t obvious.Locke, J. Two Treatises on Government.Justice Holmes made the Marketplace metaphor popular in Abrams v United States (1919), and has become a central precedent in free speech cases.For a similar argument, see Nevin Chellappah’s “Is John Stuart Mill’s Account of Free Speech Sustainable In the Age of Social Media?”Ryle, G. (1949). The Concept of Mind. Penguin.Frankfurt, H. (1986). Bullshit. Princeton University Press.To see the Socratic function in real time, watch The Joe Rogan Experience episode #2171. Eric Weinstein demonstrates what it means for an expert to engage with someone outside their respective field who claims to have knowledge that overturns the discipline but with no professional training to back it up. His attitude demonstrates a care for truth. @yakihonne

@ 6b7c438e:fc81aab3

Taryn Christiansen @ DoraHacksSpecial thanks to Eric Zhang for in-depth discussions.A mirror post on Dora Research Blog is available: https://research.dorahacks.io/2024/12/24/free-speech-foundation Intro:This article will argue that truth-based justifications for free speech are inappropriate within the social media context.1 Flooding the market with more information doesn’t necessarily force truth to emerge and bob at the surface. No matter how much information is pumped into a space filled with falsehoods and deception, if the right mechanisms aren’t in place, the area will only grow more chaotic and overcrowded, and therefore all the more easier to get lost in it. As an instrument to obtain knowledge of the truth, free speech has to be properly used, and people need to know how to use it.That isn’t to say that the tap should be shut off and that free speech should be curtailed; other justifications are perfectly reasonable, as will be seen below. But the idea that what we’re up to on social media is seeking out the truth only produces more confusion about what we collectively take to be sources of trustworthy information that is accurate and sincere. We would be better off if social media were viewed as an information network that is distinct from other spaces that are generally considered places where we obtain reliably true beliefs.But other spaces have the potential to be a more appropriate target for truth-based justifications for free speech, one of which is Nostr. Because of Nostr’s fully decentralized and open nature, which allows for innovation at all levels of its protocol, people have more opportunity to create valuable content that will only be distributed across the network because it is in fact valuable. The algorithms on social media force content to be valuable because there are standards that aim at maximizing user engagement in cheap and overstimulating ways. It doesn’t matter to these mechanisms whether something is true or not. What matters first is whether something promotes the ends of the social media companies, which are primarily driven by maximizing profits through ads and attention. Achieving this goal means reducing users' autonomy in picking and choosing what content to consume. Nostr aims to give the users their autonomy back by freeing developers to build both relays and clients. If users can make decisions that aren’t influenced by social media’s algorithmic decision-making, then it can be discerned whether truth is naturally relevant to people in these kinds of information networks, as well as whether people really desire to care for the truth.Section 1:It should be assumed at this point in history2, especially in liberal democracies, that the freedom to express one’s mind is inseparable from a basic conception of human dignity. If one is prohibited from freely discussing and challenging prevailing beliefs or forced to conform to a point of view that was not arrived at by using one’s own rational and reflective faculties, then human dignity suffers. There’s a reason Socrates went around the Athenian marketplace and tirelessly questioned the people he encountered there. He wasn’t interested in forcing people to submit to specific beliefs. Socrates wanted people to realize and reflect on whether what they believed was true or not, and therefore if it was something worth believing in. But integral to this project is the idea that people have to think through the questions themselves and not rely on an authority. Authority may be right; it may hold true beliefs and assert rational demands, but it doesn’t mean anything unless people themselves know the way to them. This requires the individual to be willing to develop what’s necessary for this.John Milton was right when he wrote in his 1644 pamphlet Areopagatica, which was directed against the English Parlament’s order for licensing books, that “A man may be a heretic in the truth… If he believes things only because his pastor says so, or the assembly so determines, without knowing other reasons, though his belief be true, yet the very truth he holds becomes his heresy.” People must be free to reason for themselves, to arrive at truths through the use of their own faculties, to develop their individual conscience, which, by its nature, must be exercised by the individual’s will and not by an externally imposed authority. Immanuel Kant’s call to the Enlightenment, Sapere aude! - “Have courage to use your own reason!”3 - is a call to actualize human dignity through the use of one’s reason. These faculties cannot be cultivated unless the individual can express him or herself freely.Woke culture is an illustrative example of how there is a connection between free speech and human dignity. It shows that when the strategy is to problematize and silence people, no matter how noble or virtuous the goal is believed to be, it only perpetuates a cycle of frustration and anger. The problem with woke culture isn’t necessarily their ideals. We all would agree, or should at least, that people should respect the basic dignity of others, treat everyone as persons, empathize with those with a different experience, and learn and grow from one another’s unique perspective. These are all good things; they’re profoundly valuable. The issue is how woke culture formulated and implemented their interpretations of what these notions amount to, what they call for, and what moral duties they demand. One of its principal goals has been to discern how historical oppressors should atone for previous wrongdoings. Many have come to understand this as meaning that those who come from those lineages are, in some sense, problematic and that, therefore, proponents of wokism have the duty to silence them, to condemn them, to act as if they are a net negative to the social good, and to impose a punishment of silence to atone for the past. This has been a grave mistake. Instead of engaging in a dialogue to reach the other person’s conscience, those who bore this duty have tended to sermonize in a sanctimonious, demeaning way, which only shuts people down and turns off the parts of the brain that promote learning and development, and turns on what generates combative and defensive behavior. The typical approach in woke culture has been enormously undemocratic in spirit due to its preference to force people to adopt reasons rather than opening people up to consider them in their proper light, namely, as claims about morality that make demands on the conscience of the person, which can only be properly understood and felt through the use of his or her own faculties. Woke culture, which offers some genuine insight into the world's contemporary moral situation, failed to respect the dignity of those they wished to persuade by using coercive measures instead of appealing to their conscience. Free speech is absolutely necessary in an endeavor like this because only by upholding such a social practice will everyone’s basic dignity be respected, which is integral to people being open to changing their minds. Moral debates within society should never devolve into a contest of wills. This only undermines the foundation of a democratic community, the basic pillar being human dignity.4But although free speech bears a necessary connection to human dignity, it does not bear the same relation to truth. For free speech to bear a proper relation to truth, one where free speech produces a high probability of tracking it, those seeking out truth must have the right psychological orientation toward it; otherwise, the two easily come apart. In his recent book Nexus, Yoel Noah Harari presents a clear way of seeing this. Harari criticizes what he calls the ‘naive view of information,’ which “argues that by gathering and processing much more information than individuals can, big networks achieve a better understanding of medicine, physics, economics, and numerous other fields, which makes the network not only powerful but wise.” The notion of wisdom is key. While it’s theoretically possible that an information network can be wise (especially with the development of better AI), it will be useless unless human beings have some idea about what wisdom is. If they don’t, then they’ll have to just assume that the information being presented was properly arrived at, i.e., with the wisdom necessary for obtaining truth, which will, in effect, create a servility to the information network and not to the human faculties necessary for discerning and knowing the truth. To use a distinction made by Plato, they will have an opinion about the truth, not knowledge. To know means to understand the reasons why something is the case, not just that it is the case.Harari’s book is important because the naive view of information he presents is prevalent and is most often expressed in the marketplace of ideas metaphor. In essence, the metaphor suggests that free speech operates like a free market because, by allowing individuals to pursue and satisfy their preferences freely, the truth will somehow outcompete falsehoods. Either because people’s preferences are more deeply satisfied by truth, and/or because the beliefs people hold will only have any real value (or utility) when they are true, when they accurately represent reality. But in a marketplace, “people don’t reliably ‘buy’ truths. People buy the ideas they like. And people don’t reliably like truths better than falsehoods. What the invisible hand does, all going well, is efficiently allocate goods to people based on what they want.”5 For truth to reliably outcompete falsehoods, consumers must have a particular orientation around truth. Unless we think ideas are true based solely on their utility, which is itself not a very useful notion, more has to be said as to why consumers would desire the truth over anything else in a marketplace of ideas. Everyone has opinions they cherish and hold to be, in some way, fundamental to themselves and their identities. It is perfectly conceivable that someone will reject any truth that conflicts with these deeply valued sentiments. For a free competition of ideas to track and produce true information, consumers have to want truth to win out, and this desire should motivate the consumer’s decision-making. In other words, one must bear a special psychological orientation toward truth for the marketplace metaphor to be an appropriate model for understanding free speech as being justified for the sake of truth. Again, free speech is important for other reasons, such as human dignity. But whether free speech is justified for the sake of truth is a separate question, and until the proper stance is taken toward truth, truth-based justifications are inapplicable.The fact that the distribution of more and more information doesn’t bear a necessary connection to truth can also be gleaned from historical examples. When a technology revolutionizes human information networks, which allows for information to be shared more efficiently and in larger quantities than ever before, the society that implements it does not therefore obtain a higher fidelity to truth. The opposite is equally plausible. This is the problem facing social media. If truth-based justifications are an appropriate way to justify free speech practices on such platforms, social media must create an environment that promotes the proper psychological orientation toward truth. What matters is whether they can care for the truth rather than adopt a stance that promotes what the philosopher Harry Frankfurt called bullsh*t, which means to be indifferent toward truth. Before explaining this further, let’s look at a historical example that demonstrates the following: First, as new technology arrives and transforms information networks, the information that is consequently distributed can equally promote both what is true and what is not; and second, and more philosophically, the technology can also reorient a society’s relationship to truth, which in turn affects how the society arrives at knowledge.Section 2:Take the invention of the Gutenberg printing press in 1440. Before its inception, the Catholic Church made Western Europe effectively an echo chamber. They dominated the information networks by controlling what could be printed, distributed, and accredited as knowledge. The vast majority of the population couldn’t read, and only a select few could read the Holy writings, which contained information that was considered the highest truth attainable by human beings. Only a select few were blessed enough to be able to handle this sort of information. Because all other information flowed from this central institution, everyone else depended on the Church for what to believe. The reality of that situation, and what it must have felt like to be in such a dependent position, can begin to be imagined by considering the following: “In the thirteenth century the library of Oxford University consisted of a few books kept in a chest under St. Mary’s Church. In 1424 the library of Cambridge University boasted a grand total of only 122 books. An Oxford University decree from 1409 stipulated that ‘all recent texts’ studied at the university must be unanimously approved ‘by a panel of twelve theologians appointed by the archbishop.’”6 When the quantity of information is this low, and in the context of the Catholic Church, is also greatly limited in diversity, it’s difficult even to imagine anything outside the worldview that is being imposed.Now, alongside the Church’s control of information networks, the production efficiency of copyists and scribes who had to manufacture the books was dismally low. It exponentially grew when the printing press automated the work. The historian Sir John Harold Clapham wrote, “A man born in 1453, the year of the fall of Constantinople, could look back from his fiftieth year on a lifetime in which about eight million books had been printed, more perhaps than all the scribes of Europe had produced since Constantine founded his city in A.D. 330.”7 The restriction on information and people’s inability to consider anything outside of the prevailing tradition, as well as the technological and productive inefficiency of the time, left most people in darkness, with no way out other than by following the dim, consoling light cast by the Church. The printing press changed all of this. “It revolutionized the world,” as the philosopher Francis Bacon said.The printing press gave people the autonomy to print and distribute ideas that the Church didn’t authorize and thereby provided the platform necessary for the Reformation to take hold, which started with Martin Luther in the early sixteenth century. There were previous attempts at reform, but the printing press made a momentous difference. The concurrence of the printing press and the Reformation revealed the corrosive corruption within the Catholic Church. People were finely able to learn about the degenerate tendencies within the institution, which the Church was previously able to stifle because it controlled the information networks. The buying and selling of Church positions and indulgences that allowed people to pay their way out of purgatory, political intrigue, nepotism, bribery, and immoral consolidation of wealth through taxes was disclosed as a consequence of the printing press. The notion that the Church was the medium by which people moved toward God’s grace collapsed, and people saw that “it had become a means of securing worldly prestige, power, and wealth for those who were clever and ruthless enough to bend it to their will.”8But this historical occurrence also unleashed a flurry of misinformation. The religious wars that followed the Reformation were devastating, and millions of people died, an exceptional case being the Thirty Years War (1618-48). The dissemination of Luther’s 95 theses regarding the corruption of the Church spread like wildfire across Europe after he posted them in 1516 on the Church Castle in Wittenberg, Germany, which the printing press made possible. It would only make sense, then, that the Church would follow suit and take advantage of the technology to combat what it held to be heresy and to reinstate its power as the dominant influence in the West (for an amalgam of reasons, of course.) All sides involved in these religious disputes didn’t merely use the printing press to disseminate accurate information. They used it to spread misinformation to satisfy their political interests, intensifying the ensuing wars and battles between the various emerging religious sects and the rising monarchies.This demonstrates the first point: the printing press, which was a revolution in human information networks, produced both true and false information. There was no causal, historical determinacy one way or the other. While it disclosed truths about Church corruption, it was also used as a means to spread political propaganda that fueled the religious wars.Now, as for the second, more philosophical point, the Reformation also reoriented people’s relation to truth by democratizing matters of faith. Whether one believes the Reformation was, in this respect, an overall good or not, from a liberal democratic point of view, it has to be considered good. The Reformation placed faith into the hands of the individual conscience, rendering considerations about one’s standing in relation to God to have a personal, rather than institutional, significance. Before, “the Church was the keeper and protector of Christian truths and the harbor of salvation for those at sea in sin.”9 Luther rejected this picture of salvation and believed one could be saved through faith and scripture alone, without an intermediary. Luther thought that one’s spiritual significance did not depend on authority. He didn’t see the Church as some emanation from God or a reflection of a Divine order that the individual participated in and was guided by to reach salvation. Individuals are solely responsible for their spiritual significance and capacity to reach a higher truth in God. In one of his more heroic acts, he translated the bible into vernacular German from the traditional Latin (which was considered the holy language, the only one appropriate for capturing religious truths). He gave common people access to what was previously sealed off from them. The individual, free from external imposition and constraint, can privately attain truth on his or her own.Luther formulated a radical inner freedom that broke with some of the Church’s fundamental precepts. There was, of course, an inner freedom already present in Catholicism, but Luther placed it at the center of things rather than as revolving around an institution. Before Luther, St. Augustine went to great lengths to demonstrate the spiritual significance of an inner life, and Luther was an Augustinian monk. But Luther went much further than him. In one of his lectures on YouTube, the philosopher Michael Sugrue observes that this amounted to a kind of Copernican Revolution in religion. That is to say that, rather than the Church being the axis by which things revolve around and where one finds his or her salvation, rather than identifying with an institution by which one finds freedom within a corporate body in which lies their place amongst others in a perfectly ordered, hierarchical, and harmonious cosmos, the individual became the center axis of spiritual and religious matters. It’s easy to see, then, how this theological idea possesses the potential to develop into the idea of individual rights and liberties. Luther provided a kind of autonomy10 for the individual, where whether one is saved is bound up with one’s inner conscience and not with external works or good deeds that the Church facilitates. The individual is an irreducible unit of value that is not subsumed by any other worldly object. And the individual's value rests in their conscience and capacity to receive God’s grace. This idea has sparks of the modern sense of human dignity, and it will create a conflagration throughout Europe as it develops. If there is no Church or institution to settle one’s moral, spiritual, and intellectual significance, one is left to use one’s faculties for guidance. And because it is one’s faculties that attain truth and spiritual salvation, they are the center of value in human life, which bears a natural right for protection.At the Diet of Worms in 1521, where Luther had to answer to charges of heresy because of his theological work, the Church demanded that he recant. He refused. But the reasons for his refusal are the most important. He demanded that the Church show him through scripture and reason alone that he was wrong and not through the dictates of authority. His protest demonstrated that the individual can reach the truth through his or her own means. The Church’s decline began far before this historical moment, but Luther made the decisive blow that the printing press made possible. The Church fragmented as a consequence, which, to Catholics, meant truth itself was fragmented and resulted in a proliferation of denominations scattered across Europe.Section 3:What was so subversive about Luther in this respect is that he divorced sanctification, the process by which one lives in the image of Christ, i.e., a life of virtue, from self-transformation. Although Luther carved out the individual as an irreducible unit of value, this also severed the individual from a stable and definite path that assuaged one’s existential suffering: “The Church… assured the individual of her unconditional love to all her children and offered a way to acquire the conviction of being forgiven and loved by God. The relationship to God was more one of confidence and love than of doubt and fear.”11 Luther believed that one was saved through faith alone and by no other means. He thought that because human beings are all sinners, their wills cannot do anything to reach salvation and spiritual peace. How, then, can one tell if they have been saved? There is no longer an authority to adjudicate this. The individual can discover the truth for themself and so must determine what this means on their own. Several centuries later, Kant gave voice to the duty he believed to arise from this new freedom:Thus, it is difficult for any individual man to work himself out of the immaturity that has all but become his nature. He has even become fond of this state and for the time being is actually incapable of using his own understanding, for no one has ever allowed him to attempt it. Rules and formulas, those mechanical aids to the rational use, or rather misuse, of his natural gifts, are the shackles of a permanent immaturity. Whoever threw them off would still make only an uncertain leap over the smallest ditch, since he is unaccustomed to this kind of free movement. Consequently, only a few have succeeded, by cultivating their own minds, in freeing themselves from immaturity and pursuing a secure course.So, while much was gained during the Reformation, the reorientation around truth also had consequences. Self-transformation, the effort of will, the idea of having an inner and outer journey that culminates into something larger and more significant, took on radically different meanings under Luther and the future Protestant countries. To see this, we can turn to Dante’s Divine Comedy, which demonstrates part of what was lost under Luther.Section 4:In Dante’s Divine Comedy, the culmination of the Medieval worldview before Luther, Dante embarks on a Christian pilgrimage that ends in his being saved. Just as with the above, it’s crucial to understand that the point here will not be exclusively religious but universal in the sense that religion, as manifested across all cultures, didn’t create this experience but was the medium by which it has been expressed and made sense of; it provides it a voice. This goes back to William James and his book The Varieties of Religious Experience. There is the private aspect of religious experience, and then there is the institutional component within which the private side takes shape. Buddhists practice meditation and strive to contemplate Nirvana; the Christian prays and goes to mass; the Stoics distance themselves from their inaccurate emotional representations and contemplate what is rational and in his or her control; and so forth. As James points out, what is fundamental to all religious experience, in the private sense, are two aspects: there is an uneasiness, which, “reduced to its simplest terms, is a sense that there is something wrong about us as we naturally stand;” and two, a solution, which “is a sense that we are saved from the wrongness by making proper connection with the higher powers (508).” The first aspect means the self is in conflict, is divided, and desires unification. In religious language, the self seeks salvation and an experience of being saved from their situation, which is characterized by suffering due to inner division and conflict. This can take on an existential mode, as with Leo Tolstoy in his book Confessions, or it can be highly moral. In Tolstoy’s book Confessions, he relates a story of a traveler being chased by a beast that imaginatively captures the relevant phenomena:Seeking to save himself from the fierce animal, the traveler jumps into a well with no water in it; but at the bottom of this well he sees a dragon waiting with open mouth to devour him. And the unhappy man, not daring to go out lest he should be the prey of the beast, not daring to jump to the bottom lest he should be devoured by the dragon, clings to the branches of a wild bush which grows out of one of the cracks of the well. His hands weaken, and he feels that he must soon give way to certain fate; but still he clings, and sees two mice, one white, the other black, evenly moving round the bush to which he hangs, and gnawing off its roots. The traveler sees this and knows that he must inevitably perish; but while thus hanging he looks about him and finds on the leaves of the bush some drops of honey. These he reaches with his tongue and licks them off with rapture. Thus I hang upon the boughs of life, knowing that the inevitable dragon of death is waiting ready to tear me, and I cannot comprehend why I am thus made a martyr. I try to suck the honey which formerly consoled me; but the honey pleases me no longer, and day and night the white mouse and the black mouse gnaw the branch to which I cling. I can see but one thing: the inevitable dragon and the mice—I cannot turn my gaze away from them.”12Clearly, Tolstoy is suffering from a serious existential episode in which he can’t find a purpose or meaning in life that will clear away his anxiety, which is represented in the dragon, which time, represented in the mice, slowly draws him near. This is his “uneasiness.” He must find a solution, then, because his situation is unlivable.Religion has historically addressed this need. In the Middle Ages, the Church was the institution through which people expressed this experience and resolved their inner conflicts, tensions, and divisions. Let’s turn to Dante’s Divine Comedy to see how the private aspect of this experience is made sense of through Christain’s notion of the pilgrimage.The poem begins with Dante suddenly becoming aware of himself, “Midway upon life’s journey,” as he says, and terrified by the fact that he’s lost in a dark world, having “gone astray,” and is in despair because he has begun to lose all hope for himself. “We know nothing of how Dante has gone astray, only that he has, and that he must undertake a journey, therefore, to save his soul.”13 He is, like Tolstoy, experiencing an “uneasiness” (though in more of a moral rather than existential sense; God is always present for Dante.) So, he has discovered that he has been living wrongly, that he’d strayed from the right path, from the way, and despite his attempts to free himself of his sins and burdens, he’s unable to do it alone. Although it’s unclear why Dante has lost his way, “the journey itself is clearer. It will take him through the entire Christian spiritual universe.”14The Roman poet Virgil is sent to initiate and lead him on this path forward. Virgil represents all of Classical learning, from the Greeks to the Romans. Though they were pagans, they represent the highest one can do as a non-Christian, which is to reach, as Aristotle said, the contemplative life15, where one can reflect on the Whole, on the cosmos. But because they didn’t have faith, they could never experience a fullness of being or completeness that produces the solution to the uneasiness that James discussed. According to Christian doctrine, only Christians may experience this. Thus, they had to remain in Hell.Now, for Dante to move down through Hell, climb up Purgatory, and then transcend into Heaven, he must engage with the Classical world by wrestling with the questions they set out to answer, which is an immensely difficult aim to take on; one that will transform the self as it moves through an activity and process of the soul, intellect, mind, or whatever it is that is the center in which human development toward the Good, as Plato would say, takes place. What’s fascinating about this ascent is that, in the Medieval worldview, it wasn’t merely an internal endeavor; it also bore a deep and profound relationship to the external world. By embarking on the Christian pilgrimage, one was, in a sense, becoming closer and closer to reality, to truth, to what is most real, which corresponded with a transformation of the self that is accompanied by an experience of fulfillment. As one ascends, one climbs what was called the Great Chain of Being, a metaphysical (ontological) thesis that was first articulated by Aristotle, which was adopted by, and adapted to, Christian thought in the thirteenth century.The Chain of Being introduces a vertical aspect to reality rather than merely a horizontal one. At the top is the highest Truth, and the lowest is the least real, i.e., the lowest level of being, which consists of matter and material objects, whereas the highest consists of what is immaterial, like consciousness or mind. And so everything and everyone grows increasingly heavier as Dante moves downward through Hell due to being weighed down by an attachment to the material, earthly substance, which produces a growing despair and lack of fulfillment. As Dante moves upward from Purgatory to Heaven, things become lighter and immaterial in proportion to how much something embodies the spiritual, divine substance, which is achieved through directing one’s desire toward the right objects, toward what is more real and true. In Plato’s allegory of the cave, as one breaks free from the chains and shadows at the bottom and climbs toward the exit where the sun can be seen, one also gains more and more insight into reality as things are illuminated more clearly through the light. Like Purgatory, the ascent up the cave is profound and challenging. But the initial insight of seeing into reality, which reveals that what was previously experienced was illusory, produces the desire to see even further into what now appears absolute and true. This desire pulls and aims Dante upward as he climbs higher toward reality and up the Great Chain of Being. The economist and philosopher E.F. Schumacher16 put the significance of this view as follows:The ability to see the Great Truth of the hierarchic structure of the world, which makes it possible to distinguish between higher and lower Levels of Being, is one of the indispensable conditions of understanding. Without it, it is not possible to find out where everything has its proper and legitimate place. Everything, everywhere, can be understood only when its Level of Being is fully taken into account. Many things are true at a low Level of Being and become absurd at a higher level, and of course vice versa.Dante’s pilgrimage, then, aims toward attaining a higher level of being than when he found himself lost in the forest. By turning inward, by engaging in a contemplative mode of being that engages the self in pursuit of an inner harmony that resonates with an external, hierarchic order, Dante is striving to attain a kind of freedom that is somewhat alien to us today. We can think of the notion of freedom in a negative and a positive sense. In the negative sense, freedom is understood as freedom from something; from external constraint, for example. The First Amendment is typically interpreted along these lines. Everyone is free to speak their minds because the state should not be allowed to interfere with our freedom to do so. All are free to do as they please as long as they do not infringe on another person’s right to do so.The positive sense is much different. It is a freedom for something. In Dante’s Hell, everyone found themselves there because they (at minimum) acted free purely in the negative sense. They lived their lives as they saw fit, without regard to any higher form of life. They didn’t act for the sake of a virtuous purpose (although that’s not quite right regarding the virtuous pagans and a few others.) To be free in the positive sense means to act according to a higher aim. When Socrates refused to renounce the philosophical life and was put to death, he made that decision based on a principle grounded in his inner conscience, which he took to express something sacred and higher, which always spoke to him when he was about to do wrong. He accepted the death penalty because the unexamined life wasn’t worth living; it had no purpose toward a higher aim17. 17Dante’s Divine Comedy provides a narrative by which the uneasiness one experiences in life, as articulated by James, can reach a solution and resolve the inner conflict and division by providing a framework by which the individual moves closer to reality, to what is most real, and up the Chain of Being.Section 5:Now, the pilgrimage captured in Dante’s poem was not something anyone could take up, at least not in its full dramatic content; it was obviously something only a select few could embark on, and this depended on the situation one was born into, like whether one was wealthy enough to receive an education. One’s salvation in the social order was rarely epic or heroic in nature; it typically meant following the structure imposed upon the individual by the Church. Just as how the cosmos was hierarchically ordered, so was society. The reasons for the social order were Divinely decreed. The social structure was immovable in a way because shifting the social order and rearranging it would violate scripture and God’s Word. Hence people were, as we would judge today, unfree and restricted. However, as psychologist Erick Fromm writes, “although a person was not free in the modem sense, neither was he alone and isolated. In having a distinct, unchangeable, and unquestionable place in the social world from the moment of birth, man was rooted in a structuralized whole, and thus life had a meaning which left no place, and no need, for doubt. A person was identical with his role in society; he was a peasant, an artisan, a knight, and not an individual who happened to have this or that occupation. The social order was conceived as a natural order, and being a definite part of it gave a feeling of security and of belonging.”18 Luther’s devastating blow against the Church in the Reformation rejected the social order and the Chain of Being and set in motion the release of the individual from the bondage they were restrained in. But by freeing the individual, he also eliminated the necessary self-transformation that played a substantial role in the Medieval worldview. Luther democratized salvation, spirituality, and questions about meaning in one’s life.This Copernican revolution in religious matters allowed for a radical reorientation toward truth, which relied on the printing press's efficiency in producing and distributing information.There were, of course, other factors that contributed to the Catholic Church's decline. The literal Copernican revolution and the rise of science being an obvious example. But what became increasingly less present in the scientific worldview that was emerging then is the idea that, as one gains knowledge of the world, one also goes through a transformative experience like Dante’s. The notion that knowledge of truth and reality converges with a meaningful and spiritual ethical development has mostly fallen off. Science’s aim is pure objectivity. For much of history, what is ‘objective’ is also intrinsically beneficial to the subject coming into contact with it. Values in scientific judgment and knowledge are a transgression, a violation of scientific precept, and are opposed to the whole epistemic enterprise (meaning a method by which knowledge is gained.) Science does not care about how one feels, what one desires in life, or what meaning one may find in it and simply presents facts as a body of indifferent and empirically verified knowledge.This is, of course, a caricature, as Thomas Kuhn19 argued in the twentieth century. Scientists certainly value their theories and are not merely attempting to refute them through experimentation. Theories allow scientists to have a grip on the world and a language of concepts that can be used to describe it accurately. This conceptual framework gives the world a theoretically intelligible and discernible order. And so once the anomalies and unsolved problems in a scientific paradigm grow serious enough, those working within it enter into a crisis until a new paradigm emerges (as is what happened when moving from Newtonian mechanics to Eistenin’s relativity.) Still, moving from one paradigm to the next isn’t believed to be an ethical progression. It’s a movement from one framework to the next. Unlike the Medieval worldview, it is generally held that science says nothing about human values and how one ought to live. Being a scientist does not suggest that someone is wise like a Socrates or Plato.Unlike the Church in the Middle Ages, which, in terms of knowledge, played a similar role to science today, science is not an institution that is in the business of handing out ethical and moral guidance. A scientist would likely balk (or should balk) at the idea of being viewed as someone who has gone through an ethical self-transformation to gain the knowledge that he or she has solely because of becoming a scientist. Being one of course requires an enormous amount of discipline, effort, and intelligence, which is, in a way, transformative, but in a different sense than what Dante embarked on. Today, knowledge of truth and reality does not necessarily correspond with an ethical progression.This idea of not requiring ethical self-transformation to gain the highest forms of knowledge is most noticeable in Rene Descartes’ philosophy in the seventeenth century. Descartes set out to rebuild a foundation through which knowledge could be rebuilt from the ruins left by the Church’s decline.20 The Church had lost its viability as something that could be believed to provide reliable knowledge for the social body. It was no longer psychologically obvious that the Church was the principal source and authority of appeal when dealing with matters of truth. Referring to scripture, for instance, could no longer be done by relying on what the Papacy had interpreted it as meaning. Luther (and others) undermined this immediacy for many. The United States faces a similar situation today. There is a diminishing trust in the democratic institutions that have historically served as distributors of trustworthy knowledge. Descartes attempted to deal with a similar crisis by discovering foundations immune from doubt. And he believed himself to have discovered such a foundation through his Cogito: I think, therefore I am. I can doubt all of my mental representations of the world, such as those of tables and chairs and coffee mugs, as well as my particular thoughts and feelings, and even the existence of my own body and sense experience. For all I know, I may be dreaming or being deceived by an evil demon into believing all kinds of imaginary and false representations of things. I can’t affirm or deny this with any certainty. But I cannot doubt that I am doubting; that much is certain. And since doubting is a property of thinking, I can’t doubt that I am thinking.Therefore, I am a thinking thing, an immaterial substance that is distinct from the physical bodies liable to doubt21. This is the most fundamental truth that not even reason could call into question. It’s radically different from truth as understood on the Chain of Being model. There is no ethical transformation involved in realizing this indubitable proposition. It’s self-evident to anyone rational and clear-minded (or so Descartes thinks.) And this is certainly how many people today think of knowledge. And in some cases, quite rightly. Take human rights as an example. John Locke22, a momentous figure who shaped the language of rights and how modernity thinks about them, argued that human rights are self-evident in the same sense as a geometric axiom. It just appears before the mind as something incapable of being doubted (to a clear, rational mind, of course, who has done the proper thinking, like someone who has rightly apprehended a geometric axiom.) The US’s founding document memorializes Locke’s claim: “We hold these truths to be self-evident.” The deepest, most profound truths about humanity are ‘obvious’ to any rational mind. This is, of course, a good thing. It is good that people intuitively find one another intrinsically and irreducibly valuable. But when this notion is taken for granted, when, as we’ll soon see with John Stuart Mill, an idea grows ossified, fixed, and dogmatic, it loses its potency and desired effect. But if one arrives at the idea of human rights through a transformative process, where one realizes the concept through a process of development and growth that culminates in seeing the profound value within a conscious human being, the notion of rights is animating and action-producing; it stirs and moves the motivation of those who go through this process. In other words, it produces a particular psychological orientation around what is believed to be true.Section 6:So, information technologies do not merely distribute previously unavailable information that is then propagated across a network. Nor does the production of such information bear a natural, necessary connection to truth. They can do both, but much more is at play. The printing press allowed for the conditions necessary for the Reformation to occur, and its occurrence produced a radical shift in the Medieval worldview. Truth was hierarchically organized, and those at the top had exclusive access. The Reformation leveled this structure and diffused the notion that all Christians are equal regarding Divine knowledge. There was no need for an authoritative intermediary to facilitate people’s relation to God. People could do it themselves through faith and scripture alone. But this also meant that all the social practices instituted for the purposes of coming into contact with truth, all the rituals and rites used to reinforce the beliefs of when and how truth manifests itself, slowly went with it. Therefore, people’s orientation around truth, how they conceived of it, where it resided, and how one knew it, was disrupted. People weren’t merely given previously unavailable information; the entire information landscape was turned upside down. This can reveal new terrain within the landscape that can lead to deep and valuable truths, such as human rights and liberties, and it can also conceal older, previously established truths, like the notion of transformative experiences being necessary for coming into closer contact with reality.Similarly to the printing press, social media poses a historical parallel. We can see this by looking at the most famous defense of free speech for the sake of truth, namely, John Stuart Mill’s essay On Liberty. We’ll see that, like how the printing press reoriented people’s relation to truth, social media is doing so by increasingly shifting how we conceive of, participate in, and come to know the truth. As a social practice, it’s shifting the culture toward different ways of arriving at truth. It's difficult to say whether it is categorically good or bad. But the focus here will be on what would certainly be a momentous loss in our social practices regarding truth, namely, a departure from Enlightenment values.There is a developing tendency to determine the truth through sheer will rather than discussion and a dwindling desire to correct this error. People seem to care less about deliberation, compromise, tolerance, and the general agreement that the goal is to come to an inclusive decision that is in the best interests of people who share a basic respect for each other’s dignity. All political orientations have growing factions that believe the content of other’s beliefs determines how they should be viewed and treated. Rather than work toward building a community that is able to cooperate with one another and agree on a uniting set of values, the cultural attitude is moving toward a competition between wills for power. But it’s not only behaviorally motivated by power; there is also the belief that all effort by a group toward an ideal is entirely reducible to power. That very well may be true. But if it is, democracy is in a precarious position. So, if we value democracy, we should steer back toward the proper path. For Mill’s account to work, which is crucial if we wish to justify free speech for the sake of truth in Enlightenment, democratic terms23, social media should not be viewed as a truth-seeking information network24. Mill believed free speech is necessary for human flourishing in a democratic society. If it’s the people who are going to be involved in the deliberative processes of society and be the ones choosing what is best, then the people must be able to discuss and exchange ideas, opinions, and beliefs freely. However, just like how the Medieval view operated within a certain orientation around truth, which provided a framework through which truth could be arrived at, so it is with democracy. And like the printing press, social media has placed enormous tension on our democratic orientation. So, if we desire to maintain democratic values derived from the Enlightenment, then we have to take a certain stance toward social media, one that eschews the expectation that truth is situated within its environments, where we expect to discuss, debate, hash things out, and arrive at truth.Now, On Liberty offers two sets of reasons supporting free speech, the first being epistemic, meaning that the benefits have to do with knowledge, while the other set is psychologically beneficial. The first set argues that free speech is an overall good for society because if what someone says is true or partially true, both possibilities benefit a democracy. If what is said is true, it will benefit because it professes a truth that will add to the preexisting stock of knowledge. If partially true, this also contributes to preexisting knowledge; “and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied.” The second psychological set of benefits is primarily derived from the utterance of false beliefs, which have no direct epistemic benefit because they do not contribute any knowledge to form beliefs around. If what is said is wholly false, the opportunity to defend and contest it will also be an overall good because it will demand that the bearers of that knowledge account for the reasons for its truth. Mill expresses this well: “Unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds.” This then produces a further psychological benefit. By remaining a prejudice and not as something rationally grasped, “the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost or enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect on the character and conduct; the dogma becoming a mere formal profession, inefficacious for good, but cumbering the ground and preventing the growth of any real and heartfelt conviction from reason or personal experience.” Therefore, contesting what is true will keep beliefs from devolving into prejudice or dogma.Section 7:The first thing to observe about Mill’s reasons for free speech is that the first set of epistemic reasons really depends on the second set (the psychological ones). But it’s peculiar to speak of the latter as ‘benefits’ because of this. It’s more accurate to say that a certain psychological orientation must give rise to them. We can think of this as a kind of feedback loop that produces the benefits Mill is speaking of. One must have the proper psychological orientation toward truth to break into this loop. That is to say that the members within a society must hold a psychological orientation toward truth that allows for the free expression of true, partially true, and false beliefs to be a net good, i.e., to bring about the best possible consequences within a democratic community. With the psychological reasons offered for free speech, notice that the benefit is derived from the speakers and listeners within the community being open to receiving true, partially true, or false utterances. The beliefs they hold must be perpetually open to revision because they may or may not be in possession of the actual true ones; they understand that their knowledge is an ongoing process, something that is constantly unfolding, and so hold a particular stance toward the free expression of beliefs.They would understand that, even in the best instances of human knowledge, the most stable kind (like knowledge of physics), it is still susceptible to be overturned by future evidence, as was the case with Newtonian mechanics and Einsteinian relativity. That is not to say truth is therefore unattainable, but only that there should be a fair degree of epistemic humility within a democratic, truth-seeking community, given that our best knowledge often falls far short of absolute certainty. As the psychological reasons specify, if the people within the community hold their beliefs as prejudices or dogmas that are fixed and unchangeable, they will be unreceptive to being challenged. So whatever anyone utters, whether true, false, or in between, it won’t provide the benefits Mill intended. There must be a certain psychological orientation toward truth for Mill’s argument to succeed.Let’s now specify what this orientation should look like and see how it’s vital in upholding free speech arguments for the sake of truth. There are three components to this orientation: (i) certain beliefs, (ii) certain desires, and (iii) certain attitudes born out of (i) and (ii). (i) consists of two beliefs. The first belief is that truth exists, and the second is that it is, in principle, knowable. (ii) consists of two desires as well. The first desire is to attain human flourishing, and the second is that truth is constitutive of this aim. Given that there is truth, one must also have the desire to attain it. But this is also a special kind of desire; it’s a desire that fulfills what must be viewed as a higher need, one that is constitutive of human flourishing or happiness. We can call this a fulfillment need. This means that we desire truth because it occupies a natural place in the space of human good. We will lack something fundamental to our flourishing if we don’t have contact with truth; we therefore both desire it and have a powerful motivation to attain it because we desire to flourish. Fulfillment needs should be understood as part of what constitutes this principal end in life that characterizes human excellence.For those who know Greek philosophy, this will sound familiar. As Aristotle says in his Ethics, all things aim at some final good. Achieving this good means for something to actualize its potential and attain excellence. The final aim of human beings is to flourish, or, in Greek, to attain eudaimonia, and to attain this means to achieve human excellence. Excellence, says Aristotle, means to fulfill the particular function assigned to a thing's nature. An eye’s function is to see, a car’s function is to drive, while the seed’s function is to grow into a plant. Human beings’ nature is to be rational, to optimize their cognition, to reduce error, and to reach the truth. Again, since the ultimate aim is to flourish, and because seeking truth is constitutive of that goal, we desire to know the truth as a fulfillment need, which helps satisfy the principal good in human life. Now, while Aristotle’s claim about human nature is of course disputable, if Mill’s argument for free speech is to work, and it’s important that it does, Aristotle’s account of human beings, or something resembling it, must be held within a democratic community.That being said, there’s a deep plausibility to the notion that humans have a fundamental need to be in contact with the truth, and presuming rationality is necessary for this, Aristotle may very well be right. In his lecture series Awakening From The Meaning Crisis, John Vervaeke offers a powerful example to illustrate this. Imagine your parents one day asking you to follow them into a hidden room you had never seen before inside your house on your eighteenth birthday. When you enter, you see a wall of monitors showing old footage of you throughout your life. Your parents then turn to you and say that your entire life has been an FBI experiment; everything has been manufactured. The love you thought to be sincere and nourishing, all the support you’ve received throughout the years, the holidays you have come to cherish, and the memories and feelings you’ve come to have are, in the most profound sense, fake. None of it was real. Your parents then tell you that you have two options. You can either act as if this incident had never happened and move on as usual, or you can move out and move on with your life. What’s the desirable option? Most of us would choose the latter. Why? Because none of what was thought to be real turned out to be true. It was all fabricated, illusory, and bore no substantive relation to reality. For the majority of us (although hopefully everyone), there is no going back to the way things previously were. The truth makes a fundamental difference in the decision-making between the two options. By discovering that our life is untrue, we feel a deep absence, a lack of fulfillment, an incompleteness on account of what we’ve learned about ourselves. An essential aspect of the decision to move on, then, is a deep motivation to discover what is in fact true. It’s like Dante when he discovers himself lost in the dark forest. We’ve been led astray, and now we desire to find the right path, which is the one that converges with truth, with what is most real. This is what happens to Jim Carrey in The Truman Show when he decides to leave that disturbing, manufactured simulation dome he was raised in. He could have stayed, but he was psychologically unable to. By obtaining this new self-knowledge, he would have never achieved eudaimonia. He would have remained stuck in life because he would have been bullsh*tting himself (again, I mean this in a technical sense and not simply as an explicative, which will be explained below.)This brings us to (iii), which is to bear a particular attitude toward truth provided (i) and (ii). The proper attitude toward truth is one of care. To care for the truth means to know how to reliably arrive at it, which means utilizing the relevant cognitive processes in forming true beliefs. Recall the quote at the beginning of the article from John Milton, which expressed that it is a heresy to arrive at a belief in the wrong way, namely, by not properly using one’s own reason. It matters, then, how we form our beliefs, and what matters is which cognitive processes are used to get there. For ease of presentation, we can use the psychologist Daniel Kahneman’s formulation of these cognitive processes from his book Thinking, Fast and Slow. Kahneman lays out two cognitive systems, System 1 and System 2. “System 1 operates automatically and quickly, with little or no effort and no sense of voluntary control.” Whereas “System 2 allocates attention to the effortful mental activities that demand it, including complex computations. The operations of System 2 are often associated with the subjective experience of agency, choice, and concentration (p. 21).” To see the difference, take the two following examples of arithmetic: “2 + 2 = ?” We have an immediate cognitive reflex to such an equation, and little to no effort is required. Filling in the answer resulted from System 1. “17 x 24 =?” Now this equation typically demands more effort. A reasoning process is engaged to determine the answer that requires concentrated effort and isn’t reflexively provided. Such a process is supplied by System 2. For another example, say someone is hiking and spots a tree in the distance. If such a person cares nothing for botany, then the object will have a great deal of transparency, and the person will carry on about their day. Such a process would be within System 1. But if the person is a trained botanist and has never seen this kind of tree before (say they’re in a foreign country), they may begin to observe it, inspect it, and direct their effort toward retrieving the relevant information that may help identify the tree. That person has engaged System 2.Caring for the truth means knowing how to optimize these two systems so that System 1 and System 2 are in a recurring dialogue with one another, with the aim to arrive at the truth. Now, there are at least two aspects to this idea of care. The first can be classed as having to do with general skills in critical thinking, which primarily consists of analysis. Examples are things like working out one’s cognitive biases and reducing error. In essence, being successful in this regard means being able to reason well and work through problems rationally. Take a case of confirmation bias, for example. Imagine a republican voter who believes certain conspiracy theories about the democratic party and who is watching a presidential debate and hears the Republican candidate make an assertion attributing misconduct to the Democratic candidate. Because the assertion confirms the prior beliefs of the voter who is watching, it will be easy for that person to immediately agree with what was said. Engaging System 2 is effortful and costly in mental energy, and so it is easier, as well as cognitively more pleasurable, to passively (probably unconsciously) consent to System 1’s impulse, which presents the Republican candidate’s statement as attractive and belief-worthy. If this person cares for the truth, however, he or she would engage System 2 upon receiving what System 1 has provided with the aim of verifying whether the assertion accurately represents or corresponds to reality. Perhaps the person reasons through the assertion. If the candidate said something like, "Inflation has skyrocketed due to the current administration, which she’s a part of,” the voter watching may reason that, while it’s true inflation has risen, her position in the administration bears little to no significance on that outcome; therefore, the assertion is misinformed. Or perhaps the voter doesn’t understand government structure very well and does research, visits several sources, and concludes based on the information that the assertion is misinformed and implies an invalid conclusion. Whatever the route taken, the voter is presented with the potential to make a cognitive error through System 1, and because he or she cares for the truth, System 2 is utilized to solve the task presented.Competence in this aspect of care, which means to be a competent critical thinker, consists of knowing how to obtain propositional knowledge, which is knowledge that accurately represents reality. One has the tools and skills to work through assertions, analyze arguments, and appropriately form beliefs according to the evidence. One can situationally respond by engaging System 2 when one detects that System 1 is presented with information expressing propositions about the world. Someone who has mastered these skills has developed dispositions that engage the relevant cognitive behavior under the relevant conditions. In other words, such a person knows how to instinctively and properly respond to the appropriate cognitive stimuli.25The second aspect of caring for truth is deeper than this and, like Dante’s journey, more transformative. Caring for truth in this sense means optimizing System 1 and System 2 by using them to shape one’s conception of the good. What reason, for example, would this argument, rather than another one, be more relevant to someone competent in critical thinking? Why care about what this person has to say rather than that one? Answers to these questions will suggest the underlying conception of the good that is assumed when one finds one set of information more salient. In other words, the second aspect of caring for truth means understanding one’s conception of eudaimonia, or flourishing, which is one’s final aim and idea of human excellence. Critical thinking in the propositional sense is a highly valuable set of skills that is fundamental to the whole project of pursuing truth. But what it consists of does not provide a final criteria to judge what one should believe about human flourishing and what it amounts to. It plays a vital role in articulating and grasping this goal but won’t deliver it. In other words, critical thinking is a powerful tool in reaching one’s goals, but it itself cannot bestow the goals themselves. This requires the second aspect of caring for truth, which means optimizing System 1 and System 2 to become aware of what final end is guiding their operation. Regardless of how much one engages in critical thinking, irrespective of one’s mastery of logic and reasoning, if one never utilizes these skills toward understanding what provides the salience of one set of information over another, they may never satisfy their fulfillment need for truth.Tolstoy’s book, The Death of Ivan Illych, illustrates this. In the story the Russian protagonist, Ivan Illych, lives his life in pursuit of what is pleasant. He shuns the annoyances and discomforts that arise in life and views them, in a way, as unnatural, as occurrences that disrupt how life should be. His goal in life is to maximize pleasure and avoid pain and suffering. He’s not, however, a Don Quixote or an extreme hedonist; he’s not trying to experience all the possible pleasures one may have. He wants to live a successful and acceptable life that commands the esteem of his colleagues, makes his family happy, comfortable, and at ease, and allows him to pass through life with as few disturbances as possible. He holds a very familiar and common conception of the good.And Ivan does in fact find this success. He rises to be a great and respectable judge in Russia. He’s highly competent, makes a substantial living, and can buy and provide his family with whatever he pleases. Yet he finds himself running into the disturbances he’s always tried to avoid. He’s constantly fighting with his wife:There remained only rare periods of amorousness that came over the spouses, but they did not last long. These were islands that they would land on temporarily, but then they would put out again to the sea of concealed enmity that expressed itself in estrangement from each other. This estrangement might have upset Ivan Ilyich, if he had considered that it ought not to be so, but by now he took this situation not only as normal, but as the goal of his activity in the family. His goal consisted in freeing himself more and more from these unpleasantnesses and in giving them a character of harmlessness and decency; and he achieved it by spending less and less time with his family, and when he was forced to do so, he tried to secure his position by the presence of outsiders.He’s experiencing the “uneasiness” formulated by William James above. His solution is not to reflect on his final end in life, his conception of the good, his idea of human flourishing and excellence, but to find other means to attain it, which is to turn away from what he’s representing as unnatural and frustrating. He’s not deficient in critical thinking; he’s a highly competent and successful judge. He lacks the wisdom and self-knowledge necessary for reflecting on and evaluating what makes some things and not others salient for him, which is his goal in life to live pleasantly. There’s a reason why he finds spending less time with his family a more obvious solution than trying to get at the root of why it is he feels so frustrated and annoyed at the fact that he’s not feeling fulfilled despite his success; and he’s not utilizing System 1 and System 2 to investigate that reason, i.e., he’s not caring for truth in the second sense. It’s only until he is faced with a random, coincidental death that he realizes he hadn’t been searching for a solution to his “uneasiness” that converged with truth. Not truth in the propositional sense, but truth regarding human flourishing and excellence. Insofar as he was unable or unwilling to direct his cognition toward what was guiding it, he remained incapable of progressing and transforming toward an aim that would afford him self-awareness, self-knowledge, and, ultimately, eudaimonia.Both aspects of caring for truth matter if Mill’s benefits are to be obtained. It matters propositionally (the first aspect of care) because critical thinking and analysis are necessary for seeing information clearly and discerning whether something maps onto the world. But caring for the first aspect alone will only clear the fog, so to speak, and allow one to see the landscape with more specificity and definition. It will provide knowledge about the causal regularities that govern the territory and the predictable patterns that follow from them. It will not, however, indicate what to do with that knowledge or inform one of what it means. For free speech to be justified for the sake of truth, which means free speech plays a substantial, instrumental role in sorting out the true information from the false, people must care for the truth. They have to find it salient in the right ways. If people don’t care and don’t share the proper desire to pursue it, then no amount of discussion will necessarily bring the community any closer to the truth. They may easily settle for something else.Section 8:The claim, then, is that social media does not warrant truth-based justifications for free speech. Because social media platforms don’t promote or incentivize the psychological orientation necessary for truth-seeking but reward the opposite behaviors, the idea that one is seeking truth within such a context is false. The view that social media as a public space is best characterized as a social practice that aims toward truth has generated an insidious confusion within the culture, and we would be better off by evaluating it differently. Social media is certainly an information network, but it’s wrong to presume all information networks are oriented toward truth production.To see this, think of a university. The principal purpose of this institution is to generate knowledge (there are other purposes, of course, but put those aside.) Now, there are many parts to the structure of a university, but let’s zoom in on the classroom environment. Within it, there’s a hierarchy in place. The teacher’s purpose is to guide the students through a curriculum, get them to think critically about the information, debate and discuss it, foster their abilities to engage with it, cultivate the necessary faculties for this, and to ensure that they learn something specific about the given information, as well as something general about learning, something they can use in all cases. To achieve this, the teacher must orient the students around truth-seeking, i.e., he or she must teach the students to care for the truth, as explained above. The teacher must challenge the students’ cognitive biases. Logical errors, bad reasoning, and lack of critical thinking have to be checked, corrected, and reinforced by the teacher.Ideally, the teacher will also help the students think critically about their conceptions of the good. In the ideal scenario, the teacher not only challenges their cognition but also fosters their ability to question what human flourishing and excellence looks like. It’s ideal because claiming that this is absolutely necessary for an information network to warrant being evaluated as a truth-seeking social practice is, perhaps, too high. But it is what one should aim for. However, it’s important to bear this in mind because it will be shown that, even if the threshold is lowered in this sense, social media still fails at what any information network that is correlated with truth should provide, which is to promote the proper analytical skills in getting clearer about reality.Now, an important reason universities are trusted as truth-seeking information networks is partly because of the teacher's role in distributing that information. It’s trusted as an institution because those who go through it are supposed to have been guided by experts who demonstrate how to pursue knowledge. Students who leave the institution are expected to have participated in a social practice that taught them to be competent in their field (and hopefully to be a good human being as well, whatever that means precisely) and who can now further distribute and utilize their knowledge by applying it to other domains within society. The teacher’s function within the institution is essential to this goal and fundamental to the trust granted to the institution itself. Let’s call this function a Socratic function.27Social media doesn’t have a Socratic function, and any information network trusted as a distributor of knowledge should have something resembling it. Worse than this, however, is that social media actually promotes cognitive behavior that is opposed to the whole project of pursuing truth. As an overarching, general pattern, social media reinforces and incentivizes things like cognitive bias (the immediate and intuitive presentations of System 1.) The whole business model is aimed at maximizing attention. People easily become addicted to these platforms and binge content endlessly. The only way to achieve this is by easing the user’s cognitive effort as much as possible and stimulating them with dopamine responses, allowing the user to enter a semi-hypnotic state. Of course, not everyone is affected like this; most people can assert moderation when using social media. But in an ideal world, one where social media is optimally thriving, everyone would be glued to their screens. Practical circumstances of course make this impossible, and therefore it wouldn’t truly be in social media’s interests because no one would show up for work, but if we turn the dial on the business goals of these platforms to the max, then this would be the logical consequence; it would maximize profits.Social media serves many purposes, though, and the claim is certainly not that it is, for these reasons, entirely bad. It’s only the contexts, circumstances, and situations in which it is reflexively represented as a competent and trusted information network that deals in matters of knowledge and truth that it creates an overall deficit. This is because of the intellectual and ethical confusion it produces, which is caused by its lack of a Socratic function that incentivizes and reinforces the proper psychological orientation around truth-seeking. Again, it has the opposite aim, which is to ease the effort of System 2 as much as it can and allow System 1, with all its cognitive vulnerabilities, to be at the helm. Because of this aim, social media has a Sophistic function, which contrasts the Socratic one, whose defining characteristic is to be a bullsh*tter. As mentioned above, this notion is a technical one and needs to be properly explained.The notion of bullsht comes from the American philosopher Harry Frankfurt and his essay Bullsht. Sam Harris uses this term often, especially regarding social media. First, let’s clarify what it means to lie. Lying involves an intent to deceive on the part of the person lying, who wishes to get the other to believe something contrary to the truth. The seventeen-year-old who sneaks out, gets caught, and tells their parents that they forgot their phone at their friend’s house and went to get it in the middle of the night is lying because they’re trying to deceive their parents into believing something false about reality. But reality is still salient to their aim. Although attempting to distort it, they still have reality in their conscious field of intentions, motives, and desires, i.e., they care about truth rather than caring for it. Someone who bullshts, on the other hand, has no regard for truth. It provides no reason for consideration on its own, independent of the bullshtter’s aim. Whereas the truth matters for the liar, it’s of no concern whether what one says is true or false in the case of bullsht. The bullshter’s enterprise is characteristically different than the lier in this regard. The liar “is attempting to lead us away from a correct apprehension of reality; we are not to know that he wants us to believe something he supposes to be false… The fact about himself that the bullshitter hides, on the other hand, is that the truth-values of his statements are of no central interest to him; what we are not to understand is that his intention is neither to report the truth nor to conceal it.”26The classic archetype of a bullshtter is the salesman. The truth about whether the product sold is efficient, useful, or whatever else is indifferent to the salesman. What matters, and what distinguishes one who is good from one who is not (in the sense of achieving their goal to sell the product, pure and simple,) is whether they can deceive the consumer into believing that the bullshtter is asserting something they themselves believe. There are few constraints on what a bullshtter may say to achieve their aim. Whatever helps satisfy their goal is fair play. The liar is unable to be creative like this. They must strategically and purposefully contend with the truth by believing they know it. If the liar doesn’t in fact know the truth, this will likely spoil their plans. They will be unable to grasp the situation and will likely misunderstand what the circumstances call for. A bullshtter doesn’t need to know the truth at all. They just need to make the other person think that they do. The truth conditions of their beliefs and assertions are, by itself, irrelevant.Social media is a bullshtter in incentivizing and rewarding behavior that employs bullsht. It therefore has a Sophistic function. The chief culprit for this is, of course, the algorithms. The algorithm's aim is to curate content that maximizes user engagement and attention. Whether what it presents a user with is true or false is a matter of indifference. It can matter in a sense, but only if the user is disposed toward viewing content that is oriented around truth, which is of no concern to the algorithms. The function is to bullsht the user by minimizing cognitive effort and maximizing the incentives that will keep their attention, e.g., by triggering dopamine responses through a constant succession of content patterned according to the user’s preferences. If the user desires content that aims at truthfully representing reality, he or she has to maneuver through a minefield of bullsht. There is no Socratic function that guides them through it, as there would be in any other social practice that is considered an information network whose purpose is to distribute knowledge. The proper psychological orientation that warrants discussions about how free speech is necessary for pursuing truth within a given context is entirely absent within the social media model.Hence Mill’s influential argument for the utility of free speech for the sake of truth doesn’t apply to social media. Let’s reflect on what Mill said after this long discussion. Recall the epistemic benefits he argued for. He said that letting everyone freely express their minds produces the best outcomes within a democratic community, regardless of whether what one says is true, partially true, or false. If the truth doesn’t move people, and if the general tendency to find truth salient is absent, then letting everyone say what they think is self-undermining. Why would truth matter if everyone free to speak their mind disregards it? Seeing truth as a reason for a social practice means truth is fundamental to the aims that characterize the institution, and this means being properly oriented around it, which means caring for it.Section 9:I want to end now with a discussion about how this all relates to Nostr and how it has the potential to be an information network that performs much better than social media as a context concerned with knowledge and truth. The principal reason that will be considered here is Nostr’s pursuit of a fully decentralized model that aims at user autonomy. Autonomy makes a crucial difference between an information network that more reliably tracks truth and one that is indifferent to it.Social media reduces users' autonomy by trying to use them as a means toward further ends, namely, their attention, engagement, and data. The algorithm's job is to sort through users’ information and curate it in ways that maximize profit. This generally results in the spread of bullsht because what determines information as worth spreading does not depend on that information’s truth value. However, when users can curate their own content by judging for themselves what information they wish to retrieve from relays; when it’s left to each user to decide what content is valuable and what isn’t; when users themselves can determine what is worth censuring and not be subject to the interests of a centralized server, the aim is clearly to place autonomy back into their hands. What’s important, though, is that autonomy has a certain purpose in the Nostr context: to allow people to create at all protocol levels. Part of what a centralized server does is create a fixed infrastructure that greatly restricts what users may do on the platform (the chief restriction being to yield as much profit as possible for shareholders.) Creators especially are affected by this because the value they contribute to the platforms is filtered through what will necessarily constrain it. Nostr, however, is different. What largely motivates the value of autonomy is the desire to let creators create content freely and without outside constraints, which, of course, is to provide them freedom of expression. By users having the freedom to build and the autonomy to curate and choose what content is personally valuable to a user, truth becomes highly relevant within the context. Now, if Mill is right when he says that only true beliefs have any utility (and false beliefs necessarily lead one astray in some sense,) users who produce content will be highly incentivized to track the truth, to have an accurate representation of it, because to fail at this will result in unappealing content due to its lack of value. No centralized authority is supposed to be able to force something to appear valuable; it’s up to the users to determine this. And if something will endure and not fade once the reasons why it may have trended disappear, it needs to track the truth. If it doesn’t, if it only matters to people because it is sensational or cheap, if it’s bullsht, it will always lose in the long run.Since people on Nostr have the autonomy to build and curate their own content, unlike social media, there is less at play that can ossify the network. There must be a great deal of motion because, in principle, no user or client can monopolize the space. This built-in fluidity captures an important aspect of truth-seeking, which John Milton expressed when saying, “Knowledge thrives by exercise… Truth is compared in scripture to a streaming fountain; if her waters flow not in a perpetual progression, they sicken into a muddy pool of conformity and tradition.” Everyone has to earn their success on Nostr, so the principal way to do this is to create something valuable. Again, if Mill is right, the value must largely be derived from the truth that the content represents, creating an incentive to care for the truth. Bullsh*t can’t be forcefully distributed because it maximizes some desired metric. Information is chiefly distributed by individual users valuing it.Nostr provides a way to see if Mill was right in thinking only true beliefs have any real value. Since the intention is to move away from social media’s business model, there is an opportunity to determine whether people will naturally choose the truth through their own autonomous decision-making. If there are no algorithms that aim to seize and maximize user attention, people are free to choose what content they wish to consume. It is a choice whether truth prevails over its opposite in the Nostr context because individuals are incentivized to contribute what they want to see. And if things go astray, people can fix it by creating something better.Notes:For a similar but far more elaborate, comprehensive, and complex argument of this kind, see John Vervaeke’s Awakening From the Meaning Crisis on YouTube.For an elaboration on free speech justifications, see Greenawalt, K. (2007). Free Speech Justifications. Colombia Law Review.For a history of Free speech, see Jacob Mchangama’s book Free Speech: Socrates to Social Media.Kant, I. (1784). What is Enlightenment? (p. 1). Hacket Publishing.This is not to suggest wokism is the sole culprit of this cultural trend. It’s one example amongst others on all parts of the political spectrum. But it’s an important example because wokism aims to be virtuous and moral. Therefore, it’s a good example because it is important to question whether their moral claims are correct. Furthermore, a plausible reply on the part of one who may subscribe to something like wokism (whatever that means precisely) is that it isn’t the duty of those who have been oppressed to teach those they consider to be oppressors. The duty falls on the latter. This is a challenging question to settle, and it makes up the potentially unbridgable gulf between wokism and its opponents. But if empathy is a virtue (or a vital moral response), it’s central that everyone exercises it, not just those who are held to be guilty of something.Simpson, R. M. (2024). The Connected City of Ideas. Daedalus.Harari, N. Y. (2024). Nexus. Random House.Eisenstein, E. L. (1979). The Printing Press as an Agent of Change (p. 45). Cambridge University Press.Melchert, N. (2007). The Great Conversation (p. 304). Oxford University Press.Melchert, N. (2007). The Great Conversation. Oxford University Press.Wagner, C. (2012). Scientia Moralitas (Moral Autonomy and Responsibility - The Reformation’s Legacy in Today’s Society). Scientia Moralitas Research Institute.Fromm, E. (1941). Escape From Freedom (p. 54). Discus.James, W. (1902). The Varieties of Religious Experience (p. 54). Penguin Classics.Dreyfus, H., & Kelly, S. D. (2011). All Things Shining: Reading the Western Classics to Find Meaning in a Secular Age (p. 122). Free Press.Dreyfus, H., & Kelly, S. D. (2011). All Things Shining: Reading the Western Classics to Find Meaning in a Secular Age (p. 122). Free Press.Aristotle, A. (1953). Ethics (p. 122). Penguin Classics.Schumacher, E. (1977). A Guide For the Perplexed. Harper Colophon Books.As Isaiah Berlin makes clear in his essay Two Concepts of Liberty, it is easy to see how positive freedom may easily lead to foolish and immoral action due to its purposeful nature. It is quite challenging to dissuade someone that what they believe to be their purpose in life, their ultimate meaning, relies on false premises.Fromm, E. (1941). Escape From Freedom. Discus.Chalmers, A. (1974). What is this thing called Science? Hacket Publishing.Descartes, R. (2010). Meditations on First Philosophy. Oxford World's Classics.See Bertrand Russel’s The History of Western Philosophy for how Descartes's argument is logically invalid. He can’t doubt that some process of thinking is occurring, but whether something is doing the thinking isn’t obvious.Locke, J. Two Treatises on Government.Justice Holmes made the Marketplace metaphor popular in Abrams v United States (1919), and has become a central precedent in free speech cases.For a similar argument, see Nevin Chellappah’s “Is John Stuart Mill’s Account of Free Speech Sustainable In the Age of Social Media?”Ryle, G. (1949). The Concept of Mind. Penguin.Frankfurt, H. (1986). Bullshit. Princeton University Press.To see the Socratic function in real time, watch The Joe Rogan Experience episode #2171. Eric Weinstein demonstrates what it means for an expert to engage with someone outside their respective field who claims to have knowledge that overturns the discipline but with no professional training to back it up. His attitude demonstrates a care for truth. @yakihonne

@ 6b7c438e:fc81aab3

Taryn Christiansen @ DoraHacksSpecial thanks to Eric Zhang for in-depth discussions.A mirror post on Dora Research Blog is available: https://research.dorahacks.io/2024/12/24/free-speech-foundation Intro:This article will argue that truth-based justifications for free speech are inappropriate within the social media context.1 Flooding the market with more information doesn’t necessarily force truth to emerge and bob at the surface. No matter how much information is pumped into a space filled with falsehoods and deception, if the right mechanisms aren’t in place, the area will only grow more chaotic and overcrowded, and therefore all the more easier to get lost in it. As an instrument to obtain knowledge of the truth, free speech has to be properly used, and people need to know how to use it.That isn’t to say that the tap should be shut off and that free speech should be curtailed; other justifications are perfectly reasonable, as will be seen below. But the idea that what we’re up to on social media is seeking out the truth only produces more confusion about what we collectively take to be sources of trustworthy information that is accurate and sincere. We would be better off if social media were viewed as an information network that is distinct from other spaces that are generally considered places where we obtain reliably true beliefs.But other spaces have the potential to be a more appropriate target for truth-based justifications for free speech, one of which is Nostr. Because of Nostr’s fully decentralized and open nature, which allows for innovation at all levels of its protocol, people have more opportunity to create valuable content that will only be distributed across the network because it is in fact valuable. The algorithms on social media force content to be valuable because there are standards that aim at maximizing user engagement in cheap and overstimulating ways. It doesn’t matter to these mechanisms whether something is true or not. What matters first is whether something promotes the ends of the social media companies, which are primarily driven by maximizing profits through ads and attention. Achieving this goal means reducing users' autonomy in picking and choosing what content to consume. Nostr aims to give the users their autonomy back by freeing developers to build both relays and clients. If users can make decisions that aren’t influenced by social media’s algorithmic decision-making, then it can be discerned whether truth is naturally relevant to people in these kinds of information networks, as well as whether people really desire to care for the truth.Section 1:It should be assumed at this point in history2, especially in liberal democracies, that the freedom to express one’s mind is inseparable from a basic conception of human dignity. If one is prohibited from freely discussing and challenging prevailing beliefs or forced to conform to a point of view that was not arrived at by using one’s own rational and reflective faculties, then human dignity suffers. There’s a reason Socrates went around the Athenian marketplace and tirelessly questioned the people he encountered there. He wasn’t interested in forcing people to submit to specific beliefs. Socrates wanted people to realize and reflect on whether what they believed was true or not, and therefore if it was something worth believing in. But integral to this project is the idea that people have to think through the questions themselves and not rely on an authority. Authority may be right; it may hold true beliefs and assert rational demands, but it doesn’t mean anything unless people themselves know the way to them. This requires the individual to be willing to develop what’s necessary for this.John Milton was right when he wrote in his 1644 pamphlet Areopagatica, which was directed against the English Parlament’s order for licensing books, that “A man may be a heretic in the truth… If he believes things only because his pastor says so, or the assembly so determines, without knowing other reasons, though his belief be true, yet the very truth he holds becomes his heresy.” People must be free to reason for themselves, to arrive at truths through the use of their own faculties, to develop their individual conscience, which, by its nature, must be exercised by the individual’s will and not by an externally imposed authority. Immanuel Kant’s call to the Enlightenment, Sapere aude! - “Have courage to use your own reason!”3 - is a call to actualize human dignity through the use of one’s reason. These faculties cannot be cultivated unless the individual can express him or herself freely.Woke culture is an illustrative example of how there is a connection between free speech and human dignity. It shows that when the strategy is to problematize and silence people, no matter how noble or virtuous the goal is believed to be, it only perpetuates a cycle of frustration and anger. The problem with woke culture isn’t necessarily their ideals. We all would agree, or should at least, that people should respect the basic dignity of others, treat everyone as persons, empathize with those with a different experience, and learn and grow from one another’s unique perspective. These are all good things; they’re profoundly valuable. The issue is how woke culture formulated and implemented their interpretations of what these notions amount to, what they call for, and what moral duties they demand. One of its principal goals has been to discern how historical oppressors should atone for previous wrongdoings. Many have come to understand this as meaning that those who come from those lineages are, in some sense, problematic and that, therefore, proponents of wokism have the duty to silence them, to condemn them, to act as if they are a net negative to the social good, and to impose a punishment of silence to atone for the past. This has been a grave mistake. Instead of engaging in a dialogue to reach the other person’s conscience, those who bore this duty have tended to sermonize in a sanctimonious, demeaning way, which only shuts people down and turns off the parts of the brain that promote learning and development, and turns on what generates combative and defensive behavior. The typical approach in woke culture has been enormously undemocratic in spirit due to its preference to force people to adopt reasons rather than opening people up to consider them in their proper light, namely, as claims about morality that make demands on the conscience of the person, which can only be properly understood and felt through the use of his or her own faculties. Woke culture, which offers some genuine insight into the world's contemporary moral situation, failed to respect the dignity of those they wished to persuade by using coercive measures instead of appealing to their conscience. Free speech is absolutely necessary in an endeavor like this because only by upholding such a social practice will everyone’s basic dignity be respected, which is integral to people being open to changing their minds. Moral debates within society should never devolve into a contest of wills. This only undermines the foundation of a democratic community, the basic pillar being human dignity.4But although free speech bears a necessary connection to human dignity, it does not bear the same relation to truth. For free speech to bear a proper relation to truth, one where free speech produces a high probability of tracking it, those seeking out truth must have the right psychological orientation toward it; otherwise, the two easily come apart. In his recent book Nexus, Yoel Noah Harari presents a clear way of seeing this. Harari criticizes what he calls the ‘naive view of information,’ which “argues that by gathering and processing much more information than individuals can, big networks achieve a better understanding of medicine, physics, economics, and numerous other fields, which makes the network not only powerful but wise.” The notion of wisdom is key. While it’s theoretically possible that an information network can be wise (especially with the development of better AI), it will be useless unless human beings have some idea about what wisdom is. If they don’t, then they’ll have to just assume that the information being presented was properly arrived at, i.e., with the wisdom necessary for obtaining truth, which will, in effect, create a servility to the information network and not to the human faculties necessary for discerning and knowing the truth. To use a distinction made by Plato, they will have an opinion about the truth, not knowledge. To know means to understand the reasons why something is the case, not just that it is the case.Harari’s book is important because the naive view of information he presents is prevalent and is most often expressed in the marketplace of ideas metaphor. In essence, the metaphor suggests that free speech operates like a free market because, by allowing individuals to pursue and satisfy their preferences freely, the truth will somehow outcompete falsehoods. Either because people’s preferences are more deeply satisfied by truth, and/or because the beliefs people hold will only have any real value (or utility) when they are true, when they accurately represent reality. But in a marketplace, “people don’t reliably ‘buy’ truths. People buy the ideas they like. And people don’t reliably like truths better than falsehoods. What the invisible hand does, all going well, is efficiently allocate goods to people based on what they want.”5 For truth to reliably outcompete falsehoods, consumers must have a particular orientation around truth. Unless we think ideas are true based solely on their utility, which is itself not a very useful notion, more has to be said as to why consumers would desire the truth over anything else in a marketplace of ideas. Everyone has opinions they cherish and hold to be, in some way, fundamental to themselves and their identities. It is perfectly conceivable that someone will reject any truth that conflicts with these deeply valued sentiments. For a free competition of ideas to track and produce true information, consumers have to want truth to win out, and this desire should motivate the consumer’s decision-making. In other words, one must bear a special psychological orientation toward truth for the marketplace metaphor to be an appropriate model for understanding free speech as being justified for the sake of truth. Again, free speech is important for other reasons, such as human dignity. But whether free speech is justified for the sake of truth is a separate question, and until the proper stance is taken toward truth, truth-based justifications are inapplicable.The fact that the distribution of more and more information doesn’t bear a necessary connection to truth can also be gleaned from historical examples. When a technology revolutionizes human information networks, which allows for information to be shared more efficiently and in larger quantities than ever before, the society that implements it does not therefore obtain a higher fidelity to truth. The opposite is equally plausible. This is the problem facing social media. If truth-based justifications are an appropriate way to justify free speech practices on such platforms, social media must create an environment that promotes the proper psychological orientation toward truth. What matters is whether they can care for the truth rather than adopt a stance that promotes what the philosopher Harry Frankfurt called bullsh*t, which means to be indifferent toward truth. Before explaining this further, let’s look at a historical example that demonstrates the following: First, as new technology arrives and transforms information networks, the information that is consequently distributed can equally promote both what is true and what is not; and second, and more philosophically, the technology can also reorient a society’s relationship to truth, which in turn affects how the society arrives at knowledge.Section 2:Take the invention of the Gutenberg printing press in 1440. Before its inception, the Catholic Church made Western Europe effectively an echo chamber. They dominated the information networks by controlling what could be printed, distributed, and accredited as knowledge. The vast majority of the population couldn’t read, and only a select few could read the Holy writings, which contained information that was considered the highest truth attainable by human beings. Only a select few were blessed enough to be able to handle this sort of information. Because all other information flowed from this central institution, everyone else depended on the Church for what to believe. The reality of that situation, and what it must have felt like to be in such a dependent position, can begin to be imagined by considering the following: “In the thirteenth century the library of Oxford University consisted of a few books kept in a chest under St. Mary’s Church. In 1424 the library of Cambridge University boasted a grand total of only 122 books. An Oxford University decree from 1409 stipulated that ‘all recent texts’ studied at the university must be unanimously approved ‘by a panel of twelve theologians appointed by the archbishop.’”6 When the quantity of information is this low, and in the context of the Catholic Church, is also greatly limited in diversity, it’s difficult even to imagine anything outside the worldview that is being imposed.Now, alongside the Church’s control of information networks, the production efficiency of copyists and scribes who had to manufacture the books was dismally low. It exponentially grew when the printing press automated the work. The historian Sir John Harold Clapham wrote, “A man born in 1453, the year of the fall of Constantinople, could look back from his fiftieth year on a lifetime in which about eight million books had been printed, more perhaps than all the scribes of Europe had produced since Constantine founded his city in A.D. 330.”7 The restriction on information and people’s inability to consider anything outside of the prevailing tradition, as well as the technological and productive inefficiency of the time, left most people in darkness, with no way out other than by following the dim, consoling light cast by the Church. The printing press changed all of this. “It revolutionized the world,” as the philosopher Francis Bacon said.The printing press gave people the autonomy to print and distribute ideas that the Church didn’t authorize and thereby provided the platform necessary for the Reformation to take hold, which started with Martin Luther in the early sixteenth century. There were previous attempts at reform, but the printing press made a momentous difference. The concurrence of the printing press and the Reformation revealed the corrosive corruption within the Catholic Church. People were finely able to learn about the degenerate tendencies within the institution, which the Church was previously able to stifle because it controlled the information networks. The buying and selling of Church positions and indulgences that allowed people to pay their way out of purgatory, political intrigue, nepotism, bribery, and immoral consolidation of wealth through taxes was disclosed as a consequence of the printing press. The notion that the Church was the medium by which people moved toward God’s grace collapsed, and people saw that “it had become a means of securing worldly prestige, power, and wealth for those who were clever and ruthless enough to bend it to their will.”8But this historical occurrence also unleashed a flurry of misinformation. The religious wars that followed the Reformation were devastating, and millions of people died, an exceptional case being the Thirty Years War (1618-48). The dissemination of Luther’s 95 theses regarding the corruption of the Church spread like wildfire across Europe after he posted them in 1516 on the Church Castle in Wittenberg, Germany, which the printing press made possible. It would only make sense, then, that the Church would follow suit and take advantage of the technology to combat what it held to be heresy and to reinstate its power as the dominant influence in the West (for an amalgam of reasons, of course.) All sides involved in these religious disputes didn’t merely use the printing press to disseminate accurate information. They used it to spread misinformation to satisfy their political interests, intensifying the ensuing wars and battles between the various emerging religious sects and the rising monarchies.This demonstrates the first point: the printing press, which was a revolution in human information networks, produced both true and false information. There was no causal, historical determinacy one way or the other. While it disclosed truths about Church corruption, it was also used as a means to spread political propaganda that fueled the religious wars.Now, as for the second, more philosophical point, the Reformation also reoriented people’s relation to truth by democratizing matters of faith. Whether one believes the Reformation was, in this respect, an overall good or not, from a liberal democratic point of view, it has to be considered good. The Reformation placed faith into the hands of the individual conscience, rendering considerations about one’s standing in relation to God to have a personal, rather than institutional, significance. Before, “the Church was the keeper and protector of Christian truths and the harbor of salvation for those at sea in sin.”9 Luther rejected this picture of salvation and believed one could be saved through faith and scripture alone, without an intermediary. Luther thought that one’s spiritual significance did not depend on authority. He didn’t see the Church as some emanation from God or a reflection of a Divine order that the individual participated in and was guided by to reach salvation. Individuals are solely responsible for their spiritual significance and capacity to reach a higher truth in God. In one of his more heroic acts, he translated the bible into vernacular German from the traditional Latin (which was considered the holy language, the only one appropriate for capturing religious truths). He gave common people access to what was previously sealed off from them. The individual, free from external imposition and constraint, can privately attain truth on his or her own.Luther formulated a radical inner freedom that broke with some of the Church’s fundamental precepts. There was, of course, an inner freedom already present in Catholicism, but Luther placed it at the center of things rather than as revolving around an institution. Before Luther, St. Augustine went to great lengths to demonstrate the spiritual significance of an inner life, and Luther was an Augustinian monk. But Luther went much further than him. In one of his lectures on YouTube, the philosopher Michael Sugrue observes that this amounted to a kind of Copernican Revolution in religion. That is to say that, rather than the Church being the axis by which things revolve around and where one finds his or her salvation, rather than identifying with an institution by which one finds freedom within a corporate body in which lies their place amongst others in a perfectly ordered, hierarchical, and harmonious cosmos, the individual became the center axis of spiritual and religious matters. It’s easy to see, then, how this theological idea possesses the potential to develop into the idea of individual rights and liberties. Luther provided a kind of autonomy10 for the individual, where whether one is saved is bound up with one’s inner conscience and not with external works or good deeds that the Church facilitates. The individual is an irreducible unit of value that is not subsumed by any other worldly object. And the individual's value rests in their conscience and capacity to receive God’s grace. This idea has sparks of the modern sense of human dignity, and it will create a conflagration throughout Europe as it develops. If there is no Church or institution to settle one’s moral, spiritual, and intellectual significance, one is left to use one’s faculties for guidance. And because it is one’s faculties that attain truth and spiritual salvation, they are the center of value in human life, which bears a natural right for protection.At the Diet of Worms in 1521, where Luther had to answer to charges of heresy because of his theological work, the Church demanded that he recant. He refused. But the reasons for his refusal are the most important. He demanded that the Church show him through scripture and reason alone that he was wrong and not through the dictates of authority. His protest demonstrated that the individual can reach the truth through his or her own means. The Church’s decline began far before this historical moment, but Luther made the decisive blow that the printing press made possible. The Church fragmented as a consequence, which, to Catholics, meant truth itself was fragmented and resulted in a proliferation of denominations scattered across Europe.Section 3:What was so subversive about Luther in this respect is that he divorced sanctification, the process by which one lives in the image of Christ, i.e., a life of virtue, from self-transformation. Although Luther carved out the individual as an irreducible unit of value, this also severed the individual from a stable and definite path that assuaged one’s existential suffering: “The Church… assured the individual of her unconditional love to all her children and offered a way to acquire the conviction of being forgiven and loved by God. The relationship to God was more one of confidence and love than of doubt and fear.”11 Luther believed that one was saved through faith alone and by no other means. He thought that because human beings are all sinners, their wills cannot do anything to reach salvation and spiritual peace. How, then, can one tell if they have been saved? There is no longer an authority to adjudicate this. The individual can discover the truth for themself and so must determine what this means on their own. Several centuries later, Kant gave voice to the duty he believed to arise from this new freedom:Thus, it is difficult for any individual man to work himself out of the immaturity that has all but become his nature. He has even become fond of this state and for the time being is actually incapable of using his own understanding, for no one has ever allowed him to attempt it. Rules and formulas, those mechanical aids to the rational use, or rather misuse, of his natural gifts, are the shackles of a permanent immaturity. Whoever threw them off would still make only an uncertain leap over the smallest ditch, since he is unaccustomed to this kind of free movement. Consequently, only a few have succeeded, by cultivating their own minds, in freeing themselves from immaturity and pursuing a secure course.So, while much was gained during the Reformation, the reorientation around truth also had consequences. Self-transformation, the effort of will, the idea of having an inner and outer journey that culminates into something larger and more significant, took on radically different meanings under Luther and the future Protestant countries. To see this, we can turn to Dante’s Divine Comedy, which demonstrates part of what was lost under Luther.Section 4:In Dante’s Divine Comedy, the culmination of the Medieval worldview before Luther, Dante embarks on a Christian pilgrimage that ends in his being saved. Just as with the above, it’s crucial to understand that the point here will not be exclusively religious but universal in the sense that religion, as manifested across all cultures, didn’t create this experience but was the medium by which it has been expressed and made sense of; it provides it a voice. This goes back to William James and his book The Varieties of Religious Experience. There is the private aspect of religious experience, and then there is the institutional component within which the private side takes shape. Buddhists practice meditation and strive to contemplate Nirvana; the Christian prays and goes to mass; the Stoics distance themselves from their inaccurate emotional representations and contemplate what is rational and in his or her control; and so forth. As James points out, what is fundamental to all religious experience, in the private sense, are two aspects: there is an uneasiness, which, “reduced to its simplest terms, is a sense that there is something wrong about us as we naturally stand;” and two, a solution, which “is a sense that we are saved from the wrongness by making proper connection with the higher powers (508).” The first aspect means the self is in conflict, is divided, and desires unification. In religious language, the self seeks salvation and an experience of being saved from their situation, which is characterized by suffering due to inner division and conflict. This can take on an existential mode, as with Leo Tolstoy in his book Confessions, or it can be highly moral. In Tolstoy’s book Confessions, he relates a story of a traveler being chased by a beast that imaginatively captures the relevant phenomena:Seeking to save himself from the fierce animal, the traveler jumps into a well with no water in it; but at the bottom of this well he sees a dragon waiting with open mouth to devour him. And the unhappy man, not daring to go out lest he should be the prey of the beast, not daring to jump to the bottom lest he should be devoured by the dragon, clings to the branches of a wild bush which grows out of one of the cracks of the well. His hands weaken, and he feels that he must soon give way to certain fate; but still he clings, and sees two mice, one white, the other black, evenly moving round the bush to which he hangs, and gnawing off its roots. The traveler sees this and knows that he must inevitably perish; but while thus hanging he looks about him and finds on the leaves of the bush some drops of honey. These he reaches with his tongue and licks them off with rapture. Thus I hang upon the boughs of life, knowing that the inevitable dragon of death is waiting ready to tear me, and I cannot comprehend why I am thus made a martyr. I try to suck the honey which formerly consoled me; but the honey pleases me no longer, and day and night the white mouse and the black mouse gnaw the branch to which I cling. I can see but one thing: the inevitable dragon and the mice—I cannot turn my gaze away from them.”12Clearly, Tolstoy is suffering from a serious existential episode in which he can’t find a purpose or meaning in life that will clear away his anxiety, which is represented in the dragon, which time, represented in the mice, slowly draws him near. This is his “uneasiness.” He must find a solution, then, because his situation is unlivable.Religion has historically addressed this need. In the Middle Ages, the Church was the institution through which people expressed this experience and resolved their inner conflicts, tensions, and divisions. Let’s turn to Dante’s Divine Comedy to see how the private aspect of this experience is made sense of through Christain’s notion of the pilgrimage.The poem begins with Dante suddenly becoming aware of himself, “Midway upon life’s journey,” as he says, and terrified by the fact that he’s lost in a dark world, having “gone astray,” and is in despair because he has begun to lose all hope for himself. “We know nothing of how Dante has gone astray, only that he has, and that he must undertake a journey, therefore, to save his soul.”13 He is, like Tolstoy, experiencing an “uneasiness” (though in more of a moral rather than existential sense; God is always present for Dante.) So, he has discovered that he has been living wrongly, that he’d strayed from the right path, from the way, and despite his attempts to free himself of his sins and burdens, he’s unable to do it alone. Although it’s unclear why Dante has lost his way, “the journey itself is clearer. It will take him through the entire Christian spiritual universe.”14The Roman poet Virgil is sent to initiate and lead him on this path forward. Virgil represents all of Classical learning, from the Greeks to the Romans. Though they were pagans, they represent the highest one can do as a non-Christian, which is to reach, as Aristotle said, the contemplative life15, where one can reflect on the Whole, on the cosmos. But because they didn’t have faith, they could never experience a fullness of being or completeness that produces the solution to the uneasiness that James discussed. According to Christian doctrine, only Christians may experience this. Thus, they had to remain in Hell.Now, for Dante to move down through Hell, climb up Purgatory, and then transcend into Heaven, he must engage with the Classical world by wrestling with the questions they set out to answer, which is an immensely difficult aim to take on; one that will transform the self as it moves through an activity and process of the soul, intellect, mind, or whatever it is that is the center in which human development toward the Good, as Plato would say, takes place. What’s fascinating about this ascent is that, in the Medieval worldview, it wasn’t merely an internal endeavor; it also bore a deep and profound relationship to the external world. By embarking on the Christian pilgrimage, one was, in a sense, becoming closer and closer to reality, to truth, to what is most real, which corresponded with a transformation of the self that is accompanied by an experience of fulfillment. As one ascends, one climbs what was called the Great Chain of Being, a metaphysical (ontological) thesis that was first articulated by Aristotle, which was adopted by, and adapted to, Christian thought in the thirteenth century.The Chain of Being introduces a vertical aspect to reality rather than merely a horizontal one. At the top is the highest Truth, and the lowest is the least real, i.e., the lowest level of being, which consists of matter and material objects, whereas the highest consists of what is immaterial, like consciousness or mind. And so everything and everyone grows increasingly heavier as Dante moves downward through Hell due to being weighed down by an attachment to the material, earthly substance, which produces a growing despair and lack of fulfillment. As Dante moves upward from Purgatory to Heaven, things become lighter and immaterial in proportion to how much something embodies the spiritual, divine substance, which is achieved through directing one’s desire toward the right objects, toward what is more real and true. In Plato’s allegory of the cave, as one breaks free from the chains and shadows at the bottom and climbs toward the exit where the sun can be seen, one also gains more and more insight into reality as things are illuminated more clearly through the light. Like Purgatory, the ascent up the cave is profound and challenging. But the initial insight of seeing into reality, which reveals that what was previously experienced was illusory, produces the desire to see even further into what now appears absolute and true. This desire pulls and aims Dante upward as he climbs higher toward reality and up the Great Chain of Being. The economist and philosopher E.F. Schumacher16 put the significance of this view as follows:The ability to see the Great Truth of the hierarchic structure of the world, which makes it possible to distinguish between higher and lower Levels of Being, is one of the indispensable conditions of understanding. Without it, it is not possible to find out where everything has its proper and legitimate place. Everything, everywhere, can be understood only when its Level of Being is fully taken into account. Many things are true at a low Level of Being and become absurd at a higher level, and of course vice versa.Dante’s pilgrimage, then, aims toward attaining a higher level of being than when he found himself lost in the forest. By turning inward, by engaging in a contemplative mode of being that engages the self in pursuit of an inner harmony that resonates with an external, hierarchic order, Dante is striving to attain a kind of freedom that is somewhat alien to us today. We can think of the notion of freedom in a negative and a positive sense. In the negative sense, freedom is understood as freedom from something; from external constraint, for example. The First Amendment is typically interpreted along these lines. Everyone is free to speak their minds because the state should not be allowed to interfere with our freedom to do so. All are free to do as they please as long as they do not infringe on another person’s right to do so.The positive sense is much different. It is a freedom for something. In Dante’s Hell, everyone found themselves there because they (at minimum) acted free purely in the negative sense. They lived their lives as they saw fit, without regard to any higher form of life. They didn’t act for the sake of a virtuous purpose (although that’s not quite right regarding the virtuous pagans and a few others.) To be free in the positive sense means to act according to a higher aim. When Socrates refused to renounce the philosophical life and was put to death, he made that decision based on a principle grounded in his inner conscience, which he took to express something sacred and higher, which always spoke to him when he was about to do wrong. He accepted the death penalty because the unexamined life wasn’t worth living; it had no purpose toward a higher aim17. 17Dante’s Divine Comedy provides a narrative by which the uneasiness one experiences in life, as articulated by James, can reach a solution and resolve the inner conflict and division by providing a framework by which the individual moves closer to reality, to what is most real, and up the Chain of Being.Section 5:Now, the pilgrimage captured in Dante’s poem was not something anyone could take up, at least not in its full dramatic content; it was obviously something only a select few could embark on, and this depended on the situation one was born into, like whether one was wealthy enough to receive an education. One’s salvation in the social order was rarely epic or heroic in nature; it typically meant following the structure imposed upon the individual by the Church. Just as how the cosmos was hierarchically ordered, so was society. The reasons for the social order were Divinely decreed. The social structure was immovable in a way because shifting the social order and rearranging it would violate scripture and God’s Word. Hence people were, as we would judge today, unfree and restricted. However, as psychologist Erick Fromm writes, “although a person was not free in the modem sense, neither was he alone and isolated. In having a distinct, unchangeable, and unquestionable place in the social world from the moment of birth, man was rooted in a structuralized whole, and thus life had a meaning which left no place, and no need, for doubt. A person was identical with his role in society; he was a peasant, an artisan, a knight, and not an individual who happened to have this or that occupation. The social order was conceived as a natural order, and being a definite part of it gave a feeling of security and of belonging.”18 Luther’s devastating blow against the Church in the Reformation rejected the social order and the Chain of Being and set in motion the release of the individual from the bondage they were restrained in. But by freeing the individual, he also eliminated the necessary self-transformation that played a substantial role in the Medieval worldview. Luther democratized salvation, spirituality, and questions about meaning in one’s life.This Copernican revolution in religious matters allowed for a radical reorientation toward truth, which relied on the printing press's efficiency in producing and distributing information.There were, of course, other factors that contributed to the Catholic Church's decline. The literal Copernican revolution and the rise of science being an obvious example. But what became increasingly less present in the scientific worldview that was emerging then is the idea that, as one gains knowledge of the world, one also goes through a transformative experience like Dante’s. The notion that knowledge of truth and reality converges with a meaningful and spiritual ethical development has mostly fallen off. Science’s aim is pure objectivity. For much of history, what is ‘objective’ is also intrinsically beneficial to the subject coming into contact with it. Values in scientific judgment and knowledge are a transgression, a violation of scientific precept, and are opposed to the whole epistemic enterprise (meaning a method by which knowledge is gained.) Science does not care about how one feels, what one desires in life, or what meaning one may find in it and simply presents facts as a body of indifferent and empirically verified knowledge.This is, of course, a caricature, as Thomas Kuhn19 argued in the twentieth century. Scientists certainly value their theories and are not merely attempting to refute them through experimentation. Theories allow scientists to have a grip on the world and a language of concepts that can be used to describe it accurately. This conceptual framework gives the world a theoretically intelligible and discernible order. And so once the anomalies and unsolved problems in a scientific paradigm grow serious enough, those working within it enter into a crisis until a new paradigm emerges (as is what happened when moving from Newtonian mechanics to Eistenin’s relativity.) Still, moving from one paradigm to the next isn’t believed to be an ethical progression. It’s a movement from one framework to the next. Unlike the Medieval worldview, it is generally held that science says nothing about human values and how one ought to live. Being a scientist does not suggest that someone is wise like a Socrates or Plato.Unlike the Church in the Middle Ages, which, in terms of knowledge, played a similar role to science today, science is not an institution that is in the business of handing out ethical and moral guidance. A scientist would likely balk (or should balk) at the idea of being viewed as someone who has gone through an ethical self-transformation to gain the knowledge that he or she has solely because of becoming a scientist. Being one of course requires an enormous amount of discipline, effort, and intelligence, which is, in a way, transformative, but in a different sense than what Dante embarked on. Today, knowledge of truth and reality does not necessarily correspond with an ethical progression.This idea of not requiring ethical self-transformation to gain the highest forms of knowledge is most noticeable in Rene Descartes’ philosophy in the seventeenth century. Descartes set out to rebuild a foundation through which knowledge could be rebuilt from the ruins left by the Church’s decline.20 The Church had lost its viability as something that could be believed to provide reliable knowledge for the social body. It was no longer psychologically obvious that the Church was the principal source and authority of appeal when dealing with matters of truth. Referring to scripture, for instance, could no longer be done by relying on what the Papacy had interpreted it as meaning. Luther (and others) undermined this immediacy for many. The United States faces a similar situation today. There is a diminishing trust in the democratic institutions that have historically served as distributors of trustworthy knowledge. Descartes attempted to deal with a similar crisis by discovering foundations immune from doubt. And he believed himself to have discovered such a foundation through his Cogito: I think, therefore I am. I can doubt all of my mental representations of the world, such as those of tables and chairs and coffee mugs, as well as my particular thoughts and feelings, and even the existence of my own body and sense experience. For all I know, I may be dreaming or being deceived by an evil demon into believing all kinds of imaginary and false representations of things. I can’t affirm or deny this with any certainty. But I cannot doubt that I am doubting; that much is certain. And since doubting is a property of thinking, I can’t doubt that I am thinking.Therefore, I am a thinking thing, an immaterial substance that is distinct from the physical bodies liable to doubt21. This is the most fundamental truth that not even reason could call into question. It’s radically different from truth as understood on the Chain of Being model. There is no ethical transformation involved in realizing this indubitable proposition. It’s self-evident to anyone rational and clear-minded (or so Descartes thinks.) And this is certainly how many people today think of knowledge. And in some cases, quite rightly. Take human rights as an example. John Locke22, a momentous figure who shaped the language of rights and how modernity thinks about them, argued that human rights are self-evident in the same sense as a geometric axiom. It just appears before the mind as something incapable of being doubted (to a clear, rational mind, of course, who has done the proper thinking, like someone who has rightly apprehended a geometric axiom.) The US’s founding document memorializes Locke’s claim: “We hold these truths to be self-evident.” The deepest, most profound truths about humanity are ‘obvious’ to any rational mind. This is, of course, a good thing. It is good that people intuitively find one another intrinsically and irreducibly valuable. But when this notion is taken for granted, when, as we’ll soon see with John Stuart Mill, an idea grows ossified, fixed, and dogmatic, it loses its potency and desired effect. But if one arrives at the idea of human rights through a transformative process, where one realizes the concept through a process of development and growth that culminates in seeing the profound value within a conscious human being, the notion of rights is animating and action-producing; it stirs and moves the motivation of those who go through this process. In other words, it produces a particular psychological orientation around what is believed to be true.Section 6:So, information technologies do not merely distribute previously unavailable information that is then propagated across a network. Nor does the production of such information bear a natural, necessary connection to truth. They can do both, but much more is at play. The printing press allowed for the conditions necessary for the Reformation to occur, and its occurrence produced a radical shift in the Medieval worldview. Truth was hierarchically organized, and those at the top had exclusive access. The Reformation leveled this structure and diffused the notion that all Christians are equal regarding Divine knowledge. There was no need for an authoritative intermediary to facilitate people’s relation to God. People could do it themselves through faith and scripture alone. But this also meant that all the social practices instituted for the purposes of coming into contact with truth, all the rituals and rites used to reinforce the beliefs of when and how truth manifests itself, slowly went with it. Therefore, people’s orientation around truth, how they conceived of it, where it resided, and how one knew it, was disrupted. People weren’t merely given previously unavailable information; the entire information landscape was turned upside down. This can reveal new terrain within the landscape that can lead to deep and valuable truths, such as human rights and liberties, and it can also conceal older, previously established truths, like the notion of transformative experiences being necessary for coming into closer contact with reality.Similarly to the printing press, social media poses a historical parallel. We can see this by looking at the most famous defense of free speech for the sake of truth, namely, John Stuart Mill’s essay On Liberty. We’ll see that, like how the printing press reoriented people’s relation to truth, social media is doing so by increasingly shifting how we conceive of, participate in, and come to know the truth. As a social practice, it’s shifting the culture toward different ways of arriving at truth. It's difficult to say whether it is categorically good or bad. But the focus here will be on what would certainly be a momentous loss in our social practices regarding truth, namely, a departure from Enlightenment values.There is a developing tendency to determine the truth through sheer will rather than discussion and a dwindling desire to correct this error. People seem to care less about deliberation, compromise, tolerance, and the general agreement that the goal is to come to an inclusive decision that is in the best interests of people who share a basic respect for each other’s dignity. All political orientations have growing factions that believe the content of other’s beliefs determines how they should be viewed and treated. Rather than work toward building a community that is able to cooperate with one another and agree on a uniting set of values, the cultural attitude is moving toward a competition between wills for power. But it’s not only behaviorally motivated by power; there is also the belief that all effort by a group toward an ideal is entirely reducible to power. That very well may be true. But if it is, democracy is in a precarious position. So, if we value democracy, we should steer back toward the proper path. For Mill’s account to work, which is crucial if we wish to justify free speech for the sake of truth in Enlightenment, democratic terms23, social media should not be viewed as a truth-seeking information network24. Mill believed free speech is necessary for human flourishing in a democratic society. If it’s the people who are going to be involved in the deliberative processes of society and be the ones choosing what is best, then the people must be able to discuss and exchange ideas, opinions, and beliefs freely. However, just like how the Medieval view operated within a certain orientation around truth, which provided a framework through which truth could be arrived at, so it is with democracy. And like the printing press, social media has placed enormous tension on our democratic orientation. So, if we desire to maintain democratic values derived from the Enlightenment, then we have to take a certain stance toward social media, one that eschews the expectation that truth is situated within its environments, where we expect to discuss, debate, hash things out, and arrive at truth.Now, On Liberty offers two sets of reasons supporting free speech, the first being epistemic, meaning that the benefits have to do with knowledge, while the other set is psychologically beneficial. The first set argues that free speech is an overall good for society because if what someone says is true or partially true, both possibilities benefit a democracy. If what is said is true, it will benefit because it professes a truth that will add to the preexisting stock of knowledge. If partially true, this also contributes to preexisting knowledge; “and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied.” The second psychological set of benefits is primarily derived from the utterance of false beliefs, which have no direct epistemic benefit because they do not contribute any knowledge to form beliefs around. If what is said is wholly false, the opportunity to defend and contest it will also be an overall good because it will demand that the bearers of that knowledge account for the reasons for its truth. Mill expresses this well: “Unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds.” This then produces a further psychological benefit. By remaining a prejudice and not as something rationally grasped, “the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost or enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect on the character and conduct; the dogma becoming a mere formal profession, inefficacious for good, but cumbering the ground and preventing the growth of any real and heartfelt conviction from reason or personal experience.” Therefore, contesting what is true will keep beliefs from devolving into prejudice or dogma.Section 7:The first thing to observe about Mill’s reasons for free speech is that the first set of epistemic reasons really depends on the second set (the psychological ones). But it’s peculiar to speak of the latter as ‘benefits’ because of this. It’s more accurate to say that a certain psychological orientation must give rise to them. We can think of this as a kind of feedback loop that produces the benefits Mill is speaking of. One must have the proper psychological orientation toward truth to break into this loop. That is to say that the members within a society must hold a psychological orientation toward truth that allows for the free expression of true, partially true, and false beliefs to be a net good, i.e., to bring about the best possible consequences within a democratic community. With the psychological reasons offered for free speech, notice that the benefit is derived from the speakers and listeners within the community being open to receiving true, partially true, or false utterances. The beliefs they hold must be perpetually open to revision because they may or may not be in possession of the actual true ones; they understand that their knowledge is an ongoing process, something that is constantly unfolding, and so hold a particular stance toward the free expression of beliefs.They would understand that, even in the best instances of human knowledge, the most stable kind (like knowledge of physics), it is still susceptible to be overturned by future evidence, as was the case with Newtonian mechanics and Einsteinian relativity. That is not to say truth is therefore unattainable, but only that there should be a fair degree of epistemic humility within a democratic, truth-seeking community, given that our best knowledge often falls far short of absolute certainty. As the psychological reasons specify, if the people within the community hold their beliefs as prejudices or dogmas that are fixed and unchangeable, they will be unreceptive to being challenged. So whatever anyone utters, whether true, false, or in between, it won’t provide the benefits Mill intended. There must be a certain psychological orientation toward truth for Mill’s argument to succeed.Let’s now specify what this orientation should look like and see how it’s vital in upholding free speech arguments for the sake of truth. There are three components to this orientation: (i) certain beliefs, (ii) certain desires, and (iii) certain attitudes born out of (i) and (ii). (i) consists of two beliefs. The first belief is that truth exists, and the second is that it is, in principle, knowable. (ii) consists of two desires as well. The first desire is to attain human flourishing, and the second is that truth is constitutive of this aim. Given that there is truth, one must also have the desire to attain it. But this is also a special kind of desire; it’s a desire that fulfills what must be viewed as a higher need, one that is constitutive of human flourishing or happiness. We can call this a fulfillment need. This means that we desire truth because it occupies a natural place in the space of human good. We will lack something fundamental to our flourishing if we don’t have contact with truth; we therefore both desire it and have a powerful motivation to attain it because we desire to flourish. Fulfillment needs should be understood as part of what constitutes this principal end in life that characterizes human excellence.For those who know Greek philosophy, this will sound familiar. As Aristotle says in his Ethics, all things aim at some final good. Achieving this good means for something to actualize its potential and attain excellence. The final aim of human beings is to flourish, or, in Greek, to attain eudaimonia, and to attain this means to achieve human excellence. Excellence, says Aristotle, means to fulfill the particular function assigned to a thing's nature. An eye’s function is to see, a car’s function is to drive, while the seed’s function is to grow into a plant. Human beings’ nature is to be rational, to optimize their cognition, to reduce error, and to reach the truth. Again, since the ultimate aim is to flourish, and because seeking truth is constitutive of that goal, we desire to know the truth as a fulfillment need, which helps satisfy the principal good in human life. Now, while Aristotle’s claim about human nature is of course disputable, if Mill’s argument for free speech is to work, and it’s important that it does, Aristotle’s account of human beings, or something resembling it, must be held within a democratic community.That being said, there’s a deep plausibility to the notion that humans have a fundamental need to be in contact with the truth, and presuming rationality is necessary for this, Aristotle may very well be right. In his lecture series Awakening From The Meaning Crisis, John Vervaeke offers a powerful example to illustrate this. Imagine your parents one day asking you to follow them into a hidden room you had never seen before inside your house on your eighteenth birthday. When you enter, you see a wall of monitors showing old footage of you throughout your life. Your parents then turn to you and say that your entire life has been an FBI experiment; everything has been manufactured. The love you thought to be sincere and nourishing, all the support you’ve received throughout the years, the holidays you have come to cherish, and the memories and feelings you’ve come to have are, in the most profound sense, fake. None of it was real. Your parents then tell you that you have two options. You can either act as if this incident had never happened and move on as usual, or you can move out and move on with your life. What’s the desirable option? Most of us would choose the latter. Why? Because none of what was thought to be real turned out to be true. It was all fabricated, illusory, and bore no substantive relation to reality. For the majority of us (although hopefully everyone), there is no going back to the way things previously were. The truth makes a fundamental difference in the decision-making between the two options. By discovering that our life is untrue, we feel a deep absence, a lack of fulfillment, an incompleteness on account of what we’ve learned about ourselves. An essential aspect of the decision to move on, then, is a deep motivation to discover what is in fact true. It’s like Dante when he discovers himself lost in the dark forest. We’ve been led astray, and now we desire to find the right path, which is the one that converges with truth, with what is most real. This is what happens to Jim Carrey in The Truman Show when he decides to leave that disturbing, manufactured simulation dome he was raised in. He could have stayed, but he was psychologically unable to. By obtaining this new self-knowledge, he would have never achieved eudaimonia. He would have remained stuck in life because he would have been bullsh*tting himself (again, I mean this in a technical sense and not simply as an explicative, which will be explained below.)This brings us to (iii), which is to bear a particular attitude toward truth provided (i) and (ii). The proper attitude toward truth is one of care. To care for the truth means to know how to reliably arrive at it, which means utilizing the relevant cognitive processes in forming true beliefs. Recall the quote at the beginning of the article from John Milton, which expressed that it is a heresy to arrive at a belief in the wrong way, namely, by not properly using one’s own reason. It matters, then, how we form our beliefs, and what matters is which cognitive processes are used to get there. For ease of presentation, we can use the psychologist Daniel Kahneman’s formulation of these cognitive processes from his book Thinking, Fast and Slow. Kahneman lays out two cognitive systems, System 1 and System 2. “System 1 operates automatically and quickly, with little or no effort and no sense of voluntary control.” Whereas “System 2 allocates attention to the effortful mental activities that demand it, including complex computations. The operations of System 2 are often associated with the subjective experience of agency, choice, and concentration (p. 21).” To see the difference, take the two following examples of arithmetic: “2 + 2 = ?” We have an immediate cognitive reflex to such an equation, and little to no effort is required. Filling in the answer resulted from System 1. “17 x 24 =?” Now this equation typically demands more effort. A reasoning process is engaged to determine the answer that requires concentrated effort and isn’t reflexively provided. Such a process is supplied by System 2. For another example, say someone is hiking and spots a tree in the distance. If such a person cares nothing for botany, then the object will have a great deal of transparency, and the person will carry on about their day. Such a process would be within System 1. But if the person is a trained botanist and has never seen this kind of tree before (say they’re in a foreign country), they may begin to observe it, inspect it, and direct their effort toward retrieving the relevant information that may help identify the tree. That person has engaged System 2.Caring for the truth means knowing how to optimize these two systems so that System 1 and System 2 are in a recurring dialogue with one another, with the aim to arrive at the truth. Now, there are at least two aspects to this idea of care. The first can be classed as having to do with general skills in critical thinking, which primarily consists of analysis. Examples are things like working out one’s cognitive biases and reducing error. In essence, being successful in this regard means being able to reason well and work through problems rationally. Take a case of confirmation bias, for example. Imagine a republican voter who believes certain conspiracy theories about the democratic party and who is watching a presidential debate and hears the Republican candidate make an assertion attributing misconduct to the Democratic candidate. Because the assertion confirms the prior beliefs of the voter who is watching, it will be easy for that person to immediately agree with what was said. Engaging System 2 is effortful and costly in mental energy, and so it is easier, as well as cognitively more pleasurable, to passively (probably unconsciously) consent to System 1’s impulse, which presents the Republican candidate’s statement as attractive and belief-worthy. If this person cares for the truth, however, he or she would engage System 2 upon receiving what System 1 has provided with the aim of verifying whether the assertion accurately represents or corresponds to reality. Perhaps the person reasons through the assertion. If the candidate said something like, "Inflation has skyrocketed due to the current administration, which she’s a part of,” the voter watching may reason that, while it’s true inflation has risen, her position in the administration bears little to no significance on that outcome; therefore, the assertion is misinformed. Or perhaps the voter doesn’t understand government structure very well and does research, visits several sources, and concludes based on the information that the assertion is misinformed and implies an invalid conclusion. Whatever the route taken, the voter is presented with the potential to make a cognitive error through System 1, and because he or she cares for the truth, System 2 is utilized to solve the task presented.Competence in this aspect of care, which means to be a competent critical thinker, consists of knowing how to obtain propositional knowledge, which is knowledge that accurately represents reality. One has the tools and skills to work through assertions, analyze arguments, and appropriately form beliefs according to the evidence. One can situationally respond by engaging System 2 when one detects that System 1 is presented with information expressing propositions about the world. Someone who has mastered these skills has developed dispositions that engage the relevant cognitive behavior under the relevant conditions. In other words, such a person knows how to instinctively and properly respond to the appropriate cognitive stimuli.25The second aspect of caring for truth is deeper than this and, like Dante’s journey, more transformative. Caring for truth in this sense means optimizing System 1 and System 2 by using them to shape one’s conception of the good. What reason, for example, would this argument, rather than another one, be more relevant to someone competent in critical thinking? Why care about what this person has to say rather than that one? Answers to these questions will suggest the underlying conception of the good that is assumed when one finds one set of information more salient. In other words, the second aspect of caring for truth means understanding one’s conception of eudaimonia, or flourishing, which is one’s final aim and idea of human excellence. Critical thinking in the propositional sense is a highly valuable set of skills that is fundamental to the whole project of pursuing truth. But what it consists of does not provide a final criteria to judge what one should believe about human flourishing and what it amounts to. It plays a vital role in articulating and grasping this goal but won’t deliver it. In other words, critical thinking is a powerful tool in reaching one’s goals, but it itself cannot bestow the goals themselves. This requires the second aspect of caring for truth, which means optimizing System 1 and System 2 to become aware of what final end is guiding their operation. Regardless of how much one engages in critical thinking, irrespective of one’s mastery of logic and reasoning, if one never utilizes these skills toward understanding what provides the salience of one set of information over another, they may never satisfy their fulfillment need for truth.Tolstoy’s book, The Death of Ivan Illych, illustrates this. In the story the Russian protagonist, Ivan Illych, lives his life in pursuit of what is pleasant. He shuns the annoyances and discomforts that arise in life and views them, in a way, as unnatural, as occurrences that disrupt how life should be. His goal in life is to maximize pleasure and avoid pain and suffering. He’s not, however, a Don Quixote or an extreme hedonist; he’s not trying to experience all the possible pleasures one may have. He wants to live a successful and acceptable life that commands the esteem of his colleagues, makes his family happy, comfortable, and at ease, and allows him to pass through life with as few disturbances as possible. He holds a very familiar and common conception of the good.And Ivan does in fact find this success. He rises to be a great and respectable judge in Russia. He’s highly competent, makes a substantial living, and can buy and provide his family with whatever he pleases. Yet he finds himself running into the disturbances he’s always tried to avoid. He’s constantly fighting with his wife:There remained only rare periods of amorousness that came over the spouses, but they did not last long. These were islands that they would land on temporarily, but then they would put out again to the sea of concealed enmity that expressed itself in estrangement from each other. This estrangement might have upset Ivan Ilyich, if he had considered that it ought not to be so, but by now he took this situation not only as normal, but as the goal of his activity in the family. His goal consisted in freeing himself more and more from these unpleasantnesses and in giving them a character of harmlessness and decency; and he achieved it by spending less and less time with his family, and when he was forced to do so, he tried to secure his position by the presence of outsiders.He’s experiencing the “uneasiness” formulated by William James above. His solution is not to reflect on his final end in life, his conception of the good, his idea of human flourishing and excellence, but to find other means to attain it, which is to turn away from what he’s representing as unnatural and frustrating. He’s not deficient in critical thinking; he’s a highly competent and successful judge. He lacks the wisdom and self-knowledge necessary for reflecting on and evaluating what makes some things and not others salient for him, which is his goal in life to live pleasantly. There’s a reason why he finds spending less time with his family a more obvious solution than trying to get at the root of why it is he feels so frustrated and annoyed at the fact that he’s not feeling fulfilled despite his success; and he’s not utilizing System 1 and System 2 to investigate that reason, i.e., he’s not caring for truth in the second sense. It’s only until he is faced with a random, coincidental death that he realizes he hadn’t been searching for a solution to his “uneasiness” that converged with truth. Not truth in the propositional sense, but truth regarding human flourishing and excellence. Insofar as he was unable or unwilling to direct his cognition toward what was guiding it, he remained incapable of progressing and transforming toward an aim that would afford him self-awareness, self-knowledge, and, ultimately, eudaimonia.Both aspects of caring for truth matter if Mill’s benefits are to be obtained. It matters propositionally (the first aspect of care) because critical thinking and analysis are necessary for seeing information clearly and discerning whether something maps onto the world. But caring for the first aspect alone will only clear the fog, so to speak, and allow one to see the landscape with more specificity and definition. It will provide knowledge about the causal regularities that govern the territory and the predictable patterns that follow from them. It will not, however, indicate what to do with that knowledge or inform one of what it means. For free speech to be justified for the sake of truth, which means free speech plays a substantial, instrumental role in sorting out the true information from the false, people must care for the truth. They have to find it salient in the right ways. If people don’t care and don’t share the proper desire to pursue it, then no amount of discussion will necessarily bring the community any closer to the truth. They may easily settle for something else.Section 8:The claim, then, is that social media does not warrant truth-based justifications for free speech. Because social media platforms don’t promote or incentivize the psychological orientation necessary for truth-seeking but reward the opposite behaviors, the idea that one is seeking truth within such a context is false. The view that social media as a public space is best characterized as a social practice that aims toward truth has generated an insidious confusion within the culture, and we would be better off by evaluating it differently. Social media is certainly an information network, but it’s wrong to presume all information networks are oriented toward truth production.To see this, think of a university. The principal purpose of this institution is to generate knowledge (there are other purposes, of course, but put those aside.) Now, there are many parts to the structure of a university, but let’s zoom in on the classroom environment. Within it, there’s a hierarchy in place. The teacher’s purpose is to guide the students through a curriculum, get them to think critically about the information, debate and discuss it, foster their abilities to engage with it, cultivate the necessary faculties for this, and to ensure that they learn something specific about the given information, as well as something general about learning, something they can use in all cases. To achieve this, the teacher must orient the students around truth-seeking, i.e., he or she must teach the students to care for the truth, as explained above. The teacher must challenge the students’ cognitive biases. Logical errors, bad reasoning, and lack of critical thinking have to be checked, corrected, and reinforced by the teacher.Ideally, the teacher will also help the students think critically about their conceptions of the good. In the ideal scenario, the teacher not only challenges their cognition but also fosters their ability to question what human flourishing and excellence looks like. It’s ideal because claiming that this is absolutely necessary for an information network to warrant being evaluated as a truth-seeking social practice is, perhaps, too high. But it is what one should aim for. However, it’s important to bear this in mind because it will be shown that, even if the threshold is lowered in this sense, social media still fails at what any information network that is correlated with truth should provide, which is to promote the proper analytical skills in getting clearer about reality.Now, an important reason universities are trusted as truth-seeking information networks is partly because of the teacher's role in distributing that information. It’s trusted as an institution because those who go through it are supposed to have been guided by experts who demonstrate how to pursue knowledge. Students who leave the institution are expected to have participated in a social practice that taught them to be competent in their field (and hopefully to be a good human being as well, whatever that means precisely) and who can now further distribute and utilize their knowledge by applying it to other domains within society. The teacher’s function within the institution is essential to this goal and fundamental to the trust granted to the institution itself. Let’s call this function a Socratic function.27Social media doesn’t have a Socratic function, and any information network trusted as a distributor of knowledge should have something resembling it. Worse than this, however, is that social media actually promotes cognitive behavior that is opposed to the whole project of pursuing truth. As an overarching, general pattern, social media reinforces and incentivizes things like cognitive bias (the immediate and intuitive presentations of System 1.) The whole business model is aimed at maximizing attention. People easily become addicted to these platforms and binge content endlessly. The only way to achieve this is by easing the user’s cognitive effort as much as possible and stimulating them with dopamine responses, allowing the user to enter a semi-hypnotic state. Of course, not everyone is affected like this; most people can assert moderation when using social media. But in an ideal world, one where social media is optimally thriving, everyone would be glued to their screens. Practical circumstances of course make this impossible, and therefore it wouldn’t truly be in social media’s interests because no one would show up for work, but if we turn the dial on the business goals of these platforms to the max, then this would be the logical consequence; it would maximize profits.Social media serves many purposes, though, and the claim is certainly not that it is, for these reasons, entirely bad. It’s only the contexts, circumstances, and situations in which it is reflexively represented as a competent and trusted information network that deals in matters of knowledge and truth that it creates an overall deficit. This is because of the intellectual and ethical confusion it produces, which is caused by its lack of a Socratic function that incentivizes and reinforces the proper psychological orientation around truth-seeking. Again, it has the opposite aim, which is to ease the effort of System 2 as much as it can and allow System 1, with all its cognitive vulnerabilities, to be at the helm. Because of this aim, social media has a Sophistic function, which contrasts the Socratic one, whose defining characteristic is to be a bullsh*tter. As mentioned above, this notion is a technical one and needs to be properly explained.The notion of bullsht comes from the American philosopher Harry Frankfurt and his essay Bullsht. Sam Harris uses this term often, especially regarding social media. First, let’s clarify what it means to lie. Lying involves an intent to deceive on the part of the person lying, who wishes to get the other to believe something contrary to the truth. The seventeen-year-old who sneaks out, gets caught, and tells their parents that they forgot their phone at their friend’s house and went to get it in the middle of the night is lying because they’re trying to deceive their parents into believing something false about reality. But reality is still salient to their aim. Although attempting to distort it, they still have reality in their conscious field of intentions, motives, and desires, i.e., they care about truth rather than caring for it. Someone who bullshts, on the other hand, has no regard for truth. It provides no reason for consideration on its own, independent of the bullshtter’s aim. Whereas the truth matters for the liar, it’s of no concern whether what one says is true or false in the case of bullsht. The bullshter’s enterprise is characteristically different than the lier in this regard. The liar “is attempting to lead us away from a correct apprehension of reality; we are not to know that he wants us to believe something he supposes to be false… The fact about himself that the bullshitter hides, on the other hand, is that the truth-values of his statements are of no central interest to him; what we are not to understand is that his intention is neither to report the truth nor to conceal it.”26The classic archetype of a bullshtter is the salesman. The truth about whether the product sold is efficient, useful, or whatever else is indifferent to the salesman. What matters, and what distinguishes one who is good from one who is not (in the sense of achieving their goal to sell the product, pure and simple,) is whether they can deceive the consumer into believing that the bullshtter is asserting something they themselves believe. There are few constraints on what a bullshtter may say to achieve their aim. Whatever helps satisfy their goal is fair play. The liar is unable to be creative like this. They must strategically and purposefully contend with the truth by believing they know it. If the liar doesn’t in fact know the truth, this will likely spoil their plans. They will be unable to grasp the situation and will likely misunderstand what the circumstances call for. A bullshtter doesn’t need to know the truth at all. They just need to make the other person think that they do. The truth conditions of their beliefs and assertions are, by itself, irrelevant.Social media is a bullshtter in incentivizing and rewarding behavior that employs bullsht. It therefore has a Sophistic function. The chief culprit for this is, of course, the algorithms. The algorithm's aim is to curate content that maximizes user engagement and attention. Whether what it presents a user with is true or false is a matter of indifference. It can matter in a sense, but only if the user is disposed toward viewing content that is oriented around truth, which is of no concern to the algorithms. The function is to bullsht the user by minimizing cognitive effort and maximizing the incentives that will keep their attention, e.g., by triggering dopamine responses through a constant succession of content patterned according to the user’s preferences. If the user desires content that aims at truthfully representing reality, he or she has to maneuver through a minefield of bullsht. There is no Socratic function that guides them through it, as there would be in any other social practice that is considered an information network whose purpose is to distribute knowledge. The proper psychological orientation that warrants discussions about how free speech is necessary for pursuing truth within a given context is entirely absent within the social media model.Hence Mill’s influential argument for the utility of free speech for the sake of truth doesn’t apply to social media. Let’s reflect on what Mill said after this long discussion. Recall the epistemic benefits he argued for. He said that letting everyone freely express their minds produces the best outcomes within a democratic community, regardless of whether what one says is true, partially true, or false. If the truth doesn’t move people, and if the general tendency to find truth salient is absent, then letting everyone say what they think is self-undermining. Why would truth matter if everyone free to speak their mind disregards it? Seeing truth as a reason for a social practice means truth is fundamental to the aims that characterize the institution, and this means being properly oriented around it, which means caring for it.Section 9:I want to end now with a discussion about how this all relates to Nostr and how it has the potential to be an information network that performs much better than social media as a context concerned with knowledge and truth. The principal reason that will be considered here is Nostr’s pursuit of a fully decentralized model that aims at user autonomy. Autonomy makes a crucial difference between an information network that more reliably tracks truth and one that is indifferent to it.Social media reduces users' autonomy by trying to use them as a means toward further ends, namely, their attention, engagement, and data. The algorithm's job is to sort through users’ information and curate it in ways that maximize profit. This generally results in the spread of bullsht because what determines information as worth spreading does not depend on that information’s truth value. However, when users can curate their own content by judging for themselves what information they wish to retrieve from relays; when it’s left to each user to decide what content is valuable and what isn’t; when users themselves can determine what is worth censuring and not be subject to the interests of a centralized server, the aim is clearly to place autonomy back into their hands. What’s important, though, is that autonomy has a certain purpose in the Nostr context: to allow people to create at all protocol levels. Part of what a centralized server does is create a fixed infrastructure that greatly restricts what users may do on the platform (the chief restriction being to yield as much profit as possible for shareholders.) Creators especially are affected by this because the value they contribute to the platforms is filtered through what will necessarily constrain it. Nostr, however, is different. What largely motivates the value of autonomy is the desire to let creators create content freely and without outside constraints, which, of course, is to provide them freedom of expression. By users having the freedom to build and the autonomy to curate and choose what content is personally valuable to a user, truth becomes highly relevant within the context. Now, if Mill is right when he says that only true beliefs have any utility (and false beliefs necessarily lead one astray in some sense,) users who produce content will be highly incentivized to track the truth, to have an accurate representation of it, because to fail at this will result in unappealing content due to its lack of value. No centralized authority is supposed to be able to force something to appear valuable; it’s up to the users to determine this. And if something will endure and not fade once the reasons why it may have trended disappear, it needs to track the truth. If it doesn’t, if it only matters to people because it is sensational or cheap, if it’s bullsht, it will always lose in the long run.Since people on Nostr have the autonomy to build and curate their own content, unlike social media, there is less at play that can ossify the network. There must be a great deal of motion because, in principle, no user or client can monopolize the space. This built-in fluidity captures an important aspect of truth-seeking, which John Milton expressed when saying, “Knowledge thrives by exercise… Truth is compared in scripture to a streaming fountain; if her waters flow not in a perpetual progression, they sicken into a muddy pool of conformity and tradition.” Everyone has to earn their success on Nostr, so the principal way to do this is to create something valuable. Again, if Mill is right, the value must largely be derived from the truth that the content represents, creating an incentive to care for the truth. Bullsh*t can’t be forcefully distributed because it maximizes some desired metric. Information is chiefly distributed by individual users valuing it.Nostr provides a way to see if Mill was right in thinking only true beliefs have any real value. Since the intention is to move away from social media’s business model, there is an opportunity to determine whether people will naturally choose the truth through their own autonomous decision-making. If there are no algorithms that aim to seize and maximize user attention, people are free to choose what content they wish to consume. It is a choice whether truth prevails over its opposite in the Nostr context because individuals are incentivized to contribute what they want to see. And if things go astray, people can fix it by creating something better.Notes:For a similar but far more elaborate, comprehensive, and complex argument of this kind, see John Vervaeke’s Awakening From the Meaning Crisis on YouTube.For an elaboration on free speech justifications, see Greenawalt, K. (2007). Free Speech Justifications. Colombia Law Review.For a history of Free speech, see Jacob Mchangama’s book Free Speech: Socrates to Social Media.Kant, I. (1784). What is Enlightenment? (p. 1). Hacket Publishing.This is not to suggest wokism is the sole culprit of this cultural trend. It’s one example amongst others on all parts of the political spectrum. But it’s an important example because wokism aims to be virtuous and moral. Therefore, it’s a good example because it is important to question whether their moral claims are correct. Furthermore, a plausible reply on the part of one who may subscribe to something like wokism (whatever that means precisely) is that it isn’t the duty of those who have been oppressed to teach those they consider to be oppressors. The duty falls on the latter. This is a challenging question to settle, and it makes up the potentially unbridgable gulf between wokism and its opponents. But if empathy is a virtue (or a vital moral response), it’s central that everyone exercises it, not just those who are held to be guilty of something.Simpson, R. M. (2024). The Connected City of Ideas. Daedalus.Harari, N. Y. (2024). Nexus. Random House.Eisenstein, E. L. (1979). The Printing Press as an Agent of Change (p. 45). Cambridge University Press.Melchert, N. (2007). The Great Conversation (p. 304). Oxford University Press.Melchert, N. (2007). The Great Conversation. Oxford University Press.Wagner, C. (2012). Scientia Moralitas (Moral Autonomy and Responsibility - The Reformation’s Legacy in Today’s Society). Scientia Moralitas Research Institute.Fromm, E. (1941). Escape From Freedom (p. 54). Discus.James, W. (1902). The Varieties of Religious Experience (p. 54). Penguin Classics.Dreyfus, H., & Kelly, S. D. (2011). All Things Shining: Reading the Western Classics to Find Meaning in a Secular Age (p. 122). Free Press.Dreyfus, H., & Kelly, S. D. (2011). All Things Shining: Reading the Western Classics to Find Meaning in a Secular Age (p. 122). Free Press.Aristotle, A. (1953). Ethics (p. 122). Penguin Classics.Schumacher, E. (1977). A Guide For the Perplexed. Harper Colophon Books.As Isaiah Berlin makes clear in his essay Two Concepts of Liberty, it is easy to see how positive freedom may easily lead to foolish and immoral action due to its purposeful nature. It is quite challenging to dissuade someone that what they believe to be their purpose in life, their ultimate meaning, relies on false premises.Fromm, E. (1941). Escape From Freedom. Discus.Chalmers, A. (1974). What is this thing called Science? Hacket Publishing.Descartes, R. (2010). Meditations on First Philosophy. Oxford World's Classics.See Bertrand Russel’s The History of Western Philosophy for how Descartes's argument is logically invalid. He can’t doubt that some process of thinking is occurring, but whether something is doing the thinking isn’t obvious.Locke, J. Two Treatises on Government.Justice Holmes made the Marketplace metaphor popular in Abrams v United States (1919), and has become a central precedent in free speech cases.For a similar argument, see Nevin Chellappah’s “Is John Stuart Mill’s Account of Free Speech Sustainable In the Age of Social Media?”Ryle, G. (1949). The Concept of Mind. Penguin.Frankfurt, H. (1986). Bullshit. Princeton University Press.To see the Socratic function in real time, watch The Joe Rogan Experience episode #2171. Eric Weinstein demonstrates what it means for an expert to engage with someone outside their respective field who claims to have knowledge that overturns the discipline but with no professional training to back it up. His attitude demonstrates a care for truth. @yakihonne

@ 6b7c438e:fc81aab3

Taryn Christiansen @ DoraHacksSpecial thanks to Eric Zhang for in-depth discussions.A mirror post on Dora Research Blog is available: https://research.dorahacks.io/2024/12/24/free-speech-foundation Intro:This article will argue that truth-based justifications for free speech are inappropriate within the social media context.1 Flooding the market with more information doesn’t necessarily force truth to emerge and bob at the surface. No matter how much information is pumped into a space filled with falsehoods and deception, if the right mechanisms aren’t in place, the area will only grow more chaotic and overcrowded, and therefore all the more easier to get lost in it. As an instrument to obtain knowledge of the truth, free speech has to be properly used, and people need to know how to use it.That isn’t to say that the tap should be shut off and that free speech should be curtailed; other justifications are perfectly reasonable, as will be seen below. But the idea that what we’re up to on social media is seeking out the truth only produces more confusion about what we collectively take to be sources of trustworthy information that is accurate and sincere. We would be better off if social media were viewed as an information network that is distinct from other spaces that are generally considered places where we obtain reliably true beliefs.But other spaces have the potential to be a more appropriate target for truth-based justifications for free speech, one of which is Nostr. Because of Nostr’s fully decentralized and open nature, which allows for innovation at all levels of its protocol, people have more opportunity to create valuable content that will only be distributed across the network because it is in fact valuable. The algorithms on social media force content to be valuable because there are standards that aim at maximizing user engagement in cheap and overstimulating ways. It doesn’t matter to these mechanisms whether something is true or not. What matters first is whether something promotes the ends of the social media companies, which are primarily driven by maximizing profits through ads and attention. Achieving this goal means reducing users' autonomy in picking and choosing what content to consume. Nostr aims to give the users their autonomy back by freeing developers to build both relays and clients. If users can make decisions that aren’t influenced by social media’s algorithmic decision-making, then it can be discerned whether truth is naturally relevant to people in these kinds of information networks, as well as whether people really desire to care for the truth.Section 1:It should be assumed at this point in history2, especially in liberal democracies, that the freedom to express one’s mind is inseparable from a basic conception of human dignity. If one is prohibited from freely discussing and challenging prevailing beliefs or forced to conform to a point of view that was not arrived at by using one’s own rational and reflective faculties, then human dignity suffers. There’s a reason Socrates went around the Athenian marketplace and tirelessly questioned the people he encountered there. He wasn’t interested in forcing people to submit to specific beliefs. Socrates wanted people to realize and reflect on whether what they believed was true or not, and therefore if it was something worth believing in. But integral to this project is the idea that people have to think through the questions themselves and not rely on an authority. Authority may be right; it may hold true beliefs and assert rational demands, but it doesn’t mean anything unless people themselves know the way to them. This requires the individual to be willing to develop what’s necessary for this.John Milton was right when he wrote in his 1644 pamphlet Areopagatica, which was directed against the English Parlament’s order for licensing books, that “A man may be a heretic in the truth… If he believes things only because his pastor says so, or the assembly so determines, without knowing other reasons, though his belief be true, yet the very truth he holds becomes his heresy.” People must be free to reason for themselves, to arrive at truths through the use of their own faculties, to develop their individual conscience, which, by its nature, must be exercised by the individual’s will and not by an externally imposed authority. Immanuel Kant’s call to the Enlightenment, Sapere aude! - “Have courage to use your own reason!”3 - is a call to actualize human dignity through the use of one’s reason. These faculties cannot be cultivated unless the individual can express him or herself freely.Woke culture is an illustrative example of how there is a connection between free speech and human dignity. It shows that when the strategy is to problematize and silence people, no matter how noble or virtuous the goal is believed to be, it only perpetuates a cycle of frustration and anger. The problem with woke culture isn’t necessarily their ideals. We all would agree, or should at least, that people should respect the basic dignity of others, treat everyone as persons, empathize with those with a different experience, and learn and grow from one another’s unique perspective. These are all good things; they’re profoundly valuable. The issue is how woke culture formulated and implemented their interpretations of what these notions amount to, what they call for, and what moral duties they demand. One of its principal goals has been to discern how historical oppressors should atone for previous wrongdoings. Many have come to understand this as meaning that those who come from those lineages are, in some sense, problematic and that, therefore, proponents of wokism have the duty to silence them, to condemn them, to act as if they are a net negative to the social good, and to impose a punishment of silence to atone for the past. This has been a grave mistake. Instead of engaging in a dialogue to reach the other person’s conscience, those who bore this duty have tended to sermonize in a sanctimonious, demeaning way, which only shuts people down and turns off the parts of the brain that promote learning and development, and turns on what generates combative and defensive behavior. The typical approach in woke culture has been enormously undemocratic in spirit due to its preference to force people to adopt reasons rather than opening people up to consider them in their proper light, namely, as claims about morality that make demands on the conscience of the person, which can only be properly understood and felt through the use of his or her own faculties. Woke culture, which offers some genuine insight into the world's contemporary moral situation, failed to respect the dignity of those they wished to persuade by using coercive measures instead of appealing to their conscience. Free speech is absolutely necessary in an endeavor like this because only by upholding such a social practice will everyone’s basic dignity be respected, which is integral to people being open to changing their minds. Moral debates within society should never devolve into a contest of wills. This only undermines the foundation of a democratic community, the basic pillar being human dignity.4But although free speech bears a necessary connection to human dignity, it does not bear the same relation to truth. For free speech to bear a proper relation to truth, one where free speech produces a high probability of tracking it, those seeking out truth must have the right psychological orientation toward it; otherwise, the two easily come apart. In his recent book Nexus, Yoel Noah Harari presents a clear way of seeing this. Harari criticizes what he calls the ‘naive view of information,’ which “argues that by gathering and processing much more information than individuals can, big networks achieve a better understanding of medicine, physics, economics, and numerous other fields, which makes the network not only powerful but wise.” The notion of wisdom is key. While it’s theoretically possible that an information network can be wise (especially with the development of better AI), it will be useless unless human beings have some idea about what wisdom is. If they don’t, then they’ll have to just assume that the information being presented was properly arrived at, i.e., with the wisdom necessary for obtaining truth, which will, in effect, create a servility to the information network and not to the human faculties necessary for discerning and knowing the truth. To use a distinction made by Plato, they will have an opinion about the truth, not knowledge. To know means to understand the reasons why something is the case, not just that it is the case.Harari’s book is important because the naive view of information he presents is prevalent and is most often expressed in the marketplace of ideas metaphor. In essence, the metaphor suggests that free speech operates like a free market because, by allowing individuals to pursue and satisfy their preferences freely, the truth will somehow outcompete falsehoods. Either because people’s preferences are more deeply satisfied by truth, and/or because the beliefs people hold will only have any real value (or utility) when they are true, when they accurately represent reality. But in a marketplace, “people don’t reliably ‘buy’ truths. People buy the ideas they like. And people don’t reliably like truths better than falsehoods. What the invisible hand does, all going well, is efficiently allocate goods to people based on what they want.”5 For truth to reliably outcompete falsehoods, consumers must have a particular orientation around truth. Unless we think ideas are true based solely on their utility, which is itself not a very useful notion, more has to be said as to why consumers would desire the truth over anything else in a marketplace of ideas. Everyone has opinions they cherish and hold to be, in some way, fundamental to themselves and their identities. It is perfectly conceivable that someone will reject any truth that conflicts with these deeply valued sentiments. For a free competition of ideas to track and produce true information, consumers have to want truth to win out, and this desire should motivate the consumer’s decision-making. In other words, one must bear a special psychological orientation toward truth for the marketplace metaphor to be an appropriate model for understanding free speech as being justified for the sake of truth. Again, free speech is important for other reasons, such as human dignity. But whether free speech is justified for the sake of truth is a separate question, and until the proper stance is taken toward truth, truth-based justifications are inapplicable.The fact that the distribution of more and more information doesn’t bear a necessary connection to truth can also be gleaned from historical examples. When a technology revolutionizes human information networks, which allows for information to be shared more efficiently and in larger quantities than ever before, the society that implements it does not therefore obtain a higher fidelity to truth. The opposite is equally plausible. This is the problem facing social media. If truth-based justifications are an appropriate way to justify free speech practices on such platforms, social media must create an environment that promotes the proper psychological orientation toward truth. What matters is whether they can care for the truth rather than adopt a stance that promotes what the philosopher Harry Frankfurt called bullsh*t, which means to be indifferent toward truth. Before explaining this further, let’s look at a historical example that demonstrates the following: First, as new technology arrives and transforms information networks, the information that is consequently distributed can equally promote both what is true and what is not; and second, and more philosophically, the technology can also reorient a society’s relationship to truth, which in turn affects how the society arrives at knowledge.Section 2:Take the invention of the Gutenberg printing press in 1440. Before its inception, the Catholic Church made Western Europe effectively an echo chamber. They dominated the information networks by controlling what could be printed, distributed, and accredited as knowledge. The vast majority of the population couldn’t read, and only a select few could read the Holy writings, which contained information that was considered the highest truth attainable by human beings. Only a select few were blessed enough to be able to handle this sort of information. Because all other information flowed from this central institution, everyone else depended on the Church for what to believe. The reality of that situation, and what it must have felt like to be in such a dependent position, can begin to be imagined by considering the following: “In the thirteenth century the library of Oxford University consisted of a few books kept in a chest under St. Mary’s Church. In 1424 the library of Cambridge University boasted a grand total of only 122 books. An Oxford University decree from 1409 stipulated that ‘all recent texts’ studied at the university must be unanimously approved ‘by a panel of twelve theologians appointed by the archbishop.’”6 When the quantity of information is this low, and in the context of the Catholic Church, is also greatly limited in diversity, it’s difficult even to imagine anything outside the worldview that is being imposed.Now, alongside the Church’s control of information networks, the production efficiency of copyists and scribes who had to manufacture the books was dismally low. It exponentially grew when the printing press automated the work. The historian Sir John Harold Clapham wrote, “A man born in 1453, the year of the fall of Constantinople, could look back from his fiftieth year on a lifetime in which about eight million books had been printed, more perhaps than all the scribes of Europe had produced since Constantine founded his city in A.D. 330.”7 The restriction on information and people’s inability to consider anything outside of the prevailing tradition, as well as the technological and productive inefficiency of the time, left most people in darkness, with no way out other than by following the dim, consoling light cast by the Church. The printing press changed all of this. “It revolutionized the world,” as the philosopher Francis Bacon said.The printing press gave people the autonomy to print and distribute ideas that the Church didn’t authorize and thereby provided the platform necessary for the Reformation to take hold, which started with Martin Luther in the early sixteenth century. There were previous attempts at reform, but the printing press made a momentous difference. The concurrence of the printing press and the Reformation revealed the corrosive corruption within the Catholic Church. People were finely able to learn about the degenerate tendencies within the institution, which the Church was previously able to stifle because it controlled the information networks. The buying and selling of Church positions and indulgences that allowed people to pay their way out of purgatory, political intrigue, nepotism, bribery, and immoral consolidation of wealth through taxes was disclosed as a consequence of the printing press. The notion that the Church was the medium by which people moved toward God’s grace collapsed, and people saw that “it had become a means of securing worldly prestige, power, and wealth for those who were clever and ruthless enough to bend it to their will.”8But this historical occurrence also unleashed a flurry of misinformation. The religious wars that followed the Reformation were devastating, and millions of people died, an exceptional case being the Thirty Years War (1618-48). The dissemination of Luther’s 95 theses regarding the corruption of the Church spread like wildfire across Europe after he posted them in 1516 on the Church Castle in Wittenberg, Germany, which the printing press made possible. It would only make sense, then, that the Church would follow suit and take advantage of the technology to combat what it held to be heresy and to reinstate its power as the dominant influence in the West (for an amalgam of reasons, of course.) All sides involved in these religious disputes didn’t merely use the printing press to disseminate accurate information. They used it to spread misinformation to satisfy their political interests, intensifying the ensuing wars and battles between the various emerging religious sects and the rising monarchies.This demonstrates the first point: the printing press, which was a revolution in human information networks, produced both true and false information. There was no causal, historical determinacy one way or the other. While it disclosed truths about Church corruption, it was also used as a means to spread political propaganda that fueled the religious wars.Now, as for the second, more philosophical point, the Reformation also reoriented people’s relation to truth by democratizing matters of faith. Whether one believes the Reformation was, in this respect, an overall good or not, from a liberal democratic point of view, it has to be considered good. The Reformation placed faith into the hands of the individual conscience, rendering considerations about one’s standing in relation to God to have a personal, rather than institutional, significance. Before, “the Church was the keeper and protector of Christian truths and the harbor of salvation for those at sea in sin.”9 Luther rejected this picture of salvation and believed one could be saved through faith and scripture alone, without an intermediary. Luther thought that one’s spiritual significance did not depend on authority. He didn’t see the Church as some emanation from God or a reflection of a Divine order that the individual participated in and was guided by to reach salvation. Individuals are solely responsible for their spiritual significance and capacity to reach a higher truth in God. In one of his more heroic acts, he translated the bible into vernacular German from the traditional Latin (which was considered the holy language, the only one appropriate for capturing religious truths). He gave common people access to what was previously sealed off from them. The individual, free from external imposition and constraint, can privately attain truth on his or her own.Luther formulated a radical inner freedom that broke with some of the Church’s fundamental precepts. There was, of course, an inner freedom already present in Catholicism, but Luther placed it at the center of things rather than as revolving around an institution. Before Luther, St. Augustine went to great lengths to demonstrate the spiritual significance of an inner life, and Luther was an Augustinian monk. But Luther went much further than him. In one of his lectures on YouTube, the philosopher Michael Sugrue observes that this amounted to a kind of Copernican Revolution in religion. That is to say that, rather than the Church being the axis by which things revolve around and where one finds his or her salvation, rather than identifying with an institution by which one finds freedom within a corporate body in which lies their place amongst others in a perfectly ordered, hierarchical, and harmonious cosmos, the individual became the center axis of spiritual and religious matters. It’s easy to see, then, how this theological idea possesses the potential to develop into the idea of individual rights and liberties. Luther provided a kind of autonomy10 for the individual, where whether one is saved is bound up with one’s inner conscience and not with external works or good deeds that the Church facilitates. The individual is an irreducible unit of value that is not subsumed by any other worldly object. And the individual's value rests in their conscience and capacity to receive God’s grace. This idea has sparks of the modern sense of human dignity, and it will create a conflagration throughout Europe as it develops. If there is no Church or institution to settle one’s moral, spiritual, and intellectual significance, one is left to use one’s faculties for guidance. And because it is one’s faculties that attain truth and spiritual salvation, they are the center of value in human life, which bears a natural right for protection.At the Diet of Worms in 1521, where Luther had to answer to charges of heresy because of his theological work, the Church demanded that he recant. He refused. But the reasons for his refusal are the most important. He demanded that the Church show him through scripture and reason alone that he was wrong and not through the dictates of authority. His protest demonstrated that the individual can reach the truth through his or her own means. The Church’s decline began far before this historical moment, but Luther made the decisive blow that the printing press made possible. The Church fragmented as a consequence, which, to Catholics, meant truth itself was fragmented and resulted in a proliferation of denominations scattered across Europe.Section 3:What was so subversive about Luther in this respect is that he divorced sanctification, the process by which one lives in the image of Christ, i.e., a life of virtue, from self-transformation. Although Luther carved out the individual as an irreducible unit of value, this also severed the individual from a stable and definite path that assuaged one’s existential suffering: “The Church… assured the individual of her unconditional love to all her children and offered a way to acquire the conviction of being forgiven and loved by God. The relationship to God was more one of confidence and love than of doubt and fear.”11 Luther believed that one was saved through faith alone and by no other means. He thought that because human beings are all sinners, their wills cannot do anything to reach salvation and spiritual peace. How, then, can one tell if they have been saved? There is no longer an authority to adjudicate this. The individual can discover the truth for themself and so must determine what this means on their own. Several centuries later, Kant gave voice to the duty he believed to arise from this new freedom:Thus, it is difficult for any individual man to work himself out of the immaturity that has all but become his nature. He has even become fond of this state and for the time being is actually incapable of using his own understanding, for no one has ever allowed him to attempt it. Rules and formulas, those mechanical aids to the rational use, or rather misuse, of his natural gifts, are the shackles of a permanent immaturity. Whoever threw them off would still make only an uncertain leap over the smallest ditch, since he is unaccustomed to this kind of free movement. Consequently, only a few have succeeded, by cultivating their own minds, in freeing themselves from immaturity and pursuing a secure course.So, while much was gained during the Reformation, the reorientation around truth also had consequences. Self-transformation, the effort of will, the idea of having an inner and outer journey that culminates into something larger and more significant, took on radically different meanings under Luther and the future Protestant countries. To see this, we can turn to Dante’s Divine Comedy, which demonstrates part of what was lost under Luther.Section 4:In Dante’s Divine Comedy, the culmination of the Medieval worldview before Luther, Dante embarks on a Christian pilgrimage that ends in his being saved. Just as with the above, it’s crucial to understand that the point here will not be exclusively religious but universal in the sense that religion, as manifested across all cultures, didn’t create this experience but was the medium by which it has been expressed and made sense of; it provides it a voice. This goes back to William James and his book The Varieties of Religious Experience. There is the private aspect of religious experience, and then there is the institutional component within which the private side takes shape. Buddhists practice meditation and strive to contemplate Nirvana; the Christian prays and goes to mass; the Stoics distance themselves from their inaccurate emotional representations and contemplate what is rational and in his or her control; and so forth. As James points out, what is fundamental to all religious experience, in the private sense, are two aspects: there is an uneasiness, which, “reduced to its simplest terms, is a sense that there is something wrong about us as we naturally stand;” and two, a solution, which “is a sense that we are saved from the wrongness by making proper connection with the higher powers (508).” The first aspect means the self is in conflict, is divided, and desires unification. In religious language, the self seeks salvation and an experience of being saved from their situation, which is characterized by suffering due to inner division and conflict. This can take on an existential mode, as with Leo Tolstoy in his book Confessions, or it can be highly moral. In Tolstoy’s book Confessions, he relates a story of a traveler being chased by a beast that imaginatively captures the relevant phenomena:Seeking to save himself from the fierce animal, the traveler jumps into a well with no water in it; but at the bottom of this well he sees a dragon waiting with open mouth to devour him. And the unhappy man, not daring to go out lest he should be the prey of the beast, not daring to jump to the bottom lest he should be devoured by the dragon, clings to the branches of a wild bush which grows out of one of the cracks of the well. His hands weaken, and he feels that he must soon give way to certain fate; but still he clings, and sees two mice, one white, the other black, evenly moving round the bush to which he hangs, and gnawing off its roots. The traveler sees this and knows that he must inevitably perish; but while thus hanging he looks about him and finds on the leaves of the bush some drops of honey. These he reaches with his tongue and licks them off with rapture. Thus I hang upon the boughs of life, knowing that the inevitable dragon of death is waiting ready to tear me, and I cannot comprehend why I am thus made a martyr. I try to suck the honey which formerly consoled me; but the honey pleases me no longer, and day and night the white mouse and the black mouse gnaw the branch to which I cling. I can see but one thing: the inevitable dragon and the mice—I cannot turn my gaze away from them.”12Clearly, Tolstoy is suffering from a serious existential episode in which he can’t find a purpose or meaning in life that will clear away his anxiety, which is represented in the dragon, which time, represented in the mice, slowly draws him near. This is his “uneasiness.” He must find a solution, then, because his situation is unlivable.Religion has historically addressed this need. In the Middle Ages, the Church was the institution through which people expressed this experience and resolved their inner conflicts, tensions, and divisions. Let’s turn to Dante’s Divine Comedy to see how the private aspect of this experience is made sense of through Christain’s notion of the pilgrimage.The poem begins with Dante suddenly becoming aware of himself, “Midway upon life’s journey,” as he says, and terrified by the fact that he’s lost in a dark world, having “gone astray,” and is in despair because he has begun to lose all hope for himself. “We know nothing of how Dante has gone astray, only that he has, and that he must undertake a journey, therefore, to save his soul.”13 He is, like Tolstoy, experiencing an “uneasiness” (though in more of a moral rather than existential sense; God is always present for Dante.) So, he has discovered that he has been living wrongly, that he’d strayed from the right path, from the way, and despite his attempts to free himself of his sins and burdens, he’s unable to do it alone. Although it’s unclear why Dante has lost his way, “the journey itself is clearer. It will take him through the entire Christian spiritual universe.”14The Roman poet Virgil is sent to initiate and lead him on this path forward. Virgil represents all of Classical learning, from the Greeks to the Romans. Though they were pagans, they represent the highest one can do as a non-Christian, which is to reach, as Aristotle said, the contemplative life15, where one can reflect on the Whole, on the cosmos. But because they didn’t have faith, they could never experience a fullness of being or completeness that produces the solution to the uneasiness that James discussed. According to Christian doctrine, only Christians may experience this. Thus, they had to remain in Hell.Now, for Dante to move down through Hell, climb up Purgatory, and then transcend into Heaven, he must engage with the Classical world by wrestling with the questions they set out to answer, which is an immensely difficult aim to take on; one that will transform the self as it moves through an activity and process of the soul, intellect, mind, or whatever it is that is the center in which human development toward the Good, as Plato would say, takes place. What’s fascinating about this ascent is that, in the Medieval worldview, it wasn’t merely an internal endeavor; it also bore a deep and profound relationship to the external world. By embarking on the Christian pilgrimage, one was, in a sense, becoming closer and closer to reality, to truth, to what is most real, which corresponded with a transformation of the self that is accompanied by an experience of fulfillment. As one ascends, one climbs what was called the Great Chain of Being, a metaphysical (ontological) thesis that was first articulated by Aristotle, which was adopted by, and adapted to, Christian thought in the thirteenth century.The Chain of Being introduces a vertical aspect to reality rather than merely a horizontal one. At the top is the highest Truth, and the lowest is the least real, i.e., the lowest level of being, which consists of matter and material objects, whereas the highest consists of what is immaterial, like consciousness or mind. And so everything and everyone grows increasingly heavier as Dante moves downward through Hell due to being weighed down by an attachment to the material, earthly substance, which produces a growing despair and lack of fulfillment. As Dante moves upward from Purgatory to Heaven, things become lighter and immaterial in proportion to how much something embodies the spiritual, divine substance, which is achieved through directing one’s desire toward the right objects, toward what is more real and true. In Plato’s allegory of the cave, as one breaks free from the chains and shadows at the bottom and climbs toward the exit where the sun can be seen, one also gains more and more insight into reality as things are illuminated more clearly through the light. Like Purgatory, the ascent up the cave is profound and challenging. But the initial insight of seeing into reality, which reveals that what was previously experienced was illusory, produces the desire to see even further into what now appears absolute and true. This desire pulls and aims Dante upward as he climbs higher toward reality and up the Great Chain of Being. The economist and philosopher E.F. Schumacher16 put the significance of this view as follows:The ability to see the Great Truth of the hierarchic structure of the world, which makes it possible to distinguish between higher and lower Levels of Being, is one of the indispensable conditions of understanding. Without it, it is not possible to find out where everything has its proper and legitimate place. Everything, everywhere, can be understood only when its Level of Being is fully taken into account. Many things are true at a low Level of Being and become absurd at a higher level, and of course vice versa.Dante’s pilgrimage, then, aims toward attaining a higher level of being than when he found himself lost in the forest. By turning inward, by engaging in a contemplative mode of being that engages the self in pursuit of an inner harmony that resonates with an external, hierarchic order, Dante is striving to attain a kind of freedom that is somewhat alien to us today. We can think of the notion of freedom in a negative and a positive sense. In the negative sense, freedom is understood as freedom from something; from external constraint, for example. The First Amendment is typically interpreted along these lines. Everyone is free to speak their minds because the state should not be allowed to interfere with our freedom to do so. All are free to do as they please as long as they do not infringe on another person’s right to do so.The positive sense is much different. It is a freedom for something. In Dante’s Hell, everyone found themselves there because they (at minimum) acted free purely in the negative sense. They lived their lives as they saw fit, without regard to any higher form of life. They didn’t act for the sake of a virtuous purpose (although that’s not quite right regarding the virtuous pagans and a few others.) To be free in the positive sense means to act according to a higher aim. When Socrates refused to renounce the philosophical life and was put to death, he made that decision based on a principle grounded in his inner conscience, which he took to express something sacred and higher, which always spoke to him when he was about to do wrong. He accepted the death penalty because the unexamined life wasn’t worth living; it had no purpose toward a higher aim17. 17Dante’s Divine Comedy provides a narrative by which the uneasiness one experiences in life, as articulated by James, can reach a solution and resolve the inner conflict and division by providing a framework by which the individual moves closer to reality, to what is most real, and up the Chain of Being.Section 5:Now, the pilgrimage captured in Dante’s poem was not something anyone could take up, at least not in its full dramatic content; it was obviously something only a select few could embark on, and this depended on the situation one was born into, like whether one was wealthy enough to receive an education. One’s salvation in the social order was rarely epic or heroic in nature; it typically meant following the structure imposed upon the individual by the Church. Just as how the cosmos was hierarchically ordered, so was society. The reasons for the social order were Divinely decreed. The social structure was immovable in a way because shifting the social order and rearranging it would violate scripture and God’s Word. Hence people were, as we would judge today, unfree and restricted. However, as psychologist Erick Fromm writes, “although a person was not free in the modem sense, neither was he alone and isolated. In having a distinct, unchangeable, and unquestionable place in the social world from the moment of birth, man was rooted in a structuralized whole, and thus life had a meaning which left no place, and no need, for doubt. A person was identical with his role in society; he was a peasant, an artisan, a knight, and not an individual who happened to have this or that occupation. The social order was conceived as a natural order, and being a definite part of it gave a feeling of security and of belonging.”18 Luther’s devastating blow against the Church in the Reformation rejected the social order and the Chain of Being and set in motion the release of the individual from the bondage they were restrained in. But by freeing the individual, he also eliminated the necessary self-transformation that played a substantial role in the Medieval worldview. Luther democratized salvation, spirituality, and questions about meaning in one’s life.This Copernican revolution in religious matters allowed for a radical reorientation toward truth, which relied on the printing press's efficiency in producing and distributing information.There were, of course, other factors that contributed to the Catholic Church's decline. The literal Copernican revolution and the rise of science being an obvious example. But what became increasingly less present in the scientific worldview that was emerging then is the idea that, as one gains knowledge of the world, one also goes through a transformative experience like Dante’s. The notion that knowledge of truth and reality converges with a meaningful and spiritual ethical development has mostly fallen off. Science’s aim is pure objectivity. For much of history, what is ‘objective’ is also intrinsically beneficial to the subject coming into contact with it. Values in scientific judgment and knowledge are a transgression, a violation of scientific precept, and are opposed to the whole epistemic enterprise (meaning a method by which knowledge is gained.) Science does not care about how one feels, what one desires in life, or what meaning one may find in it and simply presents facts as a body of indifferent and empirically verified knowledge.This is, of course, a caricature, as Thomas Kuhn19 argued in the twentieth century. Scientists certainly value their theories and are not merely attempting to refute them through experimentation. Theories allow scientists to have a grip on the world and a language of concepts that can be used to describe it accurately. This conceptual framework gives the world a theoretically intelligible and discernible order. And so once the anomalies and unsolved problems in a scientific paradigm grow serious enough, those working within it enter into a crisis until a new paradigm emerges (as is what happened when moving from Newtonian mechanics to Eistenin’s relativity.) Still, moving from one paradigm to the next isn’t believed to be an ethical progression. It’s a movement from one framework to the next. Unlike the Medieval worldview, it is generally held that science says nothing about human values and how one ought to live. Being a scientist does not suggest that someone is wise like a Socrates or Plato.Unlike the Church in the Middle Ages, which, in terms of knowledge, played a similar role to science today, science is not an institution that is in the business of handing out ethical and moral guidance. A scientist would likely balk (or should balk) at the idea of being viewed as someone who has gone through an ethical self-transformation to gain the knowledge that he or she has solely because of becoming a scientist. Being one of course requires an enormous amount of discipline, effort, and intelligence, which is, in a way, transformative, but in a different sense than what Dante embarked on. Today, knowledge of truth and reality does not necessarily correspond with an ethical progression.This idea of not requiring ethical self-transformation to gain the highest forms of knowledge is most noticeable in Rene Descartes’ philosophy in the seventeenth century. Descartes set out to rebuild a foundation through which knowledge could be rebuilt from the ruins left by the Church’s decline.20 The Church had lost its viability as something that could be believed to provide reliable knowledge for the social body. It was no longer psychologically obvious that the Church was the principal source and authority of appeal when dealing with matters of truth. Referring to scripture, for instance, could no longer be done by relying on what the Papacy had interpreted it as meaning. Luther (and others) undermined this immediacy for many. The United States faces a similar situation today. There is a diminishing trust in the democratic institutions that have historically served as distributors of trustworthy knowledge. Descartes attempted to deal with a similar crisis by discovering foundations immune from doubt. And he believed himself to have discovered such a foundation through his Cogito: I think, therefore I am. I can doubt all of my mental representations of the world, such as those of tables and chairs and coffee mugs, as well as my particular thoughts and feelings, and even the existence of my own body and sense experience. For all I know, I may be dreaming or being deceived by an evil demon into believing all kinds of imaginary and false representations of things. I can’t affirm or deny this with any certainty. But I cannot doubt that I am doubting; that much is certain. And since doubting is a property of thinking, I can’t doubt that I am thinking.Therefore, I am a thinking thing, an immaterial substance that is distinct from the physical bodies liable to doubt21. This is the most fundamental truth that not even reason could call into question. It’s radically different from truth as understood on the Chain of Being model. There is no ethical transformation involved in realizing this indubitable proposition. It’s self-evident to anyone rational and clear-minded (or so Descartes thinks.) And this is certainly how many people today think of knowledge. And in some cases, quite rightly. Take human rights as an example. John Locke22, a momentous figure who shaped the language of rights and how modernity thinks about them, argued that human rights are self-evident in the same sense as a geometric axiom. It just appears before the mind as something incapable of being doubted (to a clear, rational mind, of course, who has done the proper thinking, like someone who has rightly apprehended a geometric axiom.) The US’s founding document memorializes Locke’s claim: “We hold these truths to be self-evident.” The deepest, most profound truths about humanity are ‘obvious’ to any rational mind. This is, of course, a good thing. It is good that people intuitively find one another intrinsically and irreducibly valuable. But when this notion is taken for granted, when, as we’ll soon see with John Stuart Mill, an idea grows ossified, fixed, and dogmatic, it loses its potency and desired effect. But if one arrives at the idea of human rights through a transformative process, where one realizes the concept through a process of development and growth that culminates in seeing the profound value within a conscious human being, the notion of rights is animating and action-producing; it stirs and moves the motivation of those who go through this process. In other words, it produces a particular psychological orientation around what is believed to be true.Section 6:So, information technologies do not merely distribute previously unavailable information that is then propagated across a network. Nor does the production of such information bear a natural, necessary connection to truth. They can do both, but much more is at play. The printing press allowed for the conditions necessary for the Reformation to occur, and its occurrence produced a radical shift in the Medieval worldview. Truth was hierarchically organized, and those at the top had exclusive access. The Reformation leveled this structure and diffused the notion that all Christians are equal regarding Divine knowledge. There was no need for an authoritative intermediary to facilitate people’s relation to God. People could do it themselves through faith and scripture alone. But this also meant that all the social practices instituted for the purposes of coming into contact with truth, all the rituals and rites used to reinforce the beliefs of when and how truth manifests itself, slowly went with it. Therefore, people’s orientation around truth, how they conceived of it, where it resided, and how one knew it, was disrupted. People weren’t merely given previously unavailable information; the entire information landscape was turned upside down. This can reveal new terrain within the landscape that can lead to deep and valuable truths, such as human rights and liberties, and it can also conceal older, previously established truths, like the notion of transformative experiences being necessary for coming into closer contact with reality.Similarly to the printing press, social media poses a historical parallel. We can see this by looking at the most famous defense of free speech for the sake of truth, namely, John Stuart Mill’s essay On Liberty. We’ll see that, like how the printing press reoriented people’s relation to truth, social media is doing so by increasingly shifting how we conceive of, participate in, and come to know the truth. As a social practice, it’s shifting the culture toward different ways of arriving at truth. It's difficult to say whether it is categorically good or bad. But the focus here will be on what would certainly be a momentous loss in our social practices regarding truth, namely, a departure from Enlightenment values.There is a developing tendency to determine the truth through sheer will rather than discussion and a dwindling desire to correct this error. People seem to care less about deliberation, compromise, tolerance, and the general agreement that the goal is to come to an inclusive decision that is in the best interests of people who share a basic respect for each other’s dignity. All political orientations have growing factions that believe the content of other’s beliefs determines how they should be viewed and treated. Rather than work toward building a community that is able to cooperate with one another and agree on a uniting set of values, the cultural attitude is moving toward a competition between wills for power. But it’s not only behaviorally motivated by power; there is also the belief that all effort by a group toward an ideal is entirely reducible to power. That very well may be true. But if it is, democracy is in a precarious position. So, if we value democracy, we should steer back toward the proper path. For Mill’s account to work, which is crucial if we wish to justify free speech for the sake of truth in Enlightenment, democratic terms23, social media should not be viewed as a truth-seeking information network24. Mill believed free speech is necessary for human flourishing in a democratic society. If it’s the people who are going to be involved in the deliberative processes of society and be the ones choosing what is best, then the people must be able to discuss and exchange ideas, opinions, and beliefs freely. However, just like how the Medieval view operated within a certain orientation around truth, which provided a framework through which truth could be arrived at, so it is with democracy. And like the printing press, social media has placed enormous tension on our democratic orientation. So, if we desire to maintain democratic values derived from the Enlightenment, then we have to take a certain stance toward social media, one that eschews the expectation that truth is situated within its environments, where we expect to discuss, debate, hash things out, and arrive at truth.Now, On Liberty offers two sets of reasons supporting free speech, the first being epistemic, meaning that the benefits have to do with knowledge, while the other set is psychologically beneficial. The first set argues that free speech is an overall good for society because if what someone says is true or partially true, both possibilities benefit a democracy. If what is said is true, it will benefit because it professes a truth that will add to the preexisting stock of knowledge. If partially true, this also contributes to preexisting knowledge; “and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied.” The second psychological set of benefits is primarily derived from the utterance of false beliefs, which have no direct epistemic benefit because they do not contribute any knowledge to form beliefs around. If what is said is wholly false, the opportunity to defend and contest it will also be an overall good because it will demand that the bearers of that knowledge account for the reasons for its truth. Mill expresses this well: “Unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds.” This then produces a further psychological benefit. By remaining a prejudice and not as something rationally grasped, “the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost or enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect on the character and conduct; the dogma becoming a mere formal profession, inefficacious for good, but cumbering the ground and preventing the growth of any real and heartfelt conviction from reason or personal experience.” Therefore, contesting what is true will keep beliefs from devolving into prejudice or dogma.Section 7:The first thing to observe about Mill’s reasons for free speech is that the first set of epistemic reasons really depends on the second set (the psychological ones). But it’s peculiar to speak of the latter as ‘benefits’ because of this. It’s more accurate to say that a certain psychological orientation must give rise to them. We can think of this as a kind of feedback loop that produces the benefits Mill is speaking of. One must have the proper psychological orientation toward truth to break into this loop. That is to say that the members within a society must hold a psychological orientation toward truth that allows for the free expression of true, partially true, and false beliefs to be a net good, i.e., to bring about the best possible consequences within a democratic community. With the psychological reasons offered for free speech, notice that the benefit is derived from the speakers and listeners within the community being open to receiving true, partially true, or false utterances. The beliefs they hold must be perpetually open to revision because they may or may not be in possession of the actual true ones; they understand that their knowledge is an ongoing process, something that is constantly unfolding, and so hold a particular stance toward the free expression of beliefs.They would understand that, even in the best instances of human knowledge, the most stable kind (like knowledge of physics), it is still susceptible to be overturned by future evidence, as was the case with Newtonian mechanics and Einsteinian relativity. That is not to say truth is therefore unattainable, but only that there should be a fair degree of epistemic humility within a democratic, truth-seeking community, given that our best knowledge often falls far short of absolute certainty. As the psychological reasons specify, if the people within the community hold their beliefs as prejudices or dogmas that are fixed and unchangeable, they will be unreceptive to being challenged. So whatever anyone utters, whether true, false, or in between, it won’t provide the benefits Mill intended. There must be a certain psychological orientation toward truth for Mill’s argument to succeed.Let’s now specify what this orientation should look like and see how it’s vital in upholding free speech arguments for the sake of truth. There are three components to this orientation: (i) certain beliefs, (ii) certain desires, and (iii) certain attitudes born out of (i) and (ii). (i) consists of two beliefs. The first belief is that truth exists, and the second is that it is, in principle, knowable. (ii) consists of two desires as well. The first desire is to attain human flourishing, and the second is that truth is constitutive of this aim. Given that there is truth, one must also have the desire to attain it. But this is also a special kind of desire; it’s a desire that fulfills what must be viewed as a higher need, one that is constitutive of human flourishing or happiness. We can call this a fulfillment need. This means that we desire truth because it occupies a natural place in the space of human good. We will lack something fundamental to our flourishing if we don’t have contact with truth; we therefore both desire it and have a powerful motivation to attain it because we desire to flourish. Fulfillment needs should be understood as part of what constitutes this principal end in life that characterizes human excellence.For those who know Greek philosophy, this will sound familiar. As Aristotle says in his Ethics, all things aim at some final good. Achieving this good means for something to actualize its potential and attain excellence. The final aim of human beings is to flourish, or, in Greek, to attain eudaimonia, and to attain this means to achieve human excellence. Excellence, says Aristotle, means to fulfill the particular function assigned to a thing's nature. An eye’s function is to see, a car’s function is to drive, while the seed’s function is to grow into a plant. Human beings’ nature is to be rational, to optimize their cognition, to reduce error, and to reach the truth. Again, since the ultimate aim is to flourish, and because seeking truth is constitutive of that goal, we desire to know the truth as a fulfillment need, which helps satisfy the principal good in human life. Now, while Aristotle’s claim about human nature is of course disputable, if Mill’s argument for free speech is to work, and it’s important that it does, Aristotle’s account of human beings, or something resembling it, must be held within a democratic community.That being said, there’s a deep plausibility to the notion that humans have a fundamental need to be in contact with the truth, and presuming rationality is necessary for this, Aristotle may very well be right. In his lecture series Awakening From The Meaning Crisis, John Vervaeke offers a powerful example to illustrate this. Imagine your parents one day asking you to follow them into a hidden room you had never seen before inside your house on your eighteenth birthday. When you enter, you see a wall of monitors showing old footage of you throughout your life. Your parents then turn to you and say that your entire life has been an FBI experiment; everything has been manufactured. The love you thought to be sincere and nourishing, all the support you’ve received throughout the years, the holidays you have come to cherish, and the memories and feelings you’ve come to have are, in the most profound sense, fake. None of it was real. Your parents then tell you that you have two options. You can either act as if this incident had never happened and move on as usual, or you can move out and move on with your life. What’s the desirable option? Most of us would choose the latter. Why? Because none of what was thought to be real turned out to be true. It was all fabricated, illusory, and bore no substantive relation to reality. For the majority of us (although hopefully everyone), there is no going back to the way things previously were. The truth makes a fundamental difference in the decision-making between the two options. By discovering that our life is untrue, we feel a deep absence, a lack of fulfillment, an incompleteness on account of what we’ve learned about ourselves. An essential aspect of the decision to move on, then, is a deep motivation to discover what is in fact true. It’s like Dante when he discovers himself lost in the dark forest. We’ve been led astray, and now we desire to find the right path, which is the one that converges with truth, with what is most real. This is what happens to Jim Carrey in The Truman Show when he decides to leave that disturbing, manufactured simulation dome he was raised in. He could have stayed, but he was psychologically unable to. By obtaining this new self-knowledge, he would have never achieved eudaimonia. He would have remained stuck in life because he would have been bullsh*tting himself (again, I mean this in a technical sense and not simply as an explicative, which will be explained below.)This brings us to (iii), which is to bear a particular attitude toward truth provided (i) and (ii). The proper attitude toward truth is one of care. To care for the truth means to know how to reliably arrive at it, which means utilizing the relevant cognitive processes in forming true beliefs. Recall the quote at the beginning of the article from John Milton, which expressed that it is a heresy to arrive at a belief in the wrong way, namely, by not properly using one’s own reason. It matters, then, how we form our beliefs, and what matters is which cognitive processes are used to get there. For ease of presentation, we can use the psychologist Daniel Kahneman’s formulation of these cognitive processes from his book Thinking, Fast and Slow. Kahneman lays out two cognitive systems, System 1 and System 2. “System 1 operates automatically and quickly, with little or no effort and no sense of voluntary control.” Whereas “System 2 allocates attention to the effortful mental activities that demand it, including complex computations. The operations of System 2 are often associated with the subjective experience of agency, choice, and concentration (p. 21).” To see the difference, take the two following examples of arithmetic: “2 + 2 = ?” We have an immediate cognitive reflex to such an equation, and little to no effort is required. Filling in the answer resulted from System 1. “17 x 24 =?” Now this equation typically demands more effort. A reasoning process is engaged to determine the answer that requires concentrated effort and isn’t reflexively provided. Such a process is supplied by System 2. For another example, say someone is hiking and spots a tree in the distance. If such a person cares nothing for botany, then the object will have a great deal of transparency, and the person will carry on about their day. Such a process would be within System 1. But if the person is a trained botanist and has never seen this kind of tree before (say they’re in a foreign country), they may begin to observe it, inspect it, and direct their effort toward retrieving the relevant information that may help identify the tree. That person has engaged System 2.Caring for the truth means knowing how to optimize these two systems so that System 1 and System 2 are in a recurring dialogue with one another, with the aim to arrive at the truth. Now, there are at least two aspects to this idea of care. The first can be classed as having to do with general skills in critical thinking, which primarily consists of analysis. Examples are things like working out one’s cognitive biases and reducing error. In essence, being successful in this regard means being able to reason well and work through problems rationally. Take a case of confirmation bias, for example. Imagine a republican voter who believes certain conspiracy theories about the democratic party and who is watching a presidential debate and hears the Republican candidate make an assertion attributing misconduct to the Democratic candidate. Because the assertion confirms the prior beliefs of the voter who is watching, it will be easy for that person to immediately agree with what was said. Engaging System 2 is effortful and costly in mental energy, and so it is easier, as well as cognitively more pleasurable, to passively (probably unconsciously) consent to System 1’s impulse, which presents the Republican candidate’s statement as attractive and belief-worthy. If this person cares for the truth, however, he or she would engage System 2 upon receiving what System 1 has provided with the aim of verifying whether the assertion accurately represents or corresponds to reality. Perhaps the person reasons through the assertion. If the candidate said something like, "Inflation has skyrocketed due to the current administration, which she’s a part of,” the voter watching may reason that, while it’s true inflation has risen, her position in the administration bears little to no significance on that outcome; therefore, the assertion is misinformed. Or perhaps the voter doesn’t understand government structure very well and does research, visits several sources, and concludes based on the information that the assertion is misinformed and implies an invalid conclusion. Whatever the route taken, the voter is presented with the potential to make a cognitive error through System 1, and because he or she cares for the truth, System 2 is utilized to solve the task presented.Competence in this aspect of care, which means to be a competent critical thinker, consists of knowing how to obtain propositional knowledge, which is knowledge that accurately represents reality. One has the tools and skills to work through assertions, analyze arguments, and appropriately form beliefs according to the evidence. One can situationally respond by engaging System 2 when one detects that System 1 is presented with information expressing propositions about the world. Someone who has mastered these skills has developed dispositions that engage the relevant cognitive behavior under the relevant conditions. In other words, such a person knows how to instinctively and properly respond to the appropriate cognitive stimuli.25The second aspect of caring for truth is deeper than this and, like Dante’s journey, more transformative. Caring for truth in this sense means optimizing System 1 and System 2 by using them to shape one’s conception of the good. What reason, for example, would this argument, rather than another one, be more relevant to someone competent in critical thinking? Why care about what this person has to say rather than that one? Answers to these questions will suggest the underlying conception of the good that is assumed when one finds one set of information more salient. In other words, the second aspect of caring for truth means understanding one’s conception of eudaimonia, or flourishing, which is one’s final aim and idea of human excellence. Critical thinking in the propositional sense is a highly valuable set of skills that is fundamental to the whole project of pursuing truth. But what it consists of does not provide a final criteria to judge what one should believe about human flourishing and what it amounts to. It plays a vital role in articulating and grasping this goal but won’t deliver it. In other words, critical thinking is a powerful tool in reaching one’s goals, but it itself cannot bestow the goals themselves. This requires the second aspect of caring for truth, which means optimizing System 1 and System 2 to become aware of what final end is guiding their operation. Regardless of how much one engages in critical thinking, irrespective of one’s mastery of logic and reasoning, if one never utilizes these skills toward understanding what provides the salience of one set of information over another, they may never satisfy their fulfillment need for truth.Tolstoy’s book, The Death of Ivan Illych, illustrates this. In the story the Russian protagonist, Ivan Illych, lives his life in pursuit of what is pleasant. He shuns the annoyances and discomforts that arise in life and views them, in a way, as unnatural, as occurrences that disrupt how life should be. His goal in life is to maximize pleasure and avoid pain and suffering. He’s not, however, a Don Quixote or an extreme hedonist; he’s not trying to experience all the possible pleasures one may have. He wants to live a successful and acceptable life that commands the esteem of his colleagues, makes his family happy, comfortable, and at ease, and allows him to pass through life with as few disturbances as possible. He holds a very familiar and common conception of the good.And Ivan does in fact find this success. He rises to be a great and respectable judge in Russia. He’s highly competent, makes a substantial living, and can buy and provide his family with whatever he pleases. Yet he finds himself running into the disturbances he’s always tried to avoid. He’s constantly fighting with his wife:There remained only rare periods of amorousness that came over the spouses, but they did not last long. These were islands that they would land on temporarily, but then they would put out again to the sea of concealed enmity that expressed itself in estrangement from each other. This estrangement might have upset Ivan Ilyich, if he had considered that it ought not to be so, but by now he took this situation not only as normal, but as the goal of his activity in the family. His goal consisted in freeing himself more and more from these unpleasantnesses and in giving them a character of harmlessness and decency; and he achieved it by spending less and less time with his family, and when he was forced to do so, he tried to secure his position by the presence of outsiders.He’s experiencing the “uneasiness” formulated by William James above. His solution is not to reflect on his final end in life, his conception of the good, his idea of human flourishing and excellence, but to find other means to attain it, which is to turn away from what he’s representing as unnatural and frustrating. He’s not deficient in critical thinking; he’s a highly competent and successful judge. He lacks the wisdom and self-knowledge necessary for reflecting on and evaluating what makes some things and not others salient for him, which is his goal in life to live pleasantly. There’s a reason why he finds spending less time with his family a more obvious solution than trying to get at the root of why it is he feels so frustrated and annoyed at the fact that he’s not feeling fulfilled despite his success; and he’s not utilizing System 1 and System 2 to investigate that reason, i.e., he’s not caring for truth in the second sense. It’s only until he is faced with a random, coincidental death that he realizes he hadn’t been searching for a solution to his “uneasiness” that converged with truth. Not truth in the propositional sense, but truth regarding human flourishing and excellence. Insofar as he was unable or unwilling to direct his cognition toward what was guiding it, he remained incapable of progressing and transforming toward an aim that would afford him self-awareness, self-knowledge, and, ultimately, eudaimonia.Both aspects of caring for truth matter if Mill’s benefits are to be obtained. It matters propositionally (the first aspect of care) because critical thinking and analysis are necessary for seeing information clearly and discerning whether something maps onto the world. But caring for the first aspect alone will only clear the fog, so to speak, and allow one to see the landscape with more specificity and definition. It will provide knowledge about the causal regularities that govern the territory and the predictable patterns that follow from them. It will not, however, indicate what to do with that knowledge or inform one of what it means. For free speech to be justified for the sake of truth, which means free speech plays a substantial, instrumental role in sorting out the true information from the false, people must care for the truth. They have to find it salient in the right ways. If people don’t care and don’t share the proper desire to pursue it, then no amount of discussion will necessarily bring the community any closer to the truth. They may easily settle for something else.Section 8:The claim, then, is that social media does not warrant truth-based justifications for free speech. Because social media platforms don’t promote or incentivize the psychological orientation necessary for truth-seeking but reward the opposite behaviors, the idea that one is seeking truth within such a context is false. The view that social media as a public space is best characterized as a social practice that aims toward truth has generated an insidious confusion within the culture, and we would be better off by evaluating it differently. Social media is certainly an information network, but it’s wrong to presume all information networks are oriented toward truth production.To see this, think of a university. The principal purpose of this institution is to generate knowledge (there are other purposes, of course, but put those aside.) Now, there are many parts to the structure of a university, but let’s zoom in on the classroom environment. Within it, there’s a hierarchy in place. The teacher’s purpose is to guide the students through a curriculum, get them to think critically about the information, debate and discuss it, foster their abilities to engage with it, cultivate the necessary faculties for this, and to ensure that they learn something specific about the given information, as well as something general about learning, something they can use in all cases. To achieve this, the teacher must orient the students around truth-seeking, i.e., he or she must teach the students to care for the truth, as explained above. The teacher must challenge the students’ cognitive biases. Logical errors, bad reasoning, and lack of critical thinking have to be checked, corrected, and reinforced by the teacher.Ideally, the teacher will also help the students think critically about their conceptions of the good. In the ideal scenario, the teacher not only challenges their cognition but also fosters their ability to question what human flourishing and excellence looks like. It’s ideal because claiming that this is absolutely necessary for an information network to warrant being evaluated as a truth-seeking social practice is, perhaps, too high. But it is what one should aim for. However, it’s important to bear this in mind because it will be shown that, even if the threshold is lowered in this sense, social media still fails at what any information network that is correlated with truth should provide, which is to promote the proper analytical skills in getting clearer about reality.Now, an important reason universities are trusted as truth-seeking information networks is partly because of the teacher's role in distributing that information. It’s trusted as an institution because those who go through it are supposed to have been guided by experts who demonstrate how to pursue knowledge. Students who leave the institution are expected to have participated in a social practice that taught them to be competent in their field (and hopefully to be a good human being as well, whatever that means precisely) and who can now further distribute and utilize their knowledge by applying it to other domains within society. The teacher’s function within the institution is essential to this goal and fundamental to the trust granted to the institution itself. Let’s call this function a Socratic function.27Social media doesn’t have a Socratic function, and any information network trusted as a distributor of knowledge should have something resembling it. Worse than this, however, is that social media actually promotes cognitive behavior that is opposed to the whole project of pursuing truth. As an overarching, general pattern, social media reinforces and incentivizes things like cognitive bias (the immediate and intuitive presentations of System 1.) The whole business model is aimed at maximizing attention. People easily become addicted to these platforms and binge content endlessly. The only way to achieve this is by easing the user’s cognitive effort as much as possible and stimulating them with dopamine responses, allowing the user to enter a semi-hypnotic state. Of course, not everyone is affected like this; most people can assert moderation when using social media. But in an ideal world, one where social media is optimally thriving, everyone would be glued to their screens. Practical circumstances of course make this impossible, and therefore it wouldn’t truly be in social media’s interests because no one would show up for work, but if we turn the dial on the business goals of these platforms to the max, then this would be the logical consequence; it would maximize profits.Social media serves many purposes, though, and the claim is certainly not that it is, for these reasons, entirely bad. It’s only the contexts, circumstances, and situations in which it is reflexively represented as a competent and trusted information network that deals in matters of knowledge and truth that it creates an overall deficit. This is because of the intellectual and ethical confusion it produces, which is caused by its lack of a Socratic function that incentivizes and reinforces the proper psychological orientation around truth-seeking. Again, it has the opposite aim, which is to ease the effort of System 2 as much as it can and allow System 1, with all its cognitive vulnerabilities, to be at the helm. Because of this aim, social media has a Sophistic function, which contrasts the Socratic one, whose defining characteristic is to be a bullsh*tter. As mentioned above, this notion is a technical one and needs to be properly explained.The notion of bullsht comes from the American philosopher Harry Frankfurt and his essay Bullsht. Sam Harris uses this term often, especially regarding social media. First, let’s clarify what it means to lie. Lying involves an intent to deceive on the part of the person lying, who wishes to get the other to believe something contrary to the truth. The seventeen-year-old who sneaks out, gets caught, and tells their parents that they forgot their phone at their friend’s house and went to get it in the middle of the night is lying because they’re trying to deceive their parents into believing something false about reality. But reality is still salient to their aim. Although attempting to distort it, they still have reality in their conscious field of intentions, motives, and desires, i.e., they care about truth rather than caring for it. Someone who bullshts, on the other hand, has no regard for truth. It provides no reason for consideration on its own, independent of the bullshtter’s aim. Whereas the truth matters for the liar, it’s of no concern whether what one says is true or false in the case of bullsht. The bullshter’s enterprise is characteristically different than the lier in this regard. The liar “is attempting to lead us away from a correct apprehension of reality; we are not to know that he wants us to believe something he supposes to be false… The fact about himself that the bullshitter hides, on the other hand, is that the truth-values of his statements are of no central interest to him; what we are not to understand is that his intention is neither to report the truth nor to conceal it.”26The classic archetype of a bullshtter is the salesman. The truth about whether the product sold is efficient, useful, or whatever else is indifferent to the salesman. What matters, and what distinguishes one who is good from one who is not (in the sense of achieving their goal to sell the product, pure and simple,) is whether they can deceive the consumer into believing that the bullshtter is asserting something they themselves believe. There are few constraints on what a bullshtter may say to achieve their aim. Whatever helps satisfy their goal is fair play. The liar is unable to be creative like this. They must strategically and purposefully contend with the truth by believing they know it. If the liar doesn’t in fact know the truth, this will likely spoil their plans. They will be unable to grasp the situation and will likely misunderstand what the circumstances call for. A bullshtter doesn’t need to know the truth at all. They just need to make the other person think that they do. The truth conditions of their beliefs and assertions are, by itself, irrelevant.Social media is a bullshtter in incentivizing and rewarding behavior that employs bullsht. It therefore has a Sophistic function. The chief culprit for this is, of course, the algorithms. The algorithm's aim is to curate content that maximizes user engagement and attention. Whether what it presents a user with is true or false is a matter of indifference. It can matter in a sense, but only if the user is disposed toward viewing content that is oriented around truth, which is of no concern to the algorithms. The function is to bullsht the user by minimizing cognitive effort and maximizing the incentives that will keep their attention, e.g., by triggering dopamine responses through a constant succession of content patterned according to the user’s preferences. If the user desires content that aims at truthfully representing reality, he or she has to maneuver through a minefield of bullsht. There is no Socratic function that guides them through it, as there would be in any other social practice that is considered an information network whose purpose is to distribute knowledge. The proper psychological orientation that warrants discussions about how free speech is necessary for pursuing truth within a given context is entirely absent within the social media model.Hence Mill’s influential argument for the utility of free speech for the sake of truth doesn’t apply to social media. Let’s reflect on what Mill said after this long discussion. Recall the epistemic benefits he argued for. He said that letting everyone freely express their minds produces the best outcomes within a democratic community, regardless of whether what one says is true, partially true, or false. If the truth doesn’t move people, and if the general tendency to find truth salient is absent, then letting everyone say what they think is self-undermining. Why would truth matter if everyone free to speak their mind disregards it? Seeing truth as a reason for a social practice means truth is fundamental to the aims that characterize the institution, and this means being properly oriented around it, which means caring for it.Section 9:I want to end now with a discussion about how this all relates to Nostr and how it has the potential to be an information network that performs much better than social media as a context concerned with knowledge and truth. The principal reason that will be considered here is Nostr’s pursuit of a fully decentralized model that aims at user autonomy. Autonomy makes a crucial difference between an information network that more reliably tracks truth and one that is indifferent to it.Social media reduces users' autonomy by trying to use them as a means toward further ends, namely, their attention, engagement, and data. The algorithm's job is to sort through users’ information and curate it in ways that maximize profit. This generally results in the spread of bullsht because what determines information as worth spreading does not depend on that information’s truth value. However, when users can curate their own content by judging for themselves what information they wish to retrieve from relays; when it’s left to each user to decide what content is valuable and what isn’t; when users themselves can determine what is worth censuring and not be subject to the interests of a centralized server, the aim is clearly to place autonomy back into their hands. What’s important, though, is that autonomy has a certain purpose in the Nostr context: to allow people to create at all protocol levels. Part of what a centralized server does is create a fixed infrastructure that greatly restricts what users may do on the platform (the chief restriction being to yield as much profit as possible for shareholders.) Creators especially are affected by this because the value they contribute to the platforms is filtered through what will necessarily constrain it. Nostr, however, is different. What largely motivates the value of autonomy is the desire to let creators create content freely and without outside constraints, which, of course, is to provide them freedom of expression. By users having the freedom to build and the autonomy to curate and choose what content is personally valuable to a user, truth becomes highly relevant within the context. Now, if Mill is right when he says that only true beliefs have any utility (and false beliefs necessarily lead one astray in some sense,) users who produce content will be highly incentivized to track the truth, to have an accurate representation of it, because to fail at this will result in unappealing content due to its lack of value. No centralized authority is supposed to be able to force something to appear valuable; it’s up to the users to determine this. And if something will endure and not fade once the reasons why it may have trended disappear, it needs to track the truth. If it doesn’t, if it only matters to people because it is sensational or cheap, if it’s bullsht, it will always lose in the long run.Since people on Nostr have the autonomy to build and curate their own content, unlike social media, there is less at play that can ossify the network. There must be a great deal of motion because, in principle, no user or client can monopolize the space. This built-in fluidity captures an important aspect of truth-seeking, which John Milton expressed when saying, “Knowledge thrives by exercise… Truth is compared in scripture to a streaming fountain; if her waters flow not in a perpetual progression, they sicken into a muddy pool of conformity and tradition.” Everyone has to earn their success on Nostr, so the principal way to do this is to create something valuable. Again, if Mill is right, the value must largely be derived from the truth that the content represents, creating an incentive to care for the truth. Bullsh*t can’t be forcefully distributed because it maximizes some desired metric. Information is chiefly distributed by individual users valuing it.Nostr provides a way to see if Mill was right in thinking only true beliefs have any real value. Since the intention is to move away from social media’s business model, there is an opportunity to determine whether people will naturally choose the truth through their own autonomous decision-making. If there are no algorithms that aim to seize and maximize user attention, people are free to choose what content they wish to consume. It is a choice whether truth prevails over its opposite in the Nostr context because individuals are incentivized to contribute what they want to see. And if things go astray, people can fix it by creating something better.Notes:For a similar but far more elaborate, comprehensive, and complex argument of this kind, see John Vervaeke’s Awakening From the Meaning Crisis on YouTube.For an elaboration on free speech justifications, see Greenawalt, K. (2007). Free Speech Justifications. Colombia Law Review.For a history of Free speech, see Jacob Mchangama’s book Free Speech: Socrates to Social Media.Kant, I. (1784). What is Enlightenment? (p. 1). Hacket Publishing.This is not to suggest wokism is the sole culprit of this cultural trend. It’s one example amongst others on all parts of the political spectrum. But it’s an important example because wokism aims to be virtuous and moral. Therefore, it’s a good example because it is important to question whether their moral claims are correct. Furthermore, a plausible reply on the part of one who may subscribe to something like wokism (whatever that means precisely) is that it isn’t the duty of those who have been oppressed to teach those they consider to be oppressors. The duty falls on the latter. This is a challenging question to settle, and it makes up the potentially unbridgable gulf between wokism and its opponents. But if empathy is a virtue (or a vital moral response), it’s central that everyone exercises it, not just those who are held to be guilty of something.Simpson, R. M. (2024). The Connected City of Ideas. Daedalus.Harari, N. Y. (2024). Nexus. Random House.Eisenstein, E. L. (1979). The Printing Press as an Agent of Change (p. 45). Cambridge University Press.Melchert, N. (2007). The Great Conversation (p. 304). Oxford University Press.Melchert, N. (2007). The Great Conversation. Oxford University Press.Wagner, C. (2012). Scientia Moralitas (Moral Autonomy and Responsibility - The Reformation’s Legacy in Today’s Society). Scientia Moralitas Research Institute.Fromm, E. (1941). Escape From Freedom (p. 54). Discus.James, W. (1902). The Varieties of Religious Experience (p. 54). Penguin Classics.Dreyfus, H., & Kelly, S. D. (2011). All Things Shining: Reading the Western Classics to Find Meaning in a Secular Age (p. 122). Free Press.Dreyfus, H., & Kelly, S. D. (2011). All Things Shining: Reading the Western Classics to Find Meaning in a Secular Age (p. 122). Free Press.Aristotle, A. (1953). Ethics (p. 122). Penguin Classics.Schumacher, E. (1977). A Guide For the Perplexed. Harper Colophon Books.As Isaiah Berlin makes clear in his essay Two Concepts of Liberty, it is easy to see how positive freedom may easily lead to foolish and immoral action due to its purposeful nature. It is quite challenging to dissuade someone that what they believe to be their purpose in life, their ultimate meaning, relies on false premises.Fromm, E. (1941). Escape From Freedom. Discus.Chalmers, A. (1974). What is this thing called Science? Hacket Publishing.Descartes, R. (2010). Meditations on First Philosophy. Oxford World's Classics.See Bertrand Russel’s The History of Western Philosophy for how Descartes's argument is logically invalid. He can’t doubt that some process of thinking is occurring, but whether something is doing the thinking isn’t obvious.Locke, J. Two Treatises on Government.Justice Holmes made the Marketplace metaphor popular in Abrams v United States (1919), and has become a central precedent in free speech cases.For a similar argument, see Nevin Chellappah’s “Is John Stuart Mill’s Account of Free Speech Sustainable In the Age of Social Media?”Ryle, G. (1949). The Concept of Mind. Penguin.Frankfurt, H. (1986). Bullshit. Princeton University Press.To see the Socratic function in real time, watch The Joe Rogan Experience episode #2171. Eric Weinstein demonstrates what it means for an expert to engage with someone outside their respective field who claims to have knowledge that overturns the discipline but with no professional training to back it up. His attitude demonstrates a care for truth. @yakihonne

@ 6b7c438e:fc81aab3

Taryn Christiansen @ DoraHacksSpecial thanks to Eric Zhang for in-depth discussions.A mirror post on Dora Research Blog is available: https://research.dorahacks.io/2024/12/24/free-speech-foundation Intro:This article will argue that truth-based justifications for free speech are inappropriate within the social media context.1 Flooding the market with more information doesn’t necessarily force truth to emerge and bob at the surface. No matter how much information is pumped into a space filled with falsehoods and deception, if the right mechanisms aren’t in place, the area will only grow more chaotic and overcrowded, and therefore all the more easier to get lost in it. As an instrument to obtain knowledge of the truth, free speech has to be properly used, and people need to know how to use it.That isn’t to say that the tap should be shut off and that free speech should be curtailed; other justifications are perfectly reasonable, as will be seen below. But the idea that what we’re up to on social media is seeking out the truth only produces more confusion about what we collectively take to be sources of trustworthy information that is accurate and sincere. We would be better off if social media were viewed as an information network that is distinct from other spaces that are generally considered places where we obtain reliably true beliefs.But other spaces have the potential to be a more appropriate target for truth-based justifications for free speech, one of which is Nostr. Because of Nostr’s fully decentralized and open nature, which allows for innovation at all levels of its protocol, people have more opportunity to create valuable content that will only be distributed across the network because it is in fact valuable. The algorithms on social media force content to be valuable because there are standards that aim at maximizing user engagement in cheap and overstimulating ways. It doesn’t matter to these mechanisms whether something is true or not. What matters first is whether something promotes the ends of the social media companies, which are primarily driven by maximizing profits through ads and attention. Achieving this goal means reducing users' autonomy in picking and choosing what content to consume. Nostr aims to give the users their autonomy back by freeing developers to build both relays and clients. If users can make decisions that aren’t influenced by social media’s algorithmic decision-making, then it can be discerned whether truth is naturally relevant to people in these kinds of information networks, as well as whether people really desire to care for the truth.Section 1:It should be assumed at this point in history2, especially in liberal democracies, that the freedom to express one’s mind is inseparable from a basic conception of human dignity. If one is prohibited from freely discussing and challenging prevailing beliefs or forced to conform to a point of view that was not arrived at by using one’s own rational and reflective faculties, then human dignity suffers. There’s a reason Socrates went around the Athenian marketplace and tirelessly questioned the people he encountered there. He wasn’t interested in forcing people to submit to specific beliefs. Socrates wanted people to realize and reflect on whether what they believed was true or not, and therefore if it was something worth believing in. But integral to this project is the idea that people have to think through the questions themselves and not rely on an authority. Authority may be right; it may hold true beliefs and assert rational demands, but it doesn’t mean anything unless people themselves know the way to them. This requires the individual to be willing to develop what’s necessary for this.John Milton was right when he wrote in his 1644 pamphlet Areopagatica, which was directed against the English Parlament’s order for licensing books, that “A man may be a heretic in the truth… If he believes things only because his pastor says so, or the assembly so determines, without knowing other reasons, though his belief be true, yet the very truth he holds becomes his heresy.” People must be free to reason for themselves, to arrive at truths through the use of their own faculties, to develop their individual conscience, which, by its nature, must be exercised by the individual’s will and not by an externally imposed authority. Immanuel Kant’s call to the Enlightenment, Sapere aude! - “Have courage to use your own reason!”3 - is a call to actualize human dignity through the use of one’s reason. These faculties cannot be cultivated unless the individual can express him or herself freely.Woke culture is an illustrative example of how there is a connection between free speech and human dignity. It shows that when the strategy is to problematize and silence people, no matter how noble or virtuous the goal is believed to be, it only perpetuates a cycle of frustration and anger. The problem with woke culture isn’t necessarily their ideals. We all would agree, or should at least, that people should respect the basic dignity of others, treat everyone as persons, empathize with those with a different experience, and learn and grow from one another’s unique perspective. These are all good things; they’re profoundly valuable. The issue is how woke culture formulated and implemented their interpretations of what these notions amount to, what they call for, and what moral duties they demand. One of its principal goals has been to discern how historical oppressors should atone for previous wrongdoings. Many have come to understand this as meaning that those who come from those lineages are, in some sense, problematic and that, therefore, proponents of wokism have the duty to silence them, to condemn them, to act as if they are a net negative to the social good, and to impose a punishment of silence to atone for the past. This has been a grave mistake. Instead of engaging in a dialogue to reach the other person’s conscience, those who bore this duty have tended to sermonize in a sanctimonious, demeaning way, which only shuts people down and turns off the parts of the brain that promote learning and development, and turns on what generates combative and defensive behavior. The typical approach in woke culture has been enormously undemocratic in spirit due to its preference to force people to adopt reasons rather than opening people up to consider them in their proper light, namely, as claims about morality that make demands on the conscience of the person, which can only be properly understood and felt through the use of his or her own faculties. Woke culture, which offers some genuine insight into the world's contemporary moral situation, failed to respect the dignity of those they wished to persuade by using coercive measures instead of appealing to their conscience. Free speech is absolutely necessary in an endeavor like this because only by upholding such a social practice will everyone’s basic dignity be respected, which is integral to people being open to changing their minds. Moral debates within society should never devolve into a contest of wills. This only undermines the foundation of a democratic community, the basic pillar being human dignity.4But although free speech bears a necessary connection to human dignity, it does not bear the same relation to truth. For free speech to bear a proper relation to truth, one where free speech produces a high probability of tracking it, those seeking out truth must have the right psychological orientation toward it; otherwise, the two easily come apart. In his recent book Nexus, Yoel Noah Harari presents a clear way of seeing this. Harari criticizes what he calls the ‘naive view of information,’ which “argues that by gathering and processing much more information than individuals can, big networks achieve a better understanding of medicine, physics, economics, and numerous other fields, which makes the network not only powerful but wise.” The notion of wisdom is key. While it’s theoretically possible that an information network can be wise (especially with the development of better AI), it will be useless unless human beings have some idea about what wisdom is. If they don’t, then they’ll have to just assume that the information being presented was properly arrived at, i.e., with the wisdom necessary for obtaining truth, which will, in effect, create a servility to the information network and not to the human faculties necessary for discerning and knowing the truth. To use a distinction made by Plato, they will have an opinion about the truth, not knowledge. To know means to understand the reasons why something is the case, not just that it is the case.Harari’s book is important because the naive view of information he presents is prevalent and is most often expressed in the marketplace of ideas metaphor. In essence, the metaphor suggests that free speech operates like a free market because, by allowing individuals to pursue and satisfy their preferences freely, the truth will somehow outcompete falsehoods. Either because people’s preferences are more deeply satisfied by truth, and/or because the beliefs people hold will only have any real value (or utility) when they are true, when they accurately represent reality. But in a marketplace, “people don’t reliably ‘buy’ truths. People buy the ideas they like. And people don’t reliably like truths better than falsehoods. What the invisible hand does, all going well, is efficiently allocate goods to people based on what they want.”5 For truth to reliably outcompete falsehoods, consumers must have a particular orientation around truth. Unless we think ideas are true based solely on their utility, which is itself not a very useful notion, more has to be said as to why consumers would desire the truth over anything else in a marketplace of ideas. Everyone has opinions they cherish and hold to be, in some way, fundamental to themselves and their identities. It is perfectly conceivable that someone will reject any truth that conflicts with these deeply valued sentiments. For a free competition of ideas to track and produce true information, consumers have to want truth to win out, and this desire should motivate the consumer’s decision-making. In other words, one must bear a special psychological orientation toward truth for the marketplace metaphor to be an appropriate model for understanding free speech as being justified for the sake of truth. Again, free speech is important for other reasons, such as human dignity. But whether free speech is justified for the sake of truth is a separate question, and until the proper stance is taken toward truth, truth-based justifications are inapplicable.The fact that the distribution of more and more information doesn’t bear a necessary connection to truth can also be gleaned from historical examples. When a technology revolutionizes human information networks, which allows for information to be shared more efficiently and in larger quantities than ever before, the society that implements it does not therefore obtain a higher fidelity to truth. The opposite is equally plausible. This is the problem facing social media. If truth-based justifications are an appropriate way to justify free speech practices on such platforms, social media must create an environment that promotes the proper psychological orientation toward truth. What matters is whether they can care for the truth rather than adopt a stance that promotes what the philosopher Harry Frankfurt called bullsh*t, which means to be indifferent toward truth. Before explaining this further, let’s look at a historical example that demonstrates the following: First, as new technology arrives and transforms information networks, the information that is consequently distributed can equally promote both what is true and what is not; and second, and more philosophically, the technology can also reorient a society’s relationship to truth, which in turn affects how the society arrives at knowledge.Section 2:Take the invention of the Gutenberg printing press in 1440. Before its inception, the Catholic Church made Western Europe effectively an echo chamber. They dominated the information networks by controlling what could be printed, distributed, and accredited as knowledge. The vast majority of the population couldn’t read, and only a select few could read the Holy writings, which contained information that was considered the highest truth attainable by human beings. Only a select few were blessed enough to be able to handle this sort of information. Because all other information flowed from this central institution, everyone else depended on the Church for what to believe. The reality of that situation, and what it must have felt like to be in such a dependent position, can begin to be imagined by considering the following: “In the thirteenth century the library of Oxford University consisted of a few books kept in a chest under St. Mary’s Church. In 1424 the library of Cambridge University boasted a grand total of only 122 books. An Oxford University decree from 1409 stipulated that ‘all recent texts’ studied at the university must be unanimously approved ‘by a panel of twelve theologians appointed by the archbishop.’”6 When the quantity of information is this low, and in the context of the Catholic Church, is also greatly limited in diversity, it’s difficult even to imagine anything outside the worldview that is being imposed.Now, alongside the Church’s control of information networks, the production efficiency of copyists and scribes who had to manufacture the books was dismally low. It exponentially grew when the printing press automated the work. The historian Sir John Harold Clapham wrote, “A man born in 1453, the year of the fall of Constantinople, could look back from his fiftieth year on a lifetime in which about eight million books had been printed, more perhaps than all the scribes of Europe had produced since Constantine founded his city in A.D. 330.”7 The restriction on information and people’s inability to consider anything outside of the prevailing tradition, as well as the technological and productive inefficiency of the time, left most people in darkness, with no way out other than by following the dim, consoling light cast by the Church. The printing press changed all of this. “It revolutionized the world,” as the philosopher Francis Bacon said.The printing press gave people the autonomy to print and distribute ideas that the Church didn’t authorize and thereby provided the platform necessary for the Reformation to take hold, which started with Martin Luther in the early sixteenth century. There were previous attempts at reform, but the printing press made a momentous difference. The concurrence of the printing press and the Reformation revealed the corrosive corruption within the Catholic Church. People were finely able to learn about the degenerate tendencies within the institution, which the Church was previously able to stifle because it controlled the information networks. The buying and selling of Church positions and indulgences that allowed people to pay their way out of purgatory, political intrigue, nepotism, bribery, and immoral consolidation of wealth through taxes was disclosed as a consequence of the printing press. The notion that the Church was the medium by which people moved toward God’s grace collapsed, and people saw that “it had become a means of securing worldly prestige, power, and wealth for those who were clever and ruthless enough to bend it to their will.”8But this historical occurrence also unleashed a flurry of misinformation. The religious wars that followed the Reformation were devastating, and millions of people died, an exceptional case being the Thirty Years War (1618-48). The dissemination of Luther’s 95 theses regarding the corruption of the Church spread like wildfire across Europe after he posted them in 1516 on the Church Castle in Wittenberg, Germany, which the printing press made possible. It would only make sense, then, that the Church would follow suit and take advantage of the technology to combat what it held to be heresy and to reinstate its power as the dominant influence in the West (for an amalgam of reasons, of course.) All sides involved in these religious disputes didn’t merely use the printing press to disseminate accurate information. They used it to spread misinformation to satisfy their political interests, intensifying the ensuing wars and battles between the various emerging religious sects and the rising monarchies.This demonstrates the first point: the printing press, which was a revolution in human information networks, produced both true and false information. There was no causal, historical determinacy one way or the other. While it disclosed truths about Church corruption, it was also used as a means to spread political propaganda that fueled the religious wars.Now, as for the second, more philosophical point, the Reformation also reoriented people’s relation to truth by democratizing matters of faith. Whether one believes the Reformation was, in this respect, an overall good or not, from a liberal democratic point of view, it has to be considered good. The Reformation placed faith into the hands of the individual conscience, rendering considerations about one’s standing in relation to God to have a personal, rather than institutional, significance. Before, “the Church was the keeper and protector of Christian truths and the harbor of salvation for those at sea in sin.”9 Luther rejected this picture of salvation and believed one could be saved through faith and scripture alone, without an intermediary. Luther thought that one’s spiritual significance did not depend on authority. He didn’t see the Church as some emanation from God or a reflection of a Divine order that the individual participated in and was guided by to reach salvation. Individuals are solely responsible for their spiritual significance and capacity to reach a higher truth in God. In one of his more heroic acts, he translated the bible into vernacular German from the traditional Latin (which was considered the holy language, the only one appropriate for capturing religious truths). He gave common people access to what was previously sealed off from them. The individual, free from external imposition and constraint, can privately attain truth on his or her own.Luther formulated a radical inner freedom that broke with some of the Church’s fundamental precepts. There was, of course, an inner freedom already present in Catholicism, but Luther placed it at the center of things rather than as revolving around an institution. Before Luther, St. Augustine went to great lengths to demonstrate the spiritual significance of an inner life, and Luther was an Augustinian monk. But Luther went much further than him. In one of his lectures on YouTube, the philosopher Michael Sugrue observes that this amounted to a kind of Copernican Revolution in religion. That is to say that, rather than the Church being the axis by which things revolve around and where one finds his or her salvation, rather than identifying with an institution by which one finds freedom within a corporate body in which lies their place amongst others in a perfectly ordered, hierarchical, and harmonious cosmos, the individual became the center axis of spiritual and religious matters. It’s easy to see, then, how this theological idea possesses the potential to develop into the idea of individual rights and liberties. Luther provided a kind of autonomy10 for the individual, where whether one is saved is bound up with one’s inner conscience and not with external works or good deeds that the Church facilitates. The individual is an irreducible unit of value that is not subsumed by any other worldly object. And the individual's value rests in their conscience and capacity to receive God’s grace. This idea has sparks of the modern sense of human dignity, and it will create a conflagration throughout Europe as it develops. If there is no Church or institution to settle one’s moral, spiritual, and intellectual significance, one is left to use one’s faculties for guidance. And because it is one’s faculties that attain truth and spiritual salvation, they are the center of value in human life, which bears a natural right for protection.At the Diet of Worms in 1521, where Luther had to answer to charges of heresy because of his theological work, the Church demanded that he recant. He refused. But the reasons for his refusal are the most important. He demanded that the Church show him through scripture and reason alone that he was wrong and not through the dictates of authority. His protest demonstrated that the individual can reach the truth through his or her own means. The Church’s decline began far before this historical moment, but Luther made the decisive blow that the printing press made possible. The Church fragmented as a consequence, which, to Catholics, meant truth itself was fragmented and resulted in a proliferation of denominations scattered across Europe.Section 3:What was so subversive about Luther in this respect is that he divorced sanctification, the process by which one lives in the image of Christ, i.e., a life of virtue, from self-transformation. Although Luther carved out the individual as an irreducible unit of value, this also severed the individual from a stable and definite path that assuaged one’s existential suffering: “The Church… assured the individual of her unconditional love to all her children and offered a way to acquire the conviction of being forgiven and loved by God. The relationship to God was more one of confidence and love than of doubt and fear.”11 Luther believed that one was saved through faith alone and by no other means. He thought that because human beings are all sinners, their wills cannot do anything to reach salvation and spiritual peace. How, then, can one tell if they have been saved? There is no longer an authority to adjudicate this. The individual can discover the truth for themself and so must determine what this means on their own. Several centuries later, Kant gave voice to the duty he believed to arise from this new freedom:Thus, it is difficult for any individual man to work himself out of the immaturity that has all but become his nature. He has even become fond of this state and for the time being is actually incapable of using his own understanding, for no one has ever allowed him to attempt it. Rules and formulas, those mechanical aids to the rational use, or rather misuse, of his natural gifts, are the shackles of a permanent immaturity. Whoever threw them off would still make only an uncertain leap over the smallest ditch, since he is unaccustomed to this kind of free movement. Consequently, only a few have succeeded, by cultivating their own minds, in freeing themselves from immaturity and pursuing a secure course.So, while much was gained during the Reformation, the reorientation around truth also had consequences. Self-transformation, the effort of will, the idea of having an inner and outer journey that culminates into something larger and more significant, took on radically different meanings under Luther and the future Protestant countries. To see this, we can turn to Dante’s Divine Comedy, which demonstrates part of what was lost under Luther.Section 4:In Dante’s Divine Comedy, the culmination of the Medieval worldview before Luther, Dante embarks on a Christian pilgrimage that ends in his being saved. Just as with the above, it’s crucial to understand that the point here will not be exclusively religious but universal in the sense that religion, as manifested across all cultures, didn’t create this experience but was the medium by which it has been expressed and made sense of; it provides it a voice. This goes back to William James and his book The Varieties of Religious Experience. There is the private aspect of religious experience, and then there is the institutional component within which the private side takes shape. Buddhists practice meditation and strive to contemplate Nirvana; the Christian prays and goes to mass; the Stoics distance themselves from their inaccurate emotional representations and contemplate what is rational and in his or her control; and so forth. As James points out, what is fundamental to all religious experience, in the private sense, are two aspects: there is an uneasiness, which, “reduced to its simplest terms, is a sense that there is something wrong about us as we naturally stand;” and two, a solution, which “is a sense that we are saved from the wrongness by making proper connection with the higher powers (508).” The first aspect means the self is in conflict, is divided, and desires unification. In religious language, the self seeks salvation and an experience of being saved from their situation, which is characterized by suffering due to inner division and conflict. This can take on an existential mode, as with Leo Tolstoy in his book Confessions, or it can be highly moral. In Tolstoy’s book Confessions, he relates a story of a traveler being chased by a beast that imaginatively captures the relevant phenomena:Seeking to save himself from the fierce animal, the traveler jumps into a well with no water in it; but at the bottom of this well he sees a dragon waiting with open mouth to devour him. And the unhappy man, not daring to go out lest he should be the prey of the beast, not daring to jump to the bottom lest he should be devoured by the dragon, clings to the branches of a wild bush which grows out of one of the cracks of the well. His hands weaken, and he feels that he must soon give way to certain fate; but still he clings, and sees two mice, one white, the other black, evenly moving round the bush to which he hangs, and gnawing off its roots. The traveler sees this and knows that he must inevitably perish; but while thus hanging he looks about him and finds on the leaves of the bush some drops of honey. These he reaches with his tongue and licks them off with rapture. Thus I hang upon the boughs of life, knowing that the inevitable dragon of death is waiting ready to tear me, and I cannot comprehend why I am thus made a martyr. I try to suck the honey which formerly consoled me; but the honey pleases me no longer, and day and night the white mouse and the black mouse gnaw the branch to which I cling. I can see but one thing: the inevitable dragon and the mice—I cannot turn my gaze away from them.”12Clearly, Tolstoy is suffering from a serious existential episode in which he can’t find a purpose or meaning in life that will clear away his anxiety, which is represented in the dragon, which time, represented in the mice, slowly draws him near. This is his “uneasiness.” He must find a solution, then, because his situation is unlivable.Religion has historically addressed this need. In the Middle Ages, the Church was the institution through which people expressed this experience and resolved their inner conflicts, tensions, and divisions. Let’s turn to Dante’s Divine Comedy to see how the private aspect of this experience is made sense of through Christain’s notion of the pilgrimage.The poem begins with Dante suddenly becoming aware of himself, “Midway upon life’s journey,” as he says, and terrified by the fact that he’s lost in a dark world, having “gone astray,” and is in despair because he has begun to lose all hope for himself. “We know nothing of how Dante has gone astray, only that he has, and that he must undertake a journey, therefore, to save his soul.”13 He is, like Tolstoy, experiencing an “uneasiness” (though in more of a moral rather than existential sense; God is always present for Dante.) So, he has discovered that he has been living wrongly, that he’d strayed from the right path, from the way, and despite his attempts to free himself of his sins and burdens, he’s unable to do it alone. Although it’s unclear why Dante has lost his way, “the journey itself is clearer. It will take him through the entire Christian spiritual universe.”14The Roman poet Virgil is sent to initiate and lead him on this path forward. Virgil represents all of Classical learning, from the Greeks to the Romans. Though they were pagans, they represent the highest one can do as a non-Christian, which is to reach, as Aristotle said, the contemplative life15, where one can reflect on the Whole, on the cosmos. But because they didn’t have faith, they could never experience a fullness of being or completeness that produces the solution to the uneasiness that James discussed. According to Christian doctrine, only Christians may experience this. Thus, they had to remain in Hell.Now, for Dante to move down through Hell, climb up Purgatory, and then transcend into Heaven, he must engage with the Classical world by wrestling with the questions they set out to answer, which is an immensely difficult aim to take on; one that will transform the self as it moves through an activity and process of the soul, intellect, mind, or whatever it is that is the center in which human development toward the Good, as Plato would say, takes place. What’s fascinating about this ascent is that, in the Medieval worldview, it wasn’t merely an internal endeavor; it also bore a deep and profound relationship to the external world. By embarking on the Christian pilgrimage, one was, in a sense, becoming closer and closer to reality, to truth, to what is most real, which corresponded with a transformation of the self that is accompanied by an experience of fulfillment. As one ascends, one climbs what was called the Great Chain of Being, a metaphysical (ontological) thesis that was first articulated by Aristotle, which was adopted by, and adapted to, Christian thought in the thirteenth century.The Chain of Being introduces a vertical aspect to reality rather than merely a horizontal one. At the top is the highest Truth, and the lowest is the least real, i.e., the lowest level of being, which consists of matter and material objects, whereas the highest consists of what is immaterial, like consciousness or mind. And so everything and everyone grows increasingly heavier as Dante moves downward through Hell due to being weighed down by an attachment to the material, earthly substance, which produces a growing despair and lack of fulfillment. As Dante moves upward from Purgatory to Heaven, things become lighter and immaterial in proportion to how much something embodies the spiritual, divine substance, which is achieved through directing one’s desire toward the right objects, toward what is more real and true. In Plato’s allegory of the cave, as one breaks free from the chains and shadows at the bottom and climbs toward the exit where the sun can be seen, one also gains more and more insight into reality as things are illuminated more clearly through the light. Like Purgatory, the ascent up the cave is profound and challenging. But the initial insight of seeing into reality, which reveals that what was previously experienced was illusory, produces the desire to see even further into what now appears absolute and true. This desire pulls and aims Dante upward as he climbs higher toward reality and up the Great Chain of Being. The economist and philosopher E.F. Schumacher16 put the significance of this view as follows:The ability to see the Great Truth of the hierarchic structure of the world, which makes it possible to distinguish between higher and lower Levels of Being, is one of the indispensable conditions of understanding. Without it, it is not possible to find out where everything has its proper and legitimate place. Everything, everywhere, can be understood only when its Level of Being is fully taken into account. Many things are true at a low Level of Being and become absurd at a higher level, and of course vice versa.Dante’s pilgrimage, then, aims toward attaining a higher level of being than when he found himself lost in the forest. By turning inward, by engaging in a contemplative mode of being that engages the self in pursuit of an inner harmony that resonates with an external, hierarchic order, Dante is striving to attain a kind of freedom that is somewhat alien to us today. We can think of the notion of freedom in a negative and a positive sense. In the negative sense, freedom is understood as freedom from something; from external constraint, for example. The First Amendment is typically interpreted along these lines. Everyone is free to speak their minds because the state should not be allowed to interfere with our freedom to do so. All are free to do as they please as long as they do not infringe on another person’s right to do so.The positive sense is much different. It is a freedom for something. In Dante’s Hell, everyone found themselves there because they (at minimum) acted free purely in the negative sense. They lived their lives as they saw fit, without regard to any higher form of life. They didn’t act for the sake of a virtuous purpose (although that’s not quite right regarding the virtuous pagans and a few others.) To be free in the positive sense means to act according to a higher aim. When Socrates refused to renounce the philosophical life and was put to death, he made that decision based on a principle grounded in his inner conscience, which he took to express something sacred and higher, which always spoke to him when he was about to do wrong. He accepted the death penalty because the unexamined life wasn’t worth living; it had no purpose toward a higher aim17. 17Dante’s Divine Comedy provides a narrative by which the uneasiness one experiences in life, as articulated by James, can reach a solution and resolve the inner conflict and division by providing a framework by which the individual moves closer to reality, to what is most real, and up the Chain of Being.Section 5:Now, the pilgrimage captured in Dante’s poem was not something anyone could take up, at least not in its full dramatic content; it was obviously something only a select few could embark on, and this depended on the situation one was born into, like whether one was wealthy enough to receive an education. One’s salvation in the social order was rarely epic or heroic in nature; it typically meant following the structure imposed upon the individual by the Church. Just as how the cosmos was hierarchically ordered, so was society. The reasons for the social order were Divinely decreed. The social structure was immovable in a way because shifting the social order and rearranging it would violate scripture and God’s Word. Hence people were, as we would judge today, unfree and restricted. However, as psychologist Erick Fromm writes, “although a person was not free in the modem sense, neither was he alone and isolated. In having a distinct, unchangeable, and unquestionable place in the social world from the moment of birth, man was rooted in a structuralized whole, and thus life had a meaning which left no place, and no need, for doubt. A person was identical with his role in society; he was a peasant, an artisan, a knight, and not an individual who happened to have this or that occupation. The social order was conceived as a natural order, and being a definite part of it gave a feeling of security and of belonging.”18 Luther’s devastating blow against the Church in the Reformation rejected the social order and the Chain of Being and set in motion the release of the individual from the bondage they were restrained in. But by freeing the individual, he also eliminated the necessary self-transformation that played a substantial role in the Medieval worldview. Luther democratized salvation, spirituality, and questions about meaning in one’s life.This Copernican revolution in religious matters allowed for a radical reorientation toward truth, which relied on the printing press's efficiency in producing and distributing information.There were, of course, other factors that contributed to the Catholic Church's decline. The literal Copernican revolution and the rise of science being an obvious example. But what became increasingly less present in the scientific worldview that was emerging then is the idea that, as one gains knowledge of the world, one also goes through a transformative experience like Dante’s. The notion that knowledge of truth and reality converges with a meaningful and spiritual ethical development has mostly fallen off. Science’s aim is pure objectivity. For much of history, what is ‘objective’ is also intrinsically beneficial to the subject coming into contact with it. Values in scientific judgment and knowledge are a transgression, a violation of scientific precept, and are opposed to the whole epistemic enterprise (meaning a method by which knowledge is gained.) Science does not care about how one feels, what one desires in life, or what meaning one may find in it and simply presents facts as a body of indifferent and empirically verified knowledge.This is, of course, a caricature, as Thomas Kuhn19 argued in the twentieth century. Scientists certainly value their theories and are not merely attempting to refute them through experimentation. Theories allow scientists to have a grip on the world and a language of concepts that can be used to describe it accurately. This conceptual framework gives the world a theoretically intelligible and discernible order. And so once the anomalies and unsolved problems in a scientific paradigm grow serious enough, those working within it enter into a crisis until a new paradigm emerges (as is what happened when moving from Newtonian mechanics to Eistenin’s relativity.) Still, moving from one paradigm to the next isn’t believed to be an ethical progression. It’s a movement from one framework to the next. Unlike the Medieval worldview, it is generally held that science says nothing about human values and how one ought to live. Being a scientist does not suggest that someone is wise like a Socrates or Plato.Unlike the Church in the Middle Ages, which, in terms of knowledge, played a similar role to science today, science is not an institution that is in the business of handing out ethical and moral guidance. A scientist would likely balk (or should balk) at the idea of being viewed as someone who has gone through an ethical self-transformation to gain the knowledge that he or she has solely because of becoming a scientist. Being one of course requires an enormous amount of discipline, effort, and intelligence, which is, in a way, transformative, but in a different sense than what Dante embarked on. Today, knowledge of truth and reality does not necessarily correspond with an ethical progression.This idea of not requiring ethical self-transformation to gain the highest forms of knowledge is most noticeable in Rene Descartes’ philosophy in the seventeenth century. Descartes set out to rebuild a foundation through which knowledge could be rebuilt from the ruins left by the Church’s decline.20 The Church had lost its viability as something that could be believed to provide reliable knowledge for the social body. It was no longer psychologically obvious that the Church was the principal source and authority of appeal when dealing with matters of truth. Referring to scripture, for instance, could no longer be done by relying on what the Papacy had interpreted it as meaning. Luther (and others) undermined this immediacy for many. The United States faces a similar situation today. There is a diminishing trust in the democratic institutions that have historically served as distributors of trustworthy knowledge. Descartes attempted to deal with a similar crisis by discovering foundations immune from doubt. And he believed himself to have discovered such a foundation through his Cogito: I think, therefore I am. I can doubt all of my mental representations of the world, such as those of tables and chairs and coffee mugs, as well as my particular thoughts and feelings, and even the existence of my own body and sense experience. For all I know, I may be dreaming or being deceived by an evil demon into believing all kinds of imaginary and false representations of things. I can’t affirm or deny this with any certainty. But I cannot doubt that I am doubting; that much is certain. And since doubting is a property of thinking, I can’t doubt that I am thinking.Therefore, I am a thinking thing, an immaterial substance that is distinct from the physical bodies liable to doubt21. This is the most fundamental truth that not even reason could call into question. It’s radically different from truth as understood on the Chain of Being model. There is no ethical transformation involved in realizing this indubitable proposition. It’s self-evident to anyone rational and clear-minded (or so Descartes thinks.) And this is certainly how many people today think of knowledge. And in some cases, quite rightly. Take human rights as an example. John Locke22, a momentous figure who shaped the language of rights and how modernity thinks about them, argued that human rights are self-evident in the same sense as a geometric axiom. It just appears before the mind as something incapable of being doubted (to a clear, rational mind, of course, who has done the proper thinking, like someone who has rightly apprehended a geometric axiom.) The US’s founding document memorializes Locke’s claim: “We hold these truths to be self-evident.” The deepest, most profound truths about humanity are ‘obvious’ to any rational mind. This is, of course, a good thing. It is good that people intuitively find one another intrinsically and irreducibly valuable. But when this notion is taken for granted, when, as we’ll soon see with John Stuart Mill, an idea grows ossified, fixed, and dogmatic, it loses its potency and desired effect. But if one arrives at the idea of human rights through a transformative process, where one realizes the concept through a process of development and growth that culminates in seeing the profound value within a conscious human being, the notion of rights is animating and action-producing; it stirs and moves the motivation of those who go through this process. In other words, it produces a particular psychological orientation around what is believed to be true.Section 6:So, information technologies do not merely distribute previously unavailable information that is then propagated across a network. Nor does the production of such information bear a natural, necessary connection to truth. They can do both, but much more is at play. The printing press allowed for the conditions necessary for the Reformation to occur, and its occurrence produced a radical shift in the Medieval worldview. Truth was hierarchically organized, and those at the top had exclusive access. The Reformation leveled this structure and diffused the notion that all Christians are equal regarding Divine knowledge. There was no need for an authoritative intermediary to facilitate people’s relation to God. People could do it themselves through faith and scripture alone. But this also meant that all the social practices instituted for the purposes of coming into contact with truth, all the rituals and rites used to reinforce the beliefs of when and how truth manifests itself, slowly went with it. Therefore, people’s orientation around truth, how they conceived of it, where it resided, and how one knew it, was disrupted. People weren’t merely given previously unavailable information; the entire information landscape was turned upside down. This can reveal new terrain within the landscape that can lead to deep and valuable truths, such as human rights and liberties, and it can also conceal older, previously established truths, like the notion of transformative experiences being necessary for coming into closer contact with reality.Similarly to the printing press, social media poses a historical parallel. We can see this by looking at the most famous defense of free speech for the sake of truth, namely, John Stuart Mill’s essay On Liberty. We’ll see that, like how the printing press reoriented people’s relation to truth, social media is doing so by increasingly shifting how we conceive of, participate in, and come to know the truth. As a social practice, it’s shifting the culture toward different ways of arriving at truth. It's difficult to say whether it is categorically good or bad. But the focus here will be on what would certainly be a momentous loss in our social practices regarding truth, namely, a departure from Enlightenment values.There is a developing tendency to determine the truth through sheer will rather than discussion and a dwindling desire to correct this error. People seem to care less about deliberation, compromise, tolerance, and the general agreement that the goal is to come to an inclusive decision that is in the best interests of people who share a basic respect for each other’s dignity. All political orientations have growing factions that believe the content of other’s beliefs determines how they should be viewed and treated. Rather than work toward building a community that is able to cooperate with one another and agree on a uniting set of values, the cultural attitude is moving toward a competition between wills for power. But it’s not only behaviorally motivated by power; there is also the belief that all effort by a group toward an ideal is entirely reducible to power. That very well may be true. But if it is, democracy is in a precarious position. So, if we value democracy, we should steer back toward the proper path. For Mill’s account to work, which is crucial if we wish to justify free speech for the sake of truth in Enlightenment, democratic terms23, social media should not be viewed as a truth-seeking information network24. Mill believed free speech is necessary for human flourishing in a democratic society. If it’s the people who are going to be involved in the deliberative processes of society and be the ones choosing what is best, then the people must be able to discuss and exchange ideas, opinions, and beliefs freely. However, just like how the Medieval view operated within a certain orientation around truth, which provided a framework through which truth could be arrived at, so it is with democracy. And like the printing press, social media has placed enormous tension on our democratic orientation. So, if we desire to maintain democratic values derived from the Enlightenment, then we have to take a certain stance toward social media, one that eschews the expectation that truth is situated within its environments, where we expect to discuss, debate, hash things out, and arrive at truth.Now, On Liberty offers two sets of reasons supporting free speech, the first being epistemic, meaning that the benefits have to do with knowledge, while the other set is psychologically beneficial. The first set argues that free speech is an overall good for society because if what someone says is true or partially true, both possibilities benefit a democracy. If what is said is true, it will benefit because it professes a truth that will add to the preexisting stock of knowledge. If partially true, this also contributes to preexisting knowledge; “and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied.” The second psychological set of benefits is primarily derived from the utterance of false beliefs, which have no direct epistemic benefit because they do not contribute any knowledge to form beliefs around. If what is said is wholly false, the opportunity to defend and contest it will also be an overall good because it will demand that the bearers of that knowledge account for the reasons for its truth. Mill expresses this well: “Unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds.” This then produces a further psychological benefit. By remaining a prejudice and not as something rationally grasped, “the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost or enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect on the character and conduct; the dogma becoming a mere formal profession, inefficacious for good, but cumbering the ground and preventing the growth of any real and heartfelt conviction from reason or personal experience.” Therefore, contesting what is true will keep beliefs from devolving into prejudice or dogma.Section 7:The first thing to observe about Mill’s reasons for free speech is that the first set of epistemic reasons really depends on the second set (the psychological ones). But it’s peculiar to speak of the latter as ‘benefits’ because of this. It’s more accurate to say that a certain psychological orientation must give rise to them. We can think of this as a kind of feedback loop that produces the benefits Mill is speaking of. One must have the proper psychological orientation toward truth to break into this loop. That is to say that the members within a society must hold a psychological orientation toward truth that allows for the free expression of true, partially true, and false beliefs to be a net good, i.e., to bring about the best possible consequences within a democratic community. With the psychological reasons offered for free speech, notice that the benefit is derived from the speakers and listeners within the community being open to receiving true, partially true, or false utterances. The beliefs they hold must be perpetually open to revision because they may or may not be in possession of the actual true ones; they understand that their knowledge is an ongoing process, something that is constantly unfolding, and so hold a particular stance toward the free expression of beliefs.They would understand that, even in the best instances of human knowledge, the most stable kind (like knowledge of physics), it is still susceptible to be overturned by future evidence, as was the case with Newtonian mechanics and Einsteinian relativity. That is not to say truth is therefore unattainable, but only that there should be a fair degree of epistemic humility within a democratic, truth-seeking community, given that our best knowledge often falls far short of absolute certainty. As the psychological reasons specify, if the people within the community hold their beliefs as prejudices or dogmas that are fixed and unchangeable, they will be unreceptive to being challenged. So whatever anyone utters, whether true, false, or in between, it won’t provide the benefits Mill intended. There must be a certain psychological orientation toward truth for Mill’s argument to succeed.Let’s now specify what this orientation should look like and see how it’s vital in upholding free speech arguments for the sake of truth. There are three components to this orientation: (i) certain beliefs, (ii) certain desires, and (iii) certain attitudes born out of (i) and (ii). (i) consists of two beliefs. The first belief is that truth exists, and the second is that it is, in principle, knowable. (ii) consists of two desires as well. The first desire is to attain human flourishing, and the second is that truth is constitutive of this aim. Given that there is truth, one must also have the desire to attain it. But this is also a special kind of desire; it’s a desire that fulfills what must be viewed as a higher need, one that is constitutive of human flourishing or happiness. We can call this a fulfillment need. This means that we desire truth because it occupies a natural place in the space of human good. We will lack something fundamental to our flourishing if we don’t have contact with truth; we therefore both desire it and have a powerful motivation to attain it because we desire to flourish. Fulfillment needs should be understood as part of what constitutes this principal end in life that characterizes human excellence.For those who know Greek philosophy, this will sound familiar. As Aristotle says in his Ethics, all things aim at some final good. Achieving this good means for something to actualize its potential and attain excellence. The final aim of human beings is to flourish, or, in Greek, to attain eudaimonia, and to attain this means to achieve human excellence. Excellence, says Aristotle, means to fulfill the particular function assigned to a thing's nature. An eye’s function is to see, a car’s function is to drive, while the seed’s function is to grow into a plant. Human beings’ nature is to be rational, to optimize their cognition, to reduce error, and to reach the truth. Again, since the ultimate aim is to flourish, and because seeking truth is constitutive of that goal, we desire to know the truth as a fulfillment need, which helps satisfy the principal good in human life. Now, while Aristotle’s claim about human nature is of course disputable, if Mill’s argument for free speech is to work, and it’s important that it does, Aristotle’s account of human beings, or something resembling it, must be held within a democratic community.That being said, there’s a deep plausibility to the notion that humans have a fundamental need to be in contact with the truth, and presuming rationality is necessary for this, Aristotle may very well be right. In his lecture series Awakening From The Meaning Crisis, John Vervaeke offers a powerful example to illustrate this. Imagine your parents one day asking you to follow them into a hidden room you had never seen before inside your house on your eighteenth birthday. When you enter, you see a wall of monitors showing old footage of you throughout your life. Your parents then turn to you and say that your entire life has been an FBI experiment; everything has been manufactured. The love you thought to be sincere and nourishing, all the support you’ve received throughout the years, the holidays you have come to cherish, and the memories and feelings you’ve come to have are, in the most profound sense, fake. None of it was real. Your parents then tell you that you have two options. You can either act as if this incident had never happened and move on as usual, or you can move out and move on with your life. What’s the desirable option? Most of us would choose the latter. Why? Because none of what was thought to be real turned out to be true. It was all fabricated, illusory, and bore no substantive relation to reality. For the majority of us (although hopefully everyone), there is no going back to the way things previously were. The truth makes a fundamental difference in the decision-making between the two options. By discovering that our life is untrue, we feel a deep absence, a lack of fulfillment, an incompleteness on account of what we’ve learned about ourselves. An essential aspect of the decision to move on, then, is a deep motivation to discover what is in fact true. It’s like Dante when he discovers himself lost in the dark forest. We’ve been led astray, and now we desire to find the right path, which is the one that converges with truth, with what is most real. This is what happens to Jim Carrey in The Truman Show when he decides to leave that disturbing, manufactured simulation dome he was raised in. He could have stayed, but he was psychologically unable to. By obtaining this new self-knowledge, he would have never achieved eudaimonia. He would have remained stuck in life because he would have been bullsh*tting himself (again, I mean this in a technical sense and not simply as an explicative, which will be explained below.)This brings us to (iii), which is to bear a particular attitude toward truth provided (i) and (ii). The proper attitude toward truth is one of care. To care for the truth means to know how to reliably arrive at it, which means utilizing the relevant cognitive processes in forming true beliefs. Recall the quote at the beginning of the article from John Milton, which expressed that it is a heresy to arrive at a belief in the wrong way, namely, by not properly using one’s own reason. It matters, then, how we form our beliefs, and what matters is which cognitive processes are used to get there. For ease of presentation, we can use the psychologist Daniel Kahneman’s formulation of these cognitive processes from his book Thinking, Fast and Slow. Kahneman lays out two cognitive systems, System 1 and System 2. “System 1 operates automatically and quickly, with little or no effort and no sense of voluntary control.” Whereas “System 2 allocates attention to the effortful mental activities that demand it, including complex computations. The operations of System 2 are often associated with the subjective experience of agency, choice, and concentration (p. 21).” To see the difference, take the two following examples of arithmetic: “2 + 2 = ?” We have an immediate cognitive reflex to such an equation, and little to no effort is required. Filling in the answer resulted from System 1. “17 x 24 =?” Now this equation typically demands more effort. A reasoning process is engaged to determine the answer that requires concentrated effort and isn’t reflexively provided. Such a process is supplied by System 2. For another example, say someone is hiking and spots a tree in the distance. If such a person cares nothing for botany, then the object will have a great deal of transparency, and the person will carry on about their day. Such a process would be within System 1. But if the person is a trained botanist and has never seen this kind of tree before (say they’re in a foreign country), they may begin to observe it, inspect it, and direct their effort toward retrieving the relevant information that may help identify the tree. That person has engaged System 2.Caring for the truth means knowing how to optimize these two systems so that System 1 and System 2 are in a recurring dialogue with one another, with the aim to arrive at the truth. Now, there are at least two aspects to this idea of care. The first can be classed as having to do with general skills in critical thinking, which primarily consists of analysis. Examples are things like working out one’s cognitive biases and reducing error. In essence, being successful in this regard means being able to reason well and work through problems rationally. Take a case of confirmation bias, for example. Imagine a republican voter who believes certain conspiracy theories about the democratic party and who is watching a presidential debate and hears the Republican candidate make an assertion attributing misconduct to the Democratic candidate. Because the assertion confirms the prior beliefs of the voter who is watching, it will be easy for that person to immediately agree with what was said. Engaging System 2 is effortful and costly in mental energy, and so it is easier, as well as cognitively more pleasurable, to passively (probably unconsciously) consent to System 1’s impulse, which presents the Republican candidate’s statement as attractive and belief-worthy. If this person cares for the truth, however, he or she would engage System 2 upon receiving what System 1 has provided with the aim of verifying whether the assertion accurately represents or corresponds to reality. Perhaps the person reasons through the assertion. If the candidate said something like, "Inflation has skyrocketed due to the current administration, which she’s a part of,” the voter watching may reason that, while it’s true inflation has risen, her position in the administration bears little to no significance on that outcome; therefore, the assertion is misinformed. Or perhaps the voter doesn’t understand government structure very well and does research, visits several sources, and concludes based on the information that the assertion is misinformed and implies an invalid conclusion. Whatever the route taken, the voter is presented with the potential to make a cognitive error through System 1, and because he or she cares for the truth, System 2 is utilized to solve the task presented.Competence in this aspect of care, which means to be a competent critical thinker, consists of knowing how to obtain propositional knowledge, which is knowledge that accurately represents reality. One has the tools and skills to work through assertions, analyze arguments, and appropriately form beliefs according to the evidence. One can situationally respond by engaging System 2 when one detects that System 1 is presented with information expressing propositions about the world. Someone who has mastered these skills has developed dispositions that engage the relevant cognitive behavior under the relevant conditions. In other words, such a person knows how to instinctively and properly respond to the appropriate cognitive stimuli.25The second aspect of caring for truth is deeper than this and, like Dante’s journey, more transformative. Caring for truth in this sense means optimizing System 1 and System 2 by using them to shape one’s conception of the good. What reason, for example, would this argument, rather than another one, be more relevant to someone competent in critical thinking? Why care about what this person has to say rather than that one? Answers to these questions will suggest the underlying conception of the good that is assumed when one finds one set of information more salient. In other words, the second aspect of caring for truth means understanding one’s conception of eudaimonia, or flourishing, which is one’s final aim and idea of human excellence. Critical thinking in the propositional sense is a highly valuable set of skills that is fundamental to the whole project of pursuing truth. But what it consists of does not provide a final criteria to judge what one should believe about human flourishing and what it amounts to. It plays a vital role in articulating and grasping this goal but won’t deliver it. In other words, critical thinking is a powerful tool in reaching one’s goals, but it itself cannot bestow the goals themselves. This requires the second aspect of caring for truth, which means optimizing System 1 and System 2 to become aware of what final end is guiding their operation. Regardless of how much one engages in critical thinking, irrespective of one’s mastery of logic and reasoning, if one never utilizes these skills toward understanding what provides the salience of one set of information over another, they may never satisfy their fulfillment need for truth.Tolstoy’s book, The Death of Ivan Illych, illustrates this. In the story the Russian protagonist, Ivan Illych, lives his life in pursuit of what is pleasant. He shuns the annoyances and discomforts that arise in life and views them, in a way, as unnatural, as occurrences that disrupt how life should be. His goal in life is to maximize pleasure and avoid pain and suffering. He’s not, however, a Don Quixote or an extreme hedonist; he’s not trying to experience all the possible pleasures one may have. He wants to live a successful and acceptable life that commands the esteem of his colleagues, makes his family happy, comfortable, and at ease, and allows him to pass through life with as few disturbances as possible. He holds a very familiar and common conception of the good.And Ivan does in fact find this success. He rises to be a great and respectable judge in Russia. He’s highly competent, makes a substantial living, and can buy and provide his family with whatever he pleases. Yet he finds himself running into the disturbances he’s always tried to avoid. He’s constantly fighting with his wife:There remained only rare periods of amorousness that came over the spouses, but they did not last long. These were islands that they would land on temporarily, but then they would put out again to the sea of concealed enmity that expressed itself in estrangement from each other. This estrangement might have upset Ivan Ilyich, if he had considered that it ought not to be so, but by now he took this situation not only as normal, but as the goal of his activity in the family. His goal consisted in freeing himself more and more from these unpleasantnesses and in giving them a character of harmlessness and decency; and he achieved it by spending less and less time with his family, and when he was forced to do so, he tried to secure his position by the presence of outsiders.He’s experiencing the “uneasiness” formulated by William James above. His solution is not to reflect on his final end in life, his conception of the good, his idea of human flourishing and excellence, but to find other means to attain it, which is to turn away from what he’s representing as unnatural and frustrating. He’s not deficient in critical thinking; he’s a highly competent and successful judge. He lacks the wisdom and self-knowledge necessary for reflecting on and evaluating what makes some things and not others salient for him, which is his goal in life to live pleasantly. There’s a reason why he finds spending less time with his family a more obvious solution than trying to get at the root of why it is he feels so frustrated and annoyed at the fact that he’s not feeling fulfilled despite his success; and he’s not utilizing System 1 and System 2 to investigate that reason, i.e., he’s not caring for truth in the second sense. It’s only until he is faced with a random, coincidental death that he realizes he hadn’t been searching for a solution to his “uneasiness” that converged with truth. Not truth in the propositional sense, but truth regarding human flourishing and excellence. Insofar as he was unable or unwilling to direct his cognition toward what was guiding it, he remained incapable of progressing and transforming toward an aim that would afford him self-awareness, self-knowledge, and, ultimately, eudaimonia.Both aspects of caring for truth matter if Mill’s benefits are to be obtained. It matters propositionally (the first aspect of care) because critical thinking and analysis are necessary for seeing information clearly and discerning whether something maps onto the world. But caring for the first aspect alone will only clear the fog, so to speak, and allow one to see the landscape with more specificity and definition. It will provide knowledge about the causal regularities that govern the territory and the predictable patterns that follow from them. It will not, however, indicate what to do with that knowledge or inform one of what it means. For free speech to be justified for the sake of truth, which means free speech plays a substantial, instrumental role in sorting out the true information from the false, people must care for the truth. They have to find it salient in the right ways. If people don’t care and don’t share the proper desire to pursue it, then no amount of discussion will necessarily bring the community any closer to the truth. They may easily settle for something else.Section 8:The claim, then, is that social media does not warrant truth-based justifications for free speech. Because social media platforms don’t promote or incentivize the psychological orientation necessary for truth-seeking but reward the opposite behaviors, the idea that one is seeking truth within such a context is false. The view that social media as a public space is best characterized as a social practice that aims toward truth has generated an insidious confusion within the culture, and we would be better off by evaluating it differently. Social media is certainly an information network, but it’s wrong to presume all information networks are oriented toward truth production.To see this, think of a university. The principal purpose of this institution is to generate knowledge (there are other purposes, of course, but put those aside.) Now, there are many parts to the structure of a university, but let’s zoom in on the classroom environment. Within it, there’s a hierarchy in place. The teacher’s purpose is to guide the students through a curriculum, get them to think critically about the information, debate and discuss it, foster their abilities to engage with it, cultivate the necessary faculties for this, and to ensure that they learn something specific about the given information, as well as something general about learning, something they can use in all cases. To achieve this, the teacher must orient the students around truth-seeking, i.e., he or she must teach the students to care for the truth, as explained above. The teacher must challenge the students’ cognitive biases. Logical errors, bad reasoning, and lack of critical thinking have to be checked, corrected, and reinforced by the teacher.Ideally, the teacher will also help the students think critically about their conceptions of the good. In the ideal scenario, the teacher not only challenges their cognition but also fosters their ability to question what human flourishing and excellence looks like. It’s ideal because claiming that this is absolutely necessary for an information network to warrant being evaluated as a truth-seeking social practice is, perhaps, too high. But it is what one should aim for. However, it’s important to bear this in mind because it will be shown that, even if the threshold is lowered in this sense, social media still fails at what any information network that is correlated with truth should provide, which is to promote the proper analytical skills in getting clearer about reality.Now, an important reason universities are trusted as truth-seeking information networks is partly because of the teacher's role in distributing that information. It’s trusted as an institution because those who go through it are supposed to have been guided by experts who demonstrate how to pursue knowledge. Students who leave the institution are expected to have participated in a social practice that taught them to be competent in their field (and hopefully to be a good human being as well, whatever that means precisely) and who can now further distribute and utilize their knowledge by applying it to other domains within society. The teacher’s function within the institution is essential to this goal and fundamental to the trust granted to the institution itself. Let’s call this function a Socratic function.27Social media doesn’t have a Socratic function, and any information network trusted as a distributor of knowledge should have something resembling it. Worse than this, however, is that social media actually promotes cognitive behavior that is opposed to the whole project of pursuing truth. As an overarching, general pattern, social media reinforces and incentivizes things like cognitive bias (the immediate and intuitive presentations of System 1.) The whole business model is aimed at maximizing attention. People easily become addicted to these platforms and binge content endlessly. The only way to achieve this is by easing the user’s cognitive effort as much as possible and stimulating them with dopamine responses, allowing the user to enter a semi-hypnotic state. Of course, not everyone is affected like this; most people can assert moderation when using social media. But in an ideal world, one where social media is optimally thriving, everyone would be glued to their screens. Practical circumstances of course make this impossible, and therefore it wouldn’t truly be in social media’s interests because no one would show up for work, but if we turn the dial on the business goals of these platforms to the max, then this would be the logical consequence; it would maximize profits.Social media serves many purposes, though, and the claim is certainly not that it is, for these reasons, entirely bad. It’s only the contexts, circumstances, and situations in which it is reflexively represented as a competent and trusted information network that deals in matters of knowledge and truth that it creates an overall deficit. This is because of the intellectual and ethical confusion it produces, which is caused by its lack of a Socratic function that incentivizes and reinforces the proper psychological orientation around truth-seeking. Again, it has the opposite aim, which is to ease the effort of System 2 as much as it can and allow System 1, with all its cognitive vulnerabilities, to be at the helm. Because of this aim, social media has a Sophistic function, which contrasts the Socratic one, whose defining characteristic is to be a bullsh*tter. As mentioned above, this notion is a technical one and needs to be properly explained.The notion of bullsht comes from the American philosopher Harry Frankfurt and his essay Bullsht. Sam Harris uses this term often, especially regarding social media. First, let’s clarify what it means to lie. Lying involves an intent to deceive on the part of the person lying, who wishes to get the other to believe something contrary to the truth. The seventeen-year-old who sneaks out, gets caught, and tells their parents that they forgot their phone at their friend’s house and went to get it in the middle of the night is lying because they’re trying to deceive their parents into believing something false about reality. But reality is still salient to their aim. Although attempting to distort it, they still have reality in their conscious field of intentions, motives, and desires, i.e., they care about truth rather than caring for it. Someone who bullshts, on the other hand, has no regard for truth. It provides no reason for consideration on its own, independent of the bullshtter’s aim. Whereas the truth matters for the liar, it’s of no concern whether what one says is true or false in the case of bullsht. The bullshter’s enterprise is characteristically different than the lier in this regard. The liar “is attempting to lead us away from a correct apprehension of reality; we are not to know that he wants us to believe something he supposes to be false… The fact about himself that the bullshitter hides, on the other hand, is that the truth-values of his statements are of no central interest to him; what we are not to understand is that his intention is neither to report the truth nor to conceal it.”26The classic archetype of a bullshtter is the salesman. The truth about whether the product sold is efficient, useful, or whatever else is indifferent to the salesman. What matters, and what distinguishes one who is good from one who is not (in the sense of achieving their goal to sell the product, pure and simple,) is whether they can deceive the consumer into believing that the bullshtter is asserting something they themselves believe. There are few constraints on what a bullshtter may say to achieve their aim. Whatever helps satisfy their goal is fair play. The liar is unable to be creative like this. They must strategically and purposefully contend with the truth by believing they know it. If the liar doesn’t in fact know the truth, this will likely spoil their plans. They will be unable to grasp the situation and will likely misunderstand what the circumstances call for. A bullshtter doesn’t need to know the truth at all. They just need to make the other person think that they do. The truth conditions of their beliefs and assertions are, by itself, irrelevant.Social media is a bullshtter in incentivizing and rewarding behavior that employs bullsht. It therefore has a Sophistic function. The chief culprit for this is, of course, the algorithms. The algorithm's aim is to curate content that maximizes user engagement and attention. Whether what it presents a user with is true or false is a matter of indifference. It can matter in a sense, but only if the user is disposed toward viewing content that is oriented around truth, which is of no concern to the algorithms. The function is to bullsht the user by minimizing cognitive effort and maximizing the incentives that will keep their attention, e.g., by triggering dopamine responses through a constant succession of content patterned according to the user’s preferences. If the user desires content that aims at truthfully representing reality, he or she has to maneuver through a minefield of bullsht. There is no Socratic function that guides them through it, as there would be in any other social practice that is considered an information network whose purpose is to distribute knowledge. The proper psychological orientation that warrants discussions about how free speech is necessary for pursuing truth within a given context is entirely absent within the social media model.Hence Mill’s influential argument for the utility of free speech for the sake of truth doesn’t apply to social media. Let’s reflect on what Mill said after this long discussion. Recall the epistemic benefits he argued for. He said that letting everyone freely express their minds produces the best outcomes within a democratic community, regardless of whether what one says is true, partially true, or false. If the truth doesn’t move people, and if the general tendency to find truth salient is absent, then letting everyone say what they think is self-undermining. Why would truth matter if everyone free to speak their mind disregards it? Seeing truth as a reason for a social practice means truth is fundamental to the aims that characterize the institution, and this means being properly oriented around it, which means caring for it.Section 9:I want to end now with a discussion about how this all relates to Nostr and how it has the potential to be an information network that performs much better than social media as a context concerned with knowledge and truth. The principal reason that will be considered here is Nostr’s pursuit of a fully decentralized model that aims at user autonomy. Autonomy makes a crucial difference between an information network that more reliably tracks truth and one that is indifferent to it.Social media reduces users' autonomy by trying to use them as a means toward further ends, namely, their attention, engagement, and data. The algorithm's job is to sort through users’ information and curate it in ways that maximize profit. This generally results in the spread of bullsht because what determines information as worth spreading does not depend on that information’s truth value. However, when users can curate their own content by judging for themselves what information they wish to retrieve from relays; when it’s left to each user to decide what content is valuable and what isn’t; when users themselves can determine what is worth censuring and not be subject to the interests of a centralized server, the aim is clearly to place autonomy back into their hands. What’s important, though, is that autonomy has a certain purpose in the Nostr context: to allow people to create at all protocol levels. Part of what a centralized server does is create a fixed infrastructure that greatly restricts what users may do on the platform (the chief restriction being to yield as much profit as possible for shareholders.) Creators especially are affected by this because the value they contribute to the platforms is filtered through what will necessarily constrain it. Nostr, however, is different. What largely motivates the value of autonomy is the desire to let creators create content freely and without outside constraints, which, of course, is to provide them freedom of expression. By users having the freedom to build and the autonomy to curate and choose what content is personally valuable to a user, truth becomes highly relevant within the context. Now, if Mill is right when he says that only true beliefs have any utility (and false beliefs necessarily lead one astray in some sense,) users who produce content will be highly incentivized to track the truth, to have an accurate representation of it, because to fail at this will result in unappealing content due to its lack of value. No centralized authority is supposed to be able to force something to appear valuable; it’s up to the users to determine this. And if something will endure and not fade once the reasons why it may have trended disappear, it needs to track the truth. If it doesn’t, if it only matters to people because it is sensational or cheap, if it’s bullsht, it will always lose in the long run.Since people on Nostr have the autonomy to build and curate their own content, unlike social media, there is less at play that can ossify the network. There must be a great deal of motion because, in principle, no user or client can monopolize the space. This built-in fluidity captures an important aspect of truth-seeking, which John Milton expressed when saying, “Knowledge thrives by exercise… Truth is compared in scripture to a streaming fountain; if her waters flow not in a perpetual progression, they sicken into a muddy pool of conformity and tradition.” Everyone has to earn their success on Nostr, so the principal way to do this is to create something valuable. Again, if Mill is right, the value must largely be derived from the truth that the content represents, creating an incentive to care for the truth. Bullsh*t can’t be forcefully distributed because it maximizes some desired metric. Information is chiefly distributed by individual users valuing it.Nostr provides a way to see if Mill was right in thinking only true beliefs have any real value. Since the intention is to move away from social media’s business model, there is an opportunity to determine whether people will naturally choose the truth through their own autonomous decision-making. If there are no algorithms that aim to seize and maximize user attention, people are free to choose what content they wish to consume. It is a choice whether truth prevails over its opposite in the Nostr context because individuals are incentivized to contribute what they want to see. And if things go astray, people can fix it by creating something better.Notes:For a similar but far more elaborate, comprehensive, and complex argument of this kind, see John Vervaeke’s Awakening From the Meaning Crisis on YouTube.For an elaboration on free speech justifications, see Greenawalt, K. (2007). Free Speech Justifications. Colombia Law Review.For a history of Free speech, see Jacob Mchangama’s book Free Speech: Socrates to Social Media.Kant, I. (1784). What is Enlightenment? (p. 1). Hacket Publishing.This is not to suggest wokism is the sole culprit of this cultural trend. It’s one example amongst others on all parts of the political spectrum. But it’s an important example because wokism aims to be virtuous and moral. Therefore, it’s a good example because it is important to question whether their moral claims are correct. Furthermore, a plausible reply on the part of one who may subscribe to something like wokism (whatever that means precisely) is that it isn’t the duty of those who have been oppressed to teach those they consider to be oppressors. The duty falls on the latter. This is a challenging question to settle, and it makes up the potentially unbridgable gulf between wokism and its opponents. But if empathy is a virtue (or a vital moral response), it’s central that everyone exercises it, not just those who are held to be guilty of something.Simpson, R. M. (2024). The Connected City of Ideas. Daedalus.Harari, N. Y. (2024). Nexus. Random House.Eisenstein, E. L. (1979). The Printing Press as an Agent of Change (p. 45). Cambridge University Press.Melchert, N. (2007). The Great Conversation (p. 304). Oxford University Press.Melchert, N. (2007). The Great Conversation. Oxford University Press.Wagner, C. (2012). Scientia Moralitas (Moral Autonomy and Responsibility - The Reformation’s Legacy in Today’s Society). Scientia Moralitas Research Institute.Fromm, E. (1941). Escape From Freedom (p. 54). Discus.James, W. (1902). The Varieties of Religious Experience (p. 54). Penguin Classics.Dreyfus, H., & Kelly, S. D. (2011). All Things Shining: Reading the Western Classics to Find Meaning in a Secular Age (p. 122). Free Press.Dreyfus, H., & Kelly, S. D. (2011). All Things Shining: Reading the Western Classics to Find Meaning in a Secular Age (p. 122). Free Press.Aristotle, A. (1953). Ethics (p. 122). Penguin Classics.Schumacher, E. (1977). A Guide For the Perplexed. Harper Colophon Books.As Isaiah Berlin makes clear in his essay Two Concepts of Liberty, it is easy to see how positive freedom may easily lead to foolish and immoral action due to its purposeful nature. It is quite challenging to dissuade someone that what they believe to be their purpose in life, their ultimate meaning, relies on false premises.Fromm, E. (1941). Escape From Freedom. Discus.Chalmers, A. (1974). What is this thing called Science? Hacket Publishing.Descartes, R. (2010). Meditations on First Philosophy. Oxford World's Classics.See Bertrand Russel’s The History of Western Philosophy for how Descartes's argument is logically invalid. He can’t doubt that some process of thinking is occurring, but whether something is doing the thinking isn’t obvious.Locke, J. Two Treatises on Government.Justice Holmes made the Marketplace metaphor popular in Abrams v United States (1919), and has become a central precedent in free speech cases.For a similar argument, see Nevin Chellappah’s “Is John Stuart Mill’s Account of Free Speech Sustainable In the Age of Social Media?”Ryle, G. (1949). The Concept of Mind. Penguin.Frankfurt, H. (1986). Bullshit. Princeton University Press.To see the Socratic function in real time, watch The Joe Rogan Experience episode #2171. Eric Weinstein demonstrates what it means for an expert to engage with someone outside their respective field who claims to have knowledge that overturns the discipline but with no professional training to back it up. His attitude demonstrates a care for truth. @yakihonne

@ 6b7c438e:fc81aab3

Taryn Christiansen @ DoraHacksSpecial thanks to Eric Zhang for in-depth discussions.A mirror post on Dora Research Blog is available: https://research.dorahacks.io/2024/12/24/free-speech-foundation Intro:This article will argue that truth-based justifications for free speech are inappropriate within the social media context.1 Flooding the market with more information doesn’t necessarily force truth to emerge and bob at the surface. No matter how much information is pumped into a space filled with falsehoods and deception, if the right mechanisms aren’t in place, the area will only grow more chaotic and overcrowded, and therefore all the more easier to get lost in it. As an instrument to obtain knowledge of the truth, free speech has to be properly used, and people need to know how to use it.That isn’t to say that the tap should be shut off and that free speech should be curtailed; other justifications are perfectly reasonable, as will be seen below. But the idea that what we’re up to on social media is seeking out the truth only produces more confusion about what we collectively take to be sources of trustworthy information that is accurate and sincere. We would be better off if social media were viewed as an information network that is distinct from other spaces that are generally considered places where we obtain reliably true beliefs.But other spaces have the potential to be a more appropriate target for truth-based justifications for free speech, one of which is Nostr. Because of Nostr’s fully decentralized and open nature, which allows for innovation at all levels of its protocol, people have more opportunity to create valuable content that will only be distributed across the network because it is in fact valuable. The algorithms on social media force content to be valuable because there are standards that aim at maximizing user engagement in cheap and overstimulating ways. It doesn’t matter to these mechanisms whether something is true or not. What matters first is whether something promotes the ends of the social media companies, which are primarily driven by maximizing profits through ads and attention. Achieving this goal means reducing users' autonomy in picking and choosing what content to consume. Nostr aims to give the users their autonomy back by freeing developers to build both relays and clients. If users can make decisions that aren’t influenced by social media’s algorithmic decision-making, then it can be discerned whether truth is naturally relevant to people in these kinds of information networks, as well as whether people really desire to care for the truth.Section 1:It should be assumed at this point in history2, especially in liberal democracies, that the freedom to express one’s mind is inseparable from a basic conception of human dignity. If one is prohibited from freely discussing and challenging prevailing beliefs or forced to conform to a point of view that was not arrived at by using one’s own rational and reflective faculties, then human dignity suffers. There’s a reason Socrates went around the Athenian marketplace and tirelessly questioned the people he encountered there. He wasn’t interested in forcing people to submit to specific beliefs. Socrates wanted people to realize and reflect on whether what they believed was true or not, and therefore if it was something worth believing in. But integral to this project is the idea that people have to think through the questions themselves and not rely on an authority. Authority may be right; it may hold true beliefs and assert rational demands, but it doesn’t mean anything unless people themselves know the way to them. This requires the individual to be willing to develop what’s necessary for this.John Milton was right when he wrote in his 1644 pamphlet Areopagatica, which was directed against the English Parlament’s order for licensing books, that “A man may be a heretic in the truth… If he believes things only because his pastor says so, or the assembly so determines, without knowing other reasons, though his belief be true, yet the very truth he holds becomes his heresy.” People must be free to reason for themselves, to arrive at truths through the use of their own faculties, to develop their individual conscience, which, by its nature, must be exercised by the individual’s will and not by an externally imposed authority. Immanuel Kant’s call to the Enlightenment, Sapere aude! - “Have courage to use your own reason!”3 - is a call to actualize human dignity through the use of one’s reason. These faculties cannot be cultivated unless the individual can express him or herself freely.Woke culture is an illustrative example of how there is a connection between free speech and human dignity. It shows that when the strategy is to problematize and silence people, no matter how noble or virtuous the goal is believed to be, it only perpetuates a cycle of frustration and anger. The problem with woke culture isn’t necessarily their ideals. We all would agree, or should at least, that people should respect the basic dignity of others, treat everyone as persons, empathize with those with a different experience, and learn and grow from one another’s unique perspective. These are all good things; they’re profoundly valuable. The issue is how woke culture formulated and implemented their interpretations of what these notions amount to, what they call for, and what moral duties they demand. One of its principal goals has been to discern how historical oppressors should atone for previous wrongdoings. Many have come to understand this as meaning that those who come from those lineages are, in some sense, problematic and that, therefore, proponents of wokism have the duty to silence them, to condemn them, to act as if they are a net negative to the social good, and to impose a punishment of silence to atone for the past. This has been a grave mistake. Instead of engaging in a dialogue to reach the other person’s conscience, those who bore this duty have tended to sermonize in a sanctimonious, demeaning way, which only shuts people down and turns off the parts of the brain that promote learning and development, and turns on what generates combative and defensive behavior. The typical approach in woke culture has been enormously undemocratic in spirit due to its preference to force people to adopt reasons rather than opening people up to consider them in their proper light, namely, as claims about morality that make demands on the conscience of the person, which can only be properly understood and felt through the use of his or her own faculties. Woke culture, which offers some genuine insight into the world's contemporary moral situation, failed to respect the dignity of those they wished to persuade by using coercive measures instead of appealing to their conscience. Free speech is absolutely necessary in an endeavor like this because only by upholding such a social practice will everyone’s basic dignity be respected, which is integral to people being open to changing their minds. Moral debates within society should never devolve into a contest of wills. This only undermines the foundation of a democratic community, the basic pillar being human dignity.4But although free speech bears a necessary connection to human dignity, it does not bear the same relation to truth. For free speech to bear a proper relation to truth, one where free speech produces a high probability of tracking it, those seeking out truth must have the right psychological orientation toward it; otherwise, the two easily come apart. In his recent book Nexus, Yoel Noah Harari presents a clear way of seeing this. Harari criticizes what he calls the ‘naive view of information,’ which “argues that by gathering and processing much more information than individuals can, big networks achieve a better understanding of medicine, physics, economics, and numerous other fields, which makes the network not only powerful but wise.” The notion of wisdom is key. While it’s theoretically possible that an information network can be wise (especially with the development of better AI), it will be useless unless human beings have some idea about what wisdom is. If they don’t, then they’ll have to just assume that the information being presented was properly arrived at, i.e., with the wisdom necessary for obtaining truth, which will, in effect, create a servility to the information network and not to the human faculties necessary for discerning and knowing the truth. To use a distinction made by Plato, they will have an opinion about the truth, not knowledge. To know means to understand the reasons why something is the case, not just that it is the case.Harari’s book is important because the naive view of information he presents is prevalent and is most often expressed in the marketplace of ideas metaphor. In essence, the metaphor suggests that free speech operates like a free market because, by allowing individuals to pursue and satisfy their preferences freely, the truth will somehow outcompete falsehoods. Either because people’s preferences are more deeply satisfied by truth, and/or because the beliefs people hold will only have any real value (or utility) when they are true, when they accurately represent reality. But in a marketplace, “people don’t reliably ‘buy’ truths. People buy the ideas they like. And people don’t reliably like truths better than falsehoods. What the invisible hand does, all going well, is efficiently allocate goods to people based on what they want.”5 For truth to reliably outcompete falsehoods, consumers must have a particular orientation around truth. Unless we think ideas are true based solely on their utility, which is itself not a very useful notion, more has to be said as to why consumers would desire the truth over anything else in a marketplace of ideas. Everyone has opinions they cherish and hold to be, in some way, fundamental to themselves and their identities. It is perfectly conceivable that someone will reject any truth that conflicts with these deeply valued sentiments. For a free competition of ideas to track and produce true information, consumers have to want truth to win out, and this desire should motivate the consumer’s decision-making. In other words, one must bear a special psychological orientation toward truth for the marketplace metaphor to be an appropriate model for understanding free speech as being justified for the sake of truth. Again, free speech is important for other reasons, such as human dignity. But whether free speech is justified for the sake of truth is a separate question, and until the proper stance is taken toward truth, truth-based justifications are inapplicable.The fact that the distribution of more and more information doesn’t bear a necessary connection to truth can also be gleaned from historical examples. When a technology revolutionizes human information networks, which allows for information to be shared more efficiently and in larger quantities than ever before, the society that implements it does not therefore obtain a higher fidelity to truth. The opposite is equally plausible. This is the problem facing social media. If truth-based justifications are an appropriate way to justify free speech practices on such platforms, social media must create an environment that promotes the proper psychological orientation toward truth. What matters is whether they can care for the truth rather than adopt a stance that promotes what the philosopher Harry Frankfurt called bullsh*t, which means to be indifferent toward truth. Before explaining this further, let’s look at a historical example that demonstrates the following: First, as new technology arrives and transforms information networks, the information that is consequently distributed can equally promote both what is true and what is not; and second, and more philosophically, the technology can also reorient a society’s relationship to truth, which in turn affects how the society arrives at knowledge.Section 2:Take the invention of the Gutenberg printing press in 1440. Before its inception, the Catholic Church made Western Europe effectively an echo chamber. They dominated the information networks by controlling what could be printed, distributed, and accredited as knowledge. The vast majority of the population couldn’t read, and only a select few could read the Holy writings, which contained information that was considered the highest truth attainable by human beings. Only a select few were blessed enough to be able to handle this sort of information. Because all other information flowed from this central institution, everyone else depended on the Church for what to believe. The reality of that situation, and what it must have felt like to be in such a dependent position, can begin to be imagined by considering the following: “In the thirteenth century the library of Oxford University consisted of a few books kept in a chest under St. Mary’s Church. In 1424 the library of Cambridge University boasted a grand total of only 122 books. An Oxford University decree from 1409 stipulated that ‘all recent texts’ studied at the university must be unanimously approved ‘by a panel of twelve theologians appointed by the archbishop.’”6 When the quantity of information is this low, and in the context of the Catholic Church, is also greatly limited in diversity, it’s difficult even to imagine anything outside the worldview that is being imposed.Now, alongside the Church’s control of information networks, the production efficiency of copyists and scribes who had to manufacture the books was dismally low. It exponentially grew when the printing press automated the work. The historian Sir John Harold Clapham wrote, “A man born in 1453, the year of the fall of Constantinople, could look back from his fiftieth year on a lifetime in which about eight million books had been printed, more perhaps than all the scribes of Europe had produced since Constantine founded his city in A.D. 330.”7 The restriction on information and people’s inability to consider anything outside of the prevailing tradition, as well as the technological and productive inefficiency of the time, left most people in darkness, with no way out other than by following the dim, consoling light cast by the Church. The printing press changed all of this. “It revolutionized the world,” as the philosopher Francis Bacon said.The printing press gave people the autonomy to print and distribute ideas that the Church didn’t authorize and thereby provided the platform necessary for the Reformation to take hold, which started with Martin Luther in the early sixteenth century. There were previous attempts at reform, but the printing press made a momentous difference. The concurrence of the printing press and the Reformation revealed the corrosive corruption within the Catholic Church. People were finely able to learn about the degenerate tendencies within the institution, which the Church was previously able to stifle because it controlled the information networks. The buying and selling of Church positions and indulgences that allowed people to pay their way out of purgatory, political intrigue, nepotism, bribery, and immoral consolidation of wealth through taxes was disclosed as a consequence of the printing press. The notion that the Church was the medium by which people moved toward God’s grace collapsed, and people saw that “it had become a means of securing worldly prestige, power, and wealth for those who were clever and ruthless enough to bend it to their will.”8But this historical occurrence also unleashed a flurry of misinformation. The religious wars that followed the Reformation were devastating, and millions of people died, an exceptional case being the Thirty Years War (1618-48). The dissemination of Luther’s 95 theses regarding the corruption of the Church spread like wildfire across Europe after he posted them in 1516 on the Church Castle in Wittenberg, Germany, which the printing press made possible. It would only make sense, then, that the Church would follow suit and take advantage of the technology to combat what it held to be heresy and to reinstate its power as the dominant influence in the West (for an amalgam of reasons, of course.) All sides involved in these religious disputes didn’t merely use the printing press to disseminate accurate information. They used it to spread misinformation to satisfy their political interests, intensifying the ensuing wars and battles between the various emerging religious sects and the rising monarchies.This demonstrates the first point: the printing press, which was a revolution in human information networks, produced both true and false information. There was no causal, historical determinacy one way or the other. While it disclosed truths about Church corruption, it was also used as a means to spread political propaganda that fueled the religious wars.Now, as for the second, more philosophical point, the Reformation also reoriented people’s relation to truth by democratizing matters of faith. Whether one believes the Reformation was, in this respect, an overall good or not, from a liberal democratic point of view, it has to be considered good. The Reformation placed faith into the hands of the individual conscience, rendering considerations about one’s standing in relation to God to have a personal, rather than institutional, significance. Before, “the Church was the keeper and protector of Christian truths and the harbor of salvation for those at sea in sin.”9 Luther rejected this picture of salvation and believed one could be saved through faith and scripture alone, without an intermediary. Luther thought that one’s spiritual significance did not depend on authority. He didn’t see the Church as some emanation from God or a reflection of a Divine order that the individual participated in and was guided by to reach salvation. Individuals are solely responsible for their spiritual significance and capacity to reach a higher truth in God. In one of his more heroic acts, he translated the bible into vernacular German from the traditional Latin (which was considered the holy language, the only one appropriate for capturing religious truths). He gave common people access to what was previously sealed off from them. The individual, free from external imposition and constraint, can privately attain truth on his or her own.Luther formulated a radical inner freedom that broke with some of the Church’s fundamental precepts. There was, of course, an inner freedom already present in Catholicism, but Luther placed it at the center of things rather than as revolving around an institution. Before Luther, St. Augustine went to great lengths to demonstrate the spiritual significance of an inner life, and Luther was an Augustinian monk. But Luther went much further than him. In one of his lectures on YouTube, the philosopher Michael Sugrue observes that this amounted to a kind of Copernican Revolution in religion. That is to say that, rather than the Church being the axis by which things revolve around and where one finds his or her salvation, rather than identifying with an institution by which one finds freedom within a corporate body in which lies their place amongst others in a perfectly ordered, hierarchical, and harmonious cosmos, the individual became the center axis of spiritual and religious matters. It’s easy to see, then, how this theological idea possesses the potential to develop into the idea of individual rights and liberties. Luther provided a kind of autonomy10 for the individual, where whether one is saved is bound up with one’s inner conscience and not with external works or good deeds that the Church facilitates. The individual is an irreducible unit of value that is not subsumed by any other worldly object. And the individual's value rests in their conscience and capacity to receive God’s grace. This idea has sparks of the modern sense of human dignity, and it will create a conflagration throughout Europe as it develops. If there is no Church or institution to settle one’s moral, spiritual, and intellectual significance, one is left to use one’s faculties for guidance. And because it is one’s faculties that attain truth and spiritual salvation, they are the center of value in human life, which bears a natural right for protection.At the Diet of Worms in 1521, where Luther had to answer to charges of heresy because of his theological work, the Church demanded that he recant. He refused. But the reasons for his refusal are the most important. He demanded that the Church show him through scripture and reason alone that he was wrong and not through the dictates of authority. His protest demonstrated that the individual can reach the truth through his or her own means. The Church’s decline began far before this historical moment, but Luther made the decisive blow that the printing press made possible. The Church fragmented as a consequence, which, to Catholics, meant truth itself was fragmented and resulted in a proliferation of denominations scattered across Europe.Section 3:What was so subversive about Luther in this respect is that he divorced sanctification, the process by which one lives in the image of Christ, i.e., a life of virtue, from self-transformation. Although Luther carved out the individual as an irreducible unit of value, this also severed the individual from a stable and definite path that assuaged one’s existential suffering: “The Church… assured the individual of her unconditional love to all her children and offered a way to acquire the conviction of being forgiven and loved by God. The relationship to God was more one of confidence and love than of doubt and fear.”11 Luther believed that one was saved through faith alone and by no other means. He thought that because human beings are all sinners, their wills cannot do anything to reach salvation and spiritual peace. How, then, can one tell if they have been saved? There is no longer an authority to adjudicate this. The individual can discover the truth for themself and so must determine what this means on their own. Several centuries later, Kant gave voice to the duty he believed to arise from this new freedom:Thus, it is difficult for any individual man to work himself out of the immaturity that has all but become his nature. He has even become fond of this state and for the time being is actually incapable of using his own understanding, for no one has ever allowed him to attempt it. Rules and formulas, those mechanical aids to the rational use, or rather misuse, of his natural gifts, are the shackles of a permanent immaturity. Whoever threw them off would still make only an uncertain leap over the smallest ditch, since he is unaccustomed to this kind of free movement. Consequently, only a few have succeeded, by cultivating their own minds, in freeing themselves from immaturity and pursuing a secure course.So, while much was gained during the Reformation, the reorientation around truth also had consequences. Self-transformation, the effort of will, the idea of having an inner and outer journey that culminates into something larger and more significant, took on radically different meanings under Luther and the future Protestant countries. To see this, we can turn to Dante’s Divine Comedy, which demonstrates part of what was lost under Luther.Section 4:In Dante’s Divine Comedy, the culmination of the Medieval worldview before Luther, Dante embarks on a Christian pilgrimage that ends in his being saved. Just as with the above, it’s crucial to understand that the point here will not be exclusively religious but universal in the sense that religion, as manifested across all cultures, didn’t create this experience but was the medium by which it has been expressed and made sense of; it provides it a voice. This goes back to William James and his book The Varieties of Religious Experience. There is the private aspect of religious experience, and then there is the institutional component within which the private side takes shape. Buddhists practice meditation and strive to contemplate Nirvana; the Christian prays and goes to mass; the Stoics distance themselves from their inaccurate emotional representations and contemplate what is rational and in his or her control; and so forth. As James points out, what is fundamental to all religious experience, in the private sense, are two aspects: there is an uneasiness, which, “reduced to its simplest terms, is a sense that there is something wrong about us as we naturally stand;” and two, a solution, which “is a sense that we are saved from the wrongness by making proper connection with the higher powers (508).” The first aspect means the self is in conflict, is divided, and desires unification. In religious language, the self seeks salvation and an experience of being saved from their situation, which is characterized by suffering due to inner division and conflict. This can take on an existential mode, as with Leo Tolstoy in his book Confessions, or it can be highly moral. In Tolstoy’s book Confessions, he relates a story of a traveler being chased by a beast that imaginatively captures the relevant phenomena:Seeking to save himself from the fierce animal, the traveler jumps into a well with no water in it; but at the bottom of this well he sees a dragon waiting with open mouth to devour him. And the unhappy man, not daring to go out lest he should be the prey of the beast, not daring to jump to the bottom lest he should be devoured by the dragon, clings to the branches of a wild bush which grows out of one of the cracks of the well. His hands weaken, and he feels that he must soon give way to certain fate; but still he clings, and sees two mice, one white, the other black, evenly moving round the bush to which he hangs, and gnawing off its roots. The traveler sees this and knows that he must inevitably perish; but while thus hanging he looks about him and finds on the leaves of the bush some drops of honey. These he reaches with his tongue and licks them off with rapture. Thus I hang upon the boughs of life, knowing that the inevitable dragon of death is waiting ready to tear me, and I cannot comprehend why I am thus made a martyr. I try to suck the honey which formerly consoled me; but the honey pleases me no longer, and day and night the white mouse and the black mouse gnaw the branch to which I cling. I can see but one thing: the inevitable dragon and the mice—I cannot turn my gaze away from them.”12Clearly, Tolstoy is suffering from a serious existential episode in which he can’t find a purpose or meaning in life that will clear away his anxiety, which is represented in the dragon, which time, represented in the mice, slowly draws him near. This is his “uneasiness.” He must find a solution, then, because his situation is unlivable.Religion has historically addressed this need. In the Middle Ages, the Church was the institution through which people expressed this experience and resolved their inner conflicts, tensions, and divisions. Let’s turn to Dante’s Divine Comedy to see how the private aspect of this experience is made sense of through Christain’s notion of the pilgrimage.The poem begins with Dante suddenly becoming aware of himself, “Midway upon life’s journey,” as he says, and terrified by the fact that he’s lost in a dark world, having “gone astray,” and is in despair because he has begun to lose all hope for himself. “We know nothing of how Dante has gone astray, only that he has, and that he must undertake a journey, therefore, to save his soul.”13 He is, like Tolstoy, experiencing an “uneasiness” (though in more of a moral rather than existential sense; God is always present for Dante.) So, he has discovered that he has been living wrongly, that he’d strayed from the right path, from the way, and despite his attempts to free himself of his sins and burdens, he’s unable to do it alone. Although it’s unclear why Dante has lost his way, “the journey itself is clearer. It will take him through the entire Christian spiritual universe.”14The Roman poet Virgil is sent to initiate and lead him on this path forward. Virgil represents all of Classical learning, from the Greeks to the Romans. Though they were pagans, they represent the highest one can do as a non-Christian, which is to reach, as Aristotle said, the contemplative life15, where one can reflect on the Whole, on the cosmos. But because they didn’t have faith, they could never experience a fullness of being or completeness that produces the solution to the uneasiness that James discussed. According to Christian doctrine, only Christians may experience this. Thus, they had to remain in Hell.Now, for Dante to move down through Hell, climb up Purgatory, and then transcend into Heaven, he must engage with the Classical world by wrestling with the questions they set out to answer, which is an immensely difficult aim to take on; one that will transform the self as it moves through an activity and process of the soul, intellect, mind, or whatever it is that is the center in which human development toward the Good, as Plato would say, takes place. What’s fascinating about this ascent is that, in the Medieval worldview, it wasn’t merely an internal endeavor; it also bore a deep and profound relationship to the external world. By embarking on the Christian pilgrimage, one was, in a sense, becoming closer and closer to reality, to truth, to what is most real, which corresponded with a transformation of the self that is accompanied by an experience of fulfillment. As one ascends, one climbs what was called the Great Chain of Being, a metaphysical (ontological) thesis that was first articulated by Aristotle, which was adopted by, and adapted to, Christian thought in the thirteenth century.The Chain of Being introduces a vertical aspect to reality rather than merely a horizontal one. At the top is the highest Truth, and the lowest is the least real, i.e., the lowest level of being, which consists of matter and material objects, whereas the highest consists of what is immaterial, like consciousness or mind. And so everything and everyone grows increasingly heavier as Dante moves downward through Hell due to being weighed down by an attachment to the material, earthly substance, which produces a growing despair and lack of fulfillment. As Dante moves upward from Purgatory to Heaven, things become lighter and immaterial in proportion to how much something embodies the spiritual, divine substance, which is achieved through directing one’s desire toward the right objects, toward what is more real and true. In Plato’s allegory of the cave, as one breaks free from the chains and shadows at the bottom and climbs toward the exit where the sun can be seen, one also gains more and more insight into reality as things are illuminated more clearly through the light. Like Purgatory, the ascent up the cave is profound and challenging. But the initial insight of seeing into reality, which reveals that what was previously experienced was illusory, produces the desire to see even further into what now appears absolute and true. This desire pulls and aims Dante upward as he climbs higher toward reality and up the Great Chain of Being. The economist and philosopher E.F. Schumacher16 put the significance of this view as follows:The ability to see the Great Truth of the hierarchic structure of the world, which makes it possible to distinguish between higher and lower Levels of Being, is one of the indispensable conditions of understanding. Without it, it is not possible to find out where everything has its proper and legitimate place. Everything, everywhere, can be understood only when its Level of Being is fully taken into account. Many things are true at a low Level of Being and become absurd at a higher level, and of course vice versa.Dante’s pilgrimage, then, aims toward attaining a higher level of being than when he found himself lost in the forest. By turning inward, by engaging in a contemplative mode of being that engages the self in pursuit of an inner harmony that resonates with an external, hierarchic order, Dante is striving to attain a kind of freedom that is somewhat alien to us today. We can think of the notion of freedom in a negative and a positive sense. In the negative sense, freedom is understood as freedom from something; from external constraint, for example. The First Amendment is typically interpreted along these lines. Everyone is free to speak their minds because the state should not be allowed to interfere with our freedom to do so. All are free to do as they please as long as they do not infringe on another person’s right to do so.The positive sense is much different. It is a freedom for something. In Dante’s Hell, everyone found themselves there because they (at minimum) acted free purely in the negative sense. They lived their lives as they saw fit, without regard to any higher form of life. They didn’t act for the sake of a virtuous purpose (although that’s not quite right regarding the virtuous pagans and a few others.) To be free in the positive sense means to act according to a higher aim. When Socrates refused to renounce the philosophical life and was put to death, he made that decision based on a principle grounded in his inner conscience, which he took to express something sacred and higher, which always spoke to him when he was about to do wrong. He accepted the death penalty because the unexamined life wasn’t worth living; it had no purpose toward a higher aim17. 17Dante’s Divine Comedy provides a narrative by which the uneasiness one experiences in life, as articulated by James, can reach a solution and resolve the inner conflict and division by providing a framework by which the individual moves closer to reality, to what is most real, and up the Chain of Being.Section 5:Now, the pilgrimage captured in Dante’s poem was not something anyone could take up, at least not in its full dramatic content; it was obviously something only a select few could embark on, and this depended on the situation one was born into, like whether one was wealthy enough to receive an education. One’s salvation in the social order was rarely epic or heroic in nature; it typically meant following the structure imposed upon the individual by the Church. Just as how the cosmos was hierarchically ordered, so was society. The reasons for the social order were Divinely decreed. The social structure was immovable in a way because shifting the social order and rearranging it would violate scripture and God’s Word. Hence people were, as we would judge today, unfree and restricted. However, as psychologist Erick Fromm writes, “although a person was not free in the modem sense, neither was he alone and isolated. In having a distinct, unchangeable, and unquestionable place in the social world from the moment of birth, man was rooted in a structuralized whole, and thus life had a meaning which left no place, and no need, for doubt. A person was identical with his role in society; he was a peasant, an artisan, a knight, and not an individual who happened to have this or that occupation. The social order was conceived as a natural order, and being a definite part of it gave a feeling of security and of belonging.”18 Luther’s devastating blow against the Church in the Reformation rejected the social order and the Chain of Being and set in motion the release of the individual from the bondage they were restrained in. But by freeing the individual, he also eliminated the necessary self-transformation that played a substantial role in the Medieval worldview. Luther democratized salvation, spirituality, and questions about meaning in one’s life.This Copernican revolution in religious matters allowed for a radical reorientation toward truth, which relied on the printing press's efficiency in producing and distributing information.There were, of course, other factors that contributed to the Catholic Church's decline. The literal Copernican revolution and the rise of science being an obvious example. But what became increasingly less present in the scientific worldview that was emerging then is the idea that, as one gains knowledge of the world, one also goes through a transformative experience like Dante’s. The notion that knowledge of truth and reality converges with a meaningful and spiritual ethical development has mostly fallen off. Science’s aim is pure objectivity. For much of history, what is ‘objective’ is also intrinsically beneficial to the subject coming into contact with it. Values in scientific judgment and knowledge are a transgression, a violation of scientific precept, and are opposed to the whole epistemic enterprise (meaning a method by which knowledge is gained.) Science does not care about how one feels, what one desires in life, or what meaning one may find in it and simply presents facts as a body of indifferent and empirically verified knowledge.This is, of course, a caricature, as Thomas Kuhn19 argued in the twentieth century. Scientists certainly value their theories and are not merely attempting to refute them through experimentation. Theories allow scientists to have a grip on the world and a language of concepts that can be used to describe it accurately. This conceptual framework gives the world a theoretically intelligible and discernible order. And so once the anomalies and unsolved problems in a scientific paradigm grow serious enough, those working within it enter into a crisis until a new paradigm emerges (as is what happened when moving from Newtonian mechanics to Eistenin’s relativity.) Still, moving from one paradigm to the next isn’t believed to be an ethical progression. It’s a movement from one framework to the next. Unlike the Medieval worldview, it is generally held that science says nothing about human values and how one ought to live. Being a scientist does not suggest that someone is wise like a Socrates or Plato.Unlike the Church in the Middle Ages, which, in terms of knowledge, played a similar role to science today, science is not an institution that is in the business of handing out ethical and moral guidance. A scientist would likely balk (or should balk) at the idea of being viewed as someone who has gone through an ethical self-transformation to gain the knowledge that he or she has solely because of becoming a scientist. Being one of course requires an enormous amount of discipline, effort, and intelligence, which is, in a way, transformative, but in a different sense than what Dante embarked on. Today, knowledge of truth and reality does not necessarily correspond with an ethical progression.This idea of not requiring ethical self-transformation to gain the highest forms of knowledge is most noticeable in Rene Descartes’ philosophy in the seventeenth century. Descartes set out to rebuild a foundation through which knowledge could be rebuilt from the ruins left by the Church’s decline.20 The Church had lost its viability as something that could be believed to provide reliable knowledge for the social body. It was no longer psychologically obvious that the Church was the principal source and authority of appeal when dealing with matters of truth. Referring to scripture, for instance, could no longer be done by relying on what the Papacy had interpreted it as meaning. Luther (and others) undermined this immediacy for many. The United States faces a similar situation today. There is a diminishing trust in the democratic institutions that have historically served as distributors of trustworthy knowledge. Descartes attempted to deal with a similar crisis by discovering foundations immune from doubt. And he believed himself to have discovered such a foundation through his Cogito: I think, therefore I am. I can doubt all of my mental representations of the world, such as those of tables and chairs and coffee mugs, as well as my particular thoughts and feelings, and even the existence of my own body and sense experience. For all I know, I may be dreaming or being deceived by an evil demon into believing all kinds of imaginary and false representations of things. I can’t affirm or deny this with any certainty. But I cannot doubt that I am doubting; that much is certain. And since doubting is a property of thinking, I can’t doubt that I am thinking.Therefore, I am a thinking thing, an immaterial substance that is distinct from the physical bodies liable to doubt21. This is the most fundamental truth that not even reason could call into question. It’s radically different from truth as understood on the Chain of Being model. There is no ethical transformation involved in realizing this indubitable proposition. It’s self-evident to anyone rational and clear-minded (or so Descartes thinks.) And this is certainly how many people today think of knowledge. And in some cases, quite rightly. Take human rights as an example. John Locke22, a momentous figure who shaped the language of rights and how modernity thinks about them, argued that human rights are self-evident in the same sense as a geometric axiom. It just appears before the mind as something incapable of being doubted (to a clear, rational mind, of course, who has done the proper thinking, like someone who has rightly apprehended a geometric axiom.) The US’s founding document memorializes Locke’s claim: “We hold these truths to be self-evident.” The deepest, most profound truths about humanity are ‘obvious’ to any rational mind. This is, of course, a good thing. It is good that people intuitively find one another intrinsically and irreducibly valuable. But when this notion is taken for granted, when, as we’ll soon see with John Stuart Mill, an idea grows ossified, fixed, and dogmatic, it loses its potency and desired effect. But if one arrives at the idea of human rights through a transformative process, where one realizes the concept through a process of development and growth that culminates in seeing the profound value within a conscious human being, the notion of rights is animating and action-producing; it stirs and moves the motivation of those who go through this process. In other words, it produces a particular psychological orientation around what is believed to be true.Section 6:So, information technologies do not merely distribute previously unavailable information that is then propagated across a network. Nor does the production of such information bear a natural, necessary connection to truth. They can do both, but much more is at play. The printing press allowed for the conditions necessary for the Reformation to occur, and its occurrence produced a radical shift in the Medieval worldview. Truth was hierarchically organized, and those at the top had exclusive access. The Reformation leveled this structure and diffused the notion that all Christians are equal regarding Divine knowledge. There was no need for an authoritative intermediary to facilitate people’s relation to God. People could do it themselves through faith and scripture alone. But this also meant that all the social practices instituted for the purposes of coming into contact with truth, all the rituals and rites used to reinforce the beliefs of when and how truth manifests itself, slowly went with it. Therefore, people’s orientation around truth, how they conceived of it, where it resided, and how one knew it, was disrupted. People weren’t merely given previously unavailable information; the entire information landscape was turned upside down. This can reveal new terrain within the landscape that can lead to deep and valuable truths, such as human rights and liberties, and it can also conceal older, previously established truths, like the notion of transformative experiences being necessary for coming into closer contact with reality.Similarly to the printing press, social media poses a historical parallel. We can see this by looking at the most famous defense of free speech for the sake of truth, namely, John Stuart Mill’s essay On Liberty. We’ll see that, like how the printing press reoriented people’s relation to truth, social media is doing so by increasingly shifting how we conceive of, participate in, and come to know the truth. As a social practice, it’s shifting the culture toward different ways of arriving at truth. It's difficult to say whether it is categorically good or bad. But the focus here will be on what would certainly be a momentous loss in our social practices regarding truth, namely, a departure from Enlightenment values.There is a developing tendency to determine the truth through sheer will rather than discussion and a dwindling desire to correct this error. People seem to care less about deliberation, compromise, tolerance, and the general agreement that the goal is to come to an inclusive decision that is in the best interests of people who share a basic respect for each other’s dignity. All political orientations have growing factions that believe the content of other’s beliefs determines how they should be viewed and treated. Rather than work toward building a community that is able to cooperate with one another and agree on a uniting set of values, the cultural attitude is moving toward a competition between wills for power. But it’s not only behaviorally motivated by power; there is also the belief that all effort by a group toward an ideal is entirely reducible to power. That very well may be true. But if it is, democracy is in a precarious position. So, if we value democracy, we should steer back toward the proper path. For Mill’s account to work, which is crucial if we wish to justify free speech for the sake of truth in Enlightenment, democratic terms23, social media should not be viewed as a truth-seeking information network24. Mill believed free speech is necessary for human flourishing in a democratic society. If it’s the people who are going to be involved in the deliberative processes of society and be the ones choosing what is best, then the people must be able to discuss and exchange ideas, opinions, and beliefs freely. However, just like how the Medieval view operated within a certain orientation around truth, which provided a framework through which truth could be arrived at, so it is with democracy. And like the printing press, social media has placed enormous tension on our democratic orientation. So, if we desire to maintain democratic values derived from the Enlightenment, then we have to take a certain stance toward social media, one that eschews the expectation that truth is situated within its environments, where we expect to discuss, debate, hash things out, and arrive at truth.Now, On Liberty offers two sets of reasons supporting free speech, the first being epistemic, meaning that the benefits have to do with knowledge, while the other set is psychologically beneficial. The first set argues that free speech is an overall good for society because if what someone says is true or partially true, both possibilities benefit a democracy. If what is said is true, it will benefit because it professes a truth that will add to the preexisting stock of knowledge. If partially true, this also contributes to preexisting knowledge; “and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied.” The second psychological set of benefits is primarily derived from the utterance of false beliefs, which have no direct epistemic benefit because they do not contribute any knowledge to form beliefs around. If what is said is wholly false, the opportunity to defend and contest it will also be an overall good because it will demand that the bearers of that knowledge account for the reasons for its truth. Mill expresses this well: “Unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds.” This then produces a further psychological benefit. By remaining a prejudice and not as something rationally grasped, “the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost or enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect on the character and conduct; the dogma becoming a mere formal profession, inefficacious for good, but cumbering the ground and preventing the growth of any real and heartfelt conviction from reason or personal experience.” Therefore, contesting what is true will keep beliefs from devolving into prejudice or dogma.Section 7:The first thing to observe about Mill’s reasons for free speech is that the first set of epistemic reasons really depends on the second set (the psychological ones). But it’s peculiar to speak of the latter as ‘benefits’ because of this. It’s more accurate to say that a certain psychological orientation must give rise to them. We can think of this as a kind of feedback loop that produces the benefits Mill is speaking of. One must have the proper psychological orientation toward truth to break into this loop. That is to say that the members within a society must hold a psychological orientation toward truth that allows for the free expression of true, partially true, and false beliefs to be a net good, i.e., to bring about the best possible consequences within a democratic community. With the psychological reasons offered for free speech, notice that the benefit is derived from the speakers and listeners within the community being open to receiving true, partially true, or false utterances. The beliefs they hold must be perpetually open to revision because they may or may not be in possession of the actual true ones; they understand that their knowledge is an ongoing process, something that is constantly unfolding, and so hold a particular stance toward the free expression of beliefs.They would understand that, even in the best instances of human knowledge, the most stable kind (like knowledge of physics), it is still susceptible to be overturned by future evidence, as was the case with Newtonian mechanics and Einsteinian relativity. That is not to say truth is therefore unattainable, but only that there should be a fair degree of epistemic humility within a democratic, truth-seeking community, given that our best knowledge often falls far short of absolute certainty. As the psychological reasons specify, if the people within the community hold their beliefs as prejudices or dogmas that are fixed and unchangeable, they will be unreceptive to being challenged. So whatever anyone utters, whether true, false, or in between, it won’t provide the benefits Mill intended. There must be a certain psychological orientation toward truth for Mill’s argument to succeed.Let’s now specify what this orientation should look like and see how it’s vital in upholding free speech arguments for the sake of truth. There are three components to this orientation: (i) certain beliefs, (ii) certain desires, and (iii) certain attitudes born out of (i) and (ii). (i) consists of two beliefs. The first belief is that truth exists, and the second is that it is, in principle, knowable. (ii) consists of two desires as well. The first desire is to attain human flourishing, and the second is that truth is constitutive of this aim. Given that there is truth, one must also have the desire to attain it. But this is also a special kind of desire; it’s a desire that fulfills what must be viewed as a higher need, one that is constitutive of human flourishing or happiness. We can call this a fulfillment need. This means that we desire truth because it occupies a natural place in the space of human good. We will lack something fundamental to our flourishing if we don’t have contact with truth; we therefore both desire it and have a powerful motivation to attain it because we desire to flourish. Fulfillment needs should be understood as part of what constitutes this principal end in life that characterizes human excellence.For those who know Greek philosophy, this will sound familiar. As Aristotle says in his Ethics, all things aim at some final good. Achieving this good means for something to actualize its potential and attain excellence. The final aim of human beings is to flourish, or, in Greek, to attain eudaimonia, and to attain this means to achieve human excellence. Excellence, says Aristotle, means to fulfill the particular function assigned to a thing's nature. An eye’s function is to see, a car’s function is to drive, while the seed’s function is to grow into a plant. Human beings’ nature is to be rational, to optimize their cognition, to reduce error, and to reach the truth. Again, since the ultimate aim is to flourish, and because seeking truth is constitutive of that goal, we desire to know the truth as a fulfillment need, which helps satisfy the principal good in human life. Now, while Aristotle’s claim about human nature is of course disputable, if Mill’s argument for free speech is to work, and it’s important that it does, Aristotle’s account of human beings, or something resembling it, must be held within a democratic community.That being said, there’s a deep plausibility to the notion that humans have a fundamental need to be in contact with the truth, and presuming rationality is necessary for this, Aristotle may very well be right. In his lecture series Awakening From The Meaning Crisis, John Vervaeke offers a powerful example to illustrate this. Imagine your parents one day asking you to follow them into a hidden room you had never seen before inside your house on your eighteenth birthday. When you enter, you see a wall of monitors showing old footage of you throughout your life. Your parents then turn to you and say that your entire life has been an FBI experiment; everything has been manufactured. The love you thought to be sincere and nourishing, all the support you’ve received throughout the years, the holidays you have come to cherish, and the memories and feelings you’ve come to have are, in the most profound sense, fake. None of it was real. Your parents then tell you that you have two options. You can either act as if this incident had never happened and move on as usual, or you can move out and move on with your life. What’s the desirable option? Most of us would choose the latter. Why? Because none of what was thought to be real turned out to be true. It was all fabricated, illusory, and bore no substantive relation to reality. For the majority of us (although hopefully everyone), there is no going back to the way things previously were. The truth makes a fundamental difference in the decision-making between the two options. By discovering that our life is untrue, we feel a deep absence, a lack of fulfillment, an incompleteness on account of what we’ve learned about ourselves. An essential aspect of the decision to move on, then, is a deep motivation to discover what is in fact true. It’s like Dante when he discovers himself lost in the dark forest. We’ve been led astray, and now we desire to find the right path, which is the one that converges with truth, with what is most real. This is what happens to Jim Carrey in The Truman Show when he decides to leave that disturbing, manufactured simulation dome he was raised in. He could have stayed, but he was psychologically unable to. By obtaining this new self-knowledge, he would have never achieved eudaimonia. He would have remained stuck in life because he would have been bullsh*tting himself (again, I mean this in a technical sense and not simply as an explicative, which will be explained below.)This brings us to (iii), which is to bear a particular attitude toward truth provided (i) and (ii). The proper attitude toward truth is one of care. To care for the truth means to know how to reliably arrive at it, which means utilizing the relevant cognitive processes in forming true beliefs. Recall the quote at the beginning of the article from John Milton, which expressed that it is a heresy to arrive at a belief in the wrong way, namely, by not properly using one’s own reason. It matters, then, how we form our beliefs, and what matters is which cognitive processes are used to get there. For ease of presentation, we can use the psychologist Daniel Kahneman’s formulation of these cognitive processes from his book Thinking, Fast and Slow. Kahneman lays out two cognitive systems, System 1 and System 2. “System 1 operates automatically and quickly, with little or no effort and no sense of voluntary control.” Whereas “System 2 allocates attention to the effortful mental activities that demand it, including complex computations. The operations of System 2 are often associated with the subjective experience of agency, choice, and concentration (p. 21).” To see the difference, take the two following examples of arithmetic: “2 + 2 = ?” We have an immediate cognitive reflex to such an equation, and little to no effort is required. Filling in the answer resulted from System 1. “17 x 24 =?” Now this equation typically demands more effort. A reasoning process is engaged to determine the answer that requires concentrated effort and isn’t reflexively provided. Such a process is supplied by System 2. For another example, say someone is hiking and spots a tree in the distance. If such a person cares nothing for botany, then the object will have a great deal of transparency, and the person will carry on about their day. Such a process would be within System 1. But if the person is a trained botanist and has never seen this kind of tree before (say they’re in a foreign country), they may begin to observe it, inspect it, and direct their effort toward retrieving the relevant information that may help identify the tree. That person has engaged System 2.Caring for the truth means knowing how to optimize these two systems so that System 1 and System 2 are in a recurring dialogue with one another, with the aim to arrive at the truth. Now, there are at least two aspects to this idea of care. The first can be classed as having to do with general skills in critical thinking, which primarily consists of analysis. Examples are things like working out one’s cognitive biases and reducing error. In essence, being successful in this regard means being able to reason well and work through problems rationally. Take a case of confirmation bias, for example. Imagine a republican voter who believes certain conspiracy theories about the democratic party and who is watching a presidential debate and hears the Republican candidate make an assertion attributing misconduct to the Democratic candidate. Because the assertion confirms the prior beliefs of the voter who is watching, it will be easy for that person to immediately agree with what was said. Engaging System 2 is effortful and costly in mental energy, and so it is easier, as well as cognitively more pleasurable, to passively (probably unconsciously) consent to System 1’s impulse, which presents the Republican candidate’s statement as attractive and belief-worthy. If this person cares for the truth, however, he or she would engage System 2 upon receiving what System 1 has provided with the aim of verifying whether the assertion accurately represents or corresponds to reality. Perhaps the person reasons through the assertion. If the candidate said something like, "Inflation has skyrocketed due to the current administration, which she’s a part of,” the voter watching may reason that, while it’s true inflation has risen, her position in the administration bears little to no significance on that outcome; therefore, the assertion is misinformed. Or perhaps the voter doesn’t understand government structure very well and does research, visits several sources, and concludes based on the information that the assertion is misinformed and implies an invalid conclusion. Whatever the route taken, the voter is presented with the potential to make a cognitive error through System 1, and because he or she cares for the truth, System 2 is utilized to solve the task presented.Competence in this aspect of care, which means to be a competent critical thinker, consists of knowing how to obtain propositional knowledge, which is knowledge that accurately represents reality. One has the tools and skills to work through assertions, analyze arguments, and appropriately form beliefs according to the evidence. One can situationally respond by engaging System 2 when one detects that System 1 is presented with information expressing propositions about the world. Someone who has mastered these skills has developed dispositions that engage the relevant cognitive behavior under the relevant conditions. In other words, such a person knows how to instinctively and properly respond to the appropriate cognitive stimuli.25The second aspect of caring for truth is deeper than this and, like Dante’s journey, more transformative. Caring for truth in this sense means optimizing System 1 and System 2 by using them to shape one’s conception of the good. What reason, for example, would this argument, rather than another one, be more relevant to someone competent in critical thinking? Why care about what this person has to say rather than that one? Answers to these questions will suggest the underlying conception of the good that is assumed when one finds one set of information more salient. In other words, the second aspect of caring for truth means understanding one’s conception of eudaimonia, or flourishing, which is one’s final aim and idea of human excellence. Critical thinking in the propositional sense is a highly valuable set of skills that is fundamental to the whole project of pursuing truth. But what it consists of does not provide a final criteria to judge what one should believe about human flourishing and what it amounts to. It plays a vital role in articulating and grasping this goal but won’t deliver it. In other words, critical thinking is a powerful tool in reaching one’s goals, but it itself cannot bestow the goals themselves. This requires the second aspect of caring for truth, which means optimizing System 1 and System 2 to become aware of what final end is guiding their operation. Regardless of how much one engages in critical thinking, irrespective of one’s mastery of logic and reasoning, if one never utilizes these skills toward understanding what provides the salience of one set of information over another, they may never satisfy their fulfillment need for truth.Tolstoy’s book, The Death of Ivan Illych, illustrates this. In the story the Russian protagonist, Ivan Illych, lives his life in pursuit of what is pleasant. He shuns the annoyances and discomforts that arise in life and views them, in a way, as unnatural, as occurrences that disrupt how life should be. His goal in life is to maximize pleasure and avoid pain and suffering. He’s not, however, a Don Quixote or an extreme hedonist; he’s not trying to experience all the possible pleasures one may have. He wants to live a successful and acceptable life that commands the esteem of his colleagues, makes his family happy, comfortable, and at ease, and allows him to pass through life with as few disturbances as possible. He holds a very familiar and common conception of the good.And Ivan does in fact find this success. He rises to be a great and respectable judge in Russia. He’s highly competent, makes a substantial living, and can buy and provide his family with whatever he pleases. Yet he finds himself running into the disturbances he’s always tried to avoid. He’s constantly fighting with his wife:There remained only rare periods of amorousness that came over the spouses, but they did not last long. These were islands that they would land on temporarily, but then they would put out again to the sea of concealed enmity that expressed itself in estrangement from each other. This estrangement might have upset Ivan Ilyich, if he had considered that it ought not to be so, but by now he took this situation not only as normal, but as the goal of his activity in the family. His goal consisted in freeing himself more and more from these unpleasantnesses and in giving them a character of harmlessness and decency; and he achieved it by spending less and less time with his family, and when he was forced to do so, he tried to secure his position by the presence of outsiders.He’s experiencing the “uneasiness” formulated by William James above. His solution is not to reflect on his final end in life, his conception of the good, his idea of human flourishing and excellence, but to find other means to attain it, which is to turn away from what he’s representing as unnatural and frustrating. He’s not deficient in critical thinking; he’s a highly competent and successful judge. He lacks the wisdom and self-knowledge necessary for reflecting on and evaluating what makes some things and not others salient for him, which is his goal in life to live pleasantly. There’s a reason why he finds spending less time with his family a more obvious solution than trying to get at the root of why it is he feels so frustrated and annoyed at the fact that he’s not feeling fulfilled despite his success; and he’s not utilizing System 1 and System 2 to investigate that reason, i.e., he’s not caring for truth in the second sense. It’s only until he is faced with a random, coincidental death that he realizes he hadn’t been searching for a solution to his “uneasiness” that converged with truth. Not truth in the propositional sense, but truth regarding human flourishing and excellence. Insofar as he was unable or unwilling to direct his cognition toward what was guiding it, he remained incapable of progressing and transforming toward an aim that would afford him self-awareness, self-knowledge, and, ultimately, eudaimonia.Both aspects of caring for truth matter if Mill’s benefits are to be obtained. It matters propositionally (the first aspect of care) because critical thinking and analysis are necessary for seeing information clearly and discerning whether something maps onto the world. But caring for the first aspect alone will only clear the fog, so to speak, and allow one to see the landscape with more specificity and definition. It will provide knowledge about the causal regularities that govern the territory and the predictable patterns that follow from them. It will not, however, indicate what to do with that knowledge or inform one of what it means. For free speech to be justified for the sake of truth, which means free speech plays a substantial, instrumental role in sorting out the true information from the false, people must care for the truth. They have to find it salient in the right ways. If people don’t care and don’t share the proper desire to pursue it, then no amount of discussion will necessarily bring the community any closer to the truth. They may easily settle for something else.Section 8:The claim, then, is that social media does not warrant truth-based justifications for free speech. Because social media platforms don’t promote or incentivize the psychological orientation necessary for truth-seeking but reward the opposite behaviors, the idea that one is seeking truth within such a context is false. The view that social media as a public space is best characterized as a social practice that aims toward truth has generated an insidious confusion within the culture, and we would be better off by evaluating it differently. Social media is certainly an information network, but it’s wrong to presume all information networks are oriented toward truth production.To see this, think of a university. The principal purpose of this institution is to generate knowledge (there are other purposes, of course, but put those aside.) Now, there are many parts to the structure of a university, but let’s zoom in on the classroom environment. Within it, there’s a hierarchy in place. The teacher’s purpose is to guide the students through a curriculum, get them to think critically about the information, debate and discuss it, foster their abilities to engage with it, cultivate the necessary faculties for this, and to ensure that they learn something specific about the given information, as well as something general about learning, something they can use in all cases. To achieve this, the teacher must orient the students around truth-seeking, i.e., he or she must teach the students to care for the truth, as explained above. The teacher must challenge the students’ cognitive biases. Logical errors, bad reasoning, and lack of critical thinking have to be checked, corrected, and reinforced by the teacher.Ideally, the teacher will also help the students think critically about their conceptions of the good. In the ideal scenario, the teacher not only challenges their cognition but also fosters their ability to question what human flourishing and excellence looks like. It’s ideal because claiming that this is absolutely necessary for an information network to warrant being evaluated as a truth-seeking social practice is, perhaps, too high. But it is what one should aim for. However, it’s important to bear this in mind because it will be shown that, even if the threshold is lowered in this sense, social media still fails at what any information network that is correlated with truth should provide, which is to promote the proper analytical skills in getting clearer about reality.Now, an important reason universities are trusted as truth-seeking information networks is partly because of the teacher's role in distributing that information. It’s trusted as an institution because those who go through it are supposed to have been guided by experts who demonstrate how to pursue knowledge. Students who leave the institution are expected to have participated in a social practice that taught them to be competent in their field (and hopefully to be a good human being as well, whatever that means precisely) and who can now further distribute and utilize their knowledge by applying it to other domains within society. The teacher’s function within the institution is essential to this goal and fundamental to the trust granted to the institution itself. Let’s call this function a Socratic function.27Social media doesn’t have a Socratic function, and any information network trusted as a distributor of knowledge should have something resembling it. Worse than this, however, is that social media actually promotes cognitive behavior that is opposed to the whole project of pursuing truth. As an overarching, general pattern, social media reinforces and incentivizes things like cognitive bias (the immediate and intuitive presentations of System 1.) The whole business model is aimed at maximizing attention. People easily become addicted to these platforms and binge content endlessly. The only way to achieve this is by easing the user’s cognitive effort as much as possible and stimulating them with dopamine responses, allowing the user to enter a semi-hypnotic state. Of course, not everyone is affected like this; most people can assert moderation when using social media. But in an ideal world, one where social media is optimally thriving, everyone would be glued to their screens. Practical circumstances of course make this impossible, and therefore it wouldn’t truly be in social media’s interests because no one would show up for work, but if we turn the dial on the business goals of these platforms to the max, then this would be the logical consequence; it would maximize profits.Social media serves many purposes, though, and the claim is certainly not that it is, for these reasons, entirely bad. It’s only the contexts, circumstances, and situations in which it is reflexively represented as a competent and trusted information network that deals in matters of knowledge and truth that it creates an overall deficit. This is because of the intellectual and ethical confusion it produces, which is caused by its lack of a Socratic function that incentivizes and reinforces the proper psychological orientation around truth-seeking. Again, it has the opposite aim, which is to ease the effort of System 2 as much as it can and allow System 1, with all its cognitive vulnerabilities, to be at the helm. Because of this aim, social media has a Sophistic function, which contrasts the Socratic one, whose defining characteristic is to be a bullsh*tter. As mentioned above, this notion is a technical one and needs to be properly explained.The notion of bullsht comes from the American philosopher Harry Frankfurt and his essay Bullsht. Sam Harris uses this term often, especially regarding social media. First, let’s clarify what it means to lie. Lying involves an intent to deceive on the part of the person lying, who wishes to get the other to believe something contrary to the truth. The seventeen-year-old who sneaks out, gets caught, and tells their parents that they forgot their phone at their friend’s house and went to get it in the middle of the night is lying because they’re trying to deceive their parents into believing something false about reality. But reality is still salient to their aim. Although attempting to distort it, they still have reality in their conscious field of intentions, motives, and desires, i.e., they care about truth rather than caring for it. Someone who bullshts, on the other hand, has no regard for truth. It provides no reason for consideration on its own, independent of the bullshtter’s aim. Whereas the truth matters for the liar, it’s of no concern whether what one says is true or false in the case of bullsht. The bullshter’s enterprise is characteristically different than the lier in this regard. The liar “is attempting to lead us away from a correct apprehension of reality; we are not to know that he wants us to believe something he supposes to be false… The fact about himself that the bullshitter hides, on the other hand, is that the truth-values of his statements are of no central interest to him; what we are not to understand is that his intention is neither to report the truth nor to conceal it.”26The classic archetype of a bullshtter is the salesman. The truth about whether the product sold is efficient, useful, or whatever else is indifferent to the salesman. What matters, and what distinguishes one who is good from one who is not (in the sense of achieving their goal to sell the product, pure and simple,) is whether they can deceive the consumer into believing that the bullshtter is asserting something they themselves believe. There are few constraints on what a bullshtter may say to achieve their aim. Whatever helps satisfy their goal is fair play. The liar is unable to be creative like this. They must strategically and purposefully contend with the truth by believing they know it. If the liar doesn’t in fact know the truth, this will likely spoil their plans. They will be unable to grasp the situation and will likely misunderstand what the circumstances call for. A bullshtter doesn’t need to know the truth at all. They just need to make the other person think that they do. The truth conditions of their beliefs and assertions are, by itself, irrelevant.Social media is a bullshtter in incentivizing and rewarding behavior that employs bullsht. It therefore has a Sophistic function. The chief culprit for this is, of course, the algorithms. The algorithm's aim is to curate content that maximizes user engagement and attention. Whether what it presents a user with is true or false is a matter of indifference. It can matter in a sense, but only if the user is disposed toward viewing content that is oriented around truth, which is of no concern to the algorithms. The function is to bullsht the user by minimizing cognitive effort and maximizing the incentives that will keep their attention, e.g., by triggering dopamine responses through a constant succession of content patterned according to the user’s preferences. If the user desires content that aims at truthfully representing reality, he or she has to maneuver through a minefield of bullsht. There is no Socratic function that guides them through it, as there would be in any other social practice that is considered an information network whose purpose is to distribute knowledge. The proper psychological orientation that warrants discussions about how free speech is necessary for pursuing truth within a given context is entirely absent within the social media model.Hence Mill’s influential argument for the utility of free speech for the sake of truth doesn’t apply to social media. Let’s reflect on what Mill said after this long discussion. Recall the epistemic benefits he argued for. He said that letting everyone freely express their minds produces the best outcomes within a democratic community, regardless of whether what one says is true, partially true, or false. If the truth doesn’t move people, and if the general tendency to find truth salient is absent, then letting everyone say what they think is self-undermining. Why would truth matter if everyone free to speak their mind disregards it? Seeing truth as a reason for a social practice means truth is fundamental to the aims that characterize the institution, and this means being properly oriented around it, which means caring for it.Section 9:I want to end now with a discussion about how this all relates to Nostr and how it has the potential to be an information network that performs much better than social media as a context concerned with knowledge and truth. The principal reason that will be considered here is Nostr’s pursuit of a fully decentralized model that aims at user autonomy. Autonomy makes a crucial difference between an information network that more reliably tracks truth and one that is indifferent to it.Social media reduces users' autonomy by trying to use them as a means toward further ends, namely, their attention, engagement, and data. The algorithm's job is to sort through users’ information and curate it in ways that maximize profit. This generally results in the spread of bullsht because what determines information as worth spreading does not depend on that information’s truth value. However, when users can curate their own content by judging for themselves what information they wish to retrieve from relays; when it’s left to each user to decide what content is valuable and what isn’t; when users themselves can determine what is worth censuring and not be subject to the interests of a centralized server, the aim is clearly to place autonomy back into their hands. What’s important, though, is that autonomy has a certain purpose in the Nostr context: to allow people to create at all protocol levels. Part of what a centralized server does is create a fixed infrastructure that greatly restricts what users may do on the platform (the chief restriction being to yield as much profit as possible for shareholders.) Creators especially are affected by this because the value they contribute to the platforms is filtered through what will necessarily constrain it. Nostr, however, is different. What largely motivates the value of autonomy is the desire to let creators create content freely and without outside constraints, which, of course, is to provide them freedom of expression. By users having the freedom to build and the autonomy to curate and choose what content is personally valuable to a user, truth becomes highly relevant within the context. Now, if Mill is right when he says that only true beliefs have any utility (and false beliefs necessarily lead one astray in some sense,) users who produce content will be highly incentivized to track the truth, to have an accurate representation of it, because to fail at this will result in unappealing content due to its lack of value. No centralized authority is supposed to be able to force something to appear valuable; it’s up to the users to determine this. And if something will endure and not fade once the reasons why it may have trended disappear, it needs to track the truth. If it doesn’t, if it only matters to people because it is sensational or cheap, if it’s bullsht, it will always lose in the long run.Since people on Nostr have the autonomy to build and curate their own content, unlike social media, there is less at play that can ossify the network. There must be a great deal of motion because, in principle, no user or client can monopolize the space. This built-in fluidity captures an important aspect of truth-seeking, which John Milton expressed when saying, “Knowledge thrives by exercise… Truth is compared in scripture to a streaming fountain; if her waters flow not in a perpetual progression, they sicken into a muddy pool of conformity and tradition.” Everyone has to earn their success on Nostr, so the principal way to do this is to create something valuable. Again, if Mill is right, the value must largely be derived from the truth that the content represents, creating an incentive to care for the truth. Bullsh*t can’t be forcefully distributed because it maximizes some desired metric. Information is chiefly distributed by individual users valuing it.Nostr provides a way to see if Mill was right in thinking only true beliefs have any real value. Since the intention is to move away from social media’s business model, there is an opportunity to determine whether people will naturally choose the truth through their own autonomous decision-making. If there are no algorithms that aim to seize and maximize user attention, people are free to choose what content they wish to consume. It is a choice whether truth prevails over its opposite in the Nostr context because individuals are incentivized to contribute what they want to see. And if things go astray, people can fix it by creating something better.Notes:For a similar but far more elaborate, comprehensive, and complex argument of this kind, see John Vervaeke’s Awakening From the Meaning Crisis on YouTube.For an elaboration on free speech justifications, see Greenawalt, K. (2007). Free Speech Justifications. Colombia Law Review.For a history of Free speech, see Jacob Mchangama’s book Free Speech: Socrates to Social Media.Kant, I. (1784). What is Enlightenment? (p. 1). Hacket Publishing.This is not to suggest wokism is the sole culprit of this cultural trend. It’s one example amongst others on all parts of the political spectrum. But it’s an important example because wokism aims to be virtuous and moral. Therefore, it’s a good example because it is important to question whether their moral claims are correct. Furthermore, a plausible reply on the part of one who may subscribe to something like wokism (whatever that means precisely) is that it isn’t the duty of those who have been oppressed to teach those they consider to be oppressors. The duty falls on the latter. This is a challenging question to settle, and it makes up the potentially unbridgable gulf between wokism and its opponents. But if empathy is a virtue (or a vital moral response), it’s central that everyone exercises it, not just those who are held to be guilty of something.Simpson, R. M. (2024). The Connected City of Ideas. Daedalus.Harari, N. Y. (2024). Nexus. Random House.Eisenstein, E. L. (1979). The Printing Press as an Agent of Change (p. 45). Cambridge University Press.Melchert, N. (2007). The Great Conversation (p. 304). Oxford University Press.Melchert, N. (2007). The Great Conversation. Oxford University Press.Wagner, C. (2012). Scientia Moralitas (Moral Autonomy and Responsibility - The Reformation’s Legacy in Today’s Society). Scientia Moralitas Research Institute.Fromm, E. (1941). Escape From Freedom (p. 54). Discus.James, W. (1902). The Varieties of Religious Experience (p. 54). Penguin Classics.Dreyfus, H., & Kelly, S. D. (2011). All Things Shining: Reading the Western Classics to Find Meaning in a Secular Age (p. 122). Free Press.Dreyfus, H., & Kelly, S. D. (2011). All Things Shining: Reading the Western Classics to Find Meaning in a Secular Age (p. 122). Free Press.Aristotle, A. (1953). Ethics (p. 122). Penguin Classics.Schumacher, E. (1977). A Guide For the Perplexed. Harper Colophon Books.As Isaiah Berlin makes clear in his essay Two Concepts of Liberty, it is easy to see how positive freedom may easily lead to foolish and immoral action due to its purposeful nature. It is quite challenging to dissuade someone that what they believe to be their purpose in life, their ultimate meaning, relies on false premises.Fromm, E. (1941). Escape From Freedom. Discus.Chalmers, A. (1974). What is this thing called Science? Hacket Publishing.Descartes, R. (2010). Meditations on First Philosophy. Oxford World's Classics.See Bertrand Russel’s The History of Western Philosophy for how Descartes's argument is logically invalid. He can’t doubt that some process of thinking is occurring, but whether something is doing the thinking isn’t obvious.Locke, J. Two Treatises on Government.Justice Holmes made the Marketplace metaphor popular in Abrams v United States (1919), and has become a central precedent in free speech cases.For a similar argument, see Nevin Chellappah’s “Is John Stuart Mill’s Account of Free Speech Sustainable In the Age of Social Media?”Ryle, G. (1949). The Concept of Mind. Penguin.Frankfurt, H. (1986). Bullshit. Princeton University Press.To see the Socratic function in real time, watch The Joe Rogan Experience episode #2171. Eric Weinstein demonstrates what it means for an expert to engage with someone outside their respective field who claims to have knowledge that overturns the discipline but with no professional training to back it up. His attitude demonstrates a care for truth. @yakihonne

@ 9e69e420:d12360c2

Oregano oil is a potent natural compound that offers numerous scientifically-supported health benefits. ## Active Compounds The oil's therapeutic properties stem from its key bioactive components: - Carvacrol and thymol (primary active compounds) - Polyphenols and other antioxidant ## Antimicrobial Properties **Bacterial Protection** The oil demonstrates powerful antibacterial effects, even against antibiotic-resistant strains like MRSA and other harmful bacteria. Studies show it effectively inactivates various pathogenic bacteria without developing resistance. **Antifungal Effects** It effectively combats fungal infections, particularly Candida-related conditions like oral thrush, athlete's foot, and nail infections. ## Digestive Health Benefits Oregano oil supports digestive wellness by: - Promoting gastric juice secretion and enzyme production - Helping treat Small Intestinal Bacterial Overgrowth (SIBO) - Managing digestive discomfort, bloating, and IBS symptoms ## Anti-inflammatory and Antioxidant Effects The oil provides significant protective benefits through: - Powerful antioxidant activity that fights free radicals - Reduction of inflammatory markers in the body - Protection against oxidative stress-related conditions ## Respiratory Support It aids respiratory health by: - Loosening mucus and phlegm - Suppressing coughs and throat irritation - Supporting overall respiratory tract function ## Additional Benefits **Skin Health** - Improves conditions like psoriasis, acne, and eczema - Supports wound healing through antibacterial action - Provides anti-aging benefits through antioxidant properties **Cardiovascular Health** Studies show oregano oil may help: - Reduce LDL (bad) cholesterol levels - Support overall heart health **Pain Management** The oil demonstrates effectiveness in: - Reducing inflammation-related pain - Managing muscle discomfort - Providing topical pain relief ## Safety Note While oregano oil is generally safe, it's highly concentrated and should be properly diluted before use Consult a healthcare provider before starting supplementation, especially if taking other medications.

@ 6b7c438e:fc81aab3

Taryn Christiansen @ DoraHacksSpecial thanks to Eric Zhang for in-depth discussions.A mirror post on Dora Research Blog is available: https://research.dorahacks.io/2024/12/24/free-speech-foundation Intro:This article will argue that truth-based justifications for free speech are inappropriate within the social media context.1 Flooding the market with more information doesn’t necessarily force truth to emerge and bob at the surface. No matter how much information is pumped into a space filled with falsehoods and deception, if the right mechanisms aren’t in place, the area will only grow more chaotic and overcrowded, and therefore all the more easier to get lost in it. As an instrument to obtain knowledge of the truth, free speech has to be properly used, and people need to know how to use it.That isn’t to say that the tap should be shut off and that free speech should be curtailed; other justifications are perfectly reasonable, as will be seen below. But the idea that what we’re up to on social media is seeking out the truth only produces more confusion about what we collectively take to be sources of trustworthy information that is accurate and sincere. We would be better off if social media were viewed as an information network that is distinct from other spaces that are generally considered places where we obtain reliably true beliefs.But other spaces have the potential to be a more appropriate target for truth-based justifications for free speech, one of which is Nostr. Because of Nostr’s fully decentralized and open nature, which allows for innovation at all levels of its protocol, people have more opportunity to create valuable content that will only be distributed across the network because it is in fact valuable. The algorithms on social media force content to be valuable because there are standards that aim at maximizing user engagement in cheap and overstimulating ways. It doesn’t matter to these mechanisms whether something is true or not. What matters first is whether something promotes the ends of the social media companies, which are primarily driven by maximizing profits through ads and attention. Achieving this goal means reducing users' autonomy in picking and choosing what content to consume. Nostr aims to give the users their autonomy back by freeing developers to build both relays and clients. If users can make decisions that aren’t influenced by social media’s algorithmic decision-making, then it can be discerned whether truth is naturally relevant to people in these kinds of information networks, as well as whether people really desire to care for the truth.Section 1:It should be assumed at this point in history2, especially in liberal democracies, that the freedom to express one’s mind is inseparable from a basic conception of human dignity. If one is prohibited from freely discussing and challenging prevailing beliefs or forced to conform to a point of view that was not arrived at by using one’s own rational and reflective faculties, then human dignity suffers. There’s a reason Socrates went around the Athenian marketplace and tirelessly questioned the people he encountered there. He wasn’t interested in forcing people to submit to specific beliefs. Socrates wanted people to realize and reflect on whether what they believed was true or not, and therefore if it was something worth believing in. But integral to this project is the idea that people have to think through the questions themselves and not rely on an authority. Authority may be right; it may hold true beliefs and assert rational demands, but it doesn’t mean anything unless people themselves know the way to them. This requires the individual to be willing to develop what’s necessary for this.John Milton was right when he wrote in his 1644 pamphlet Areopagatica, which was directed against the English Parlament’s order for licensing books, that “A man may be a heretic in the truth… If he believes things only because his pastor says so, or the assembly so determines, without knowing other reasons, though his belief be true, yet the very truth he holds becomes his heresy.” People must be free to reason for themselves, to arrive at truths through the use of their own faculties, to develop their individual conscience, which, by its nature, must be exercised by the individual’s will and not by an externally imposed authority. Immanuel Kant’s call to the Enlightenment, Sapere aude! - “Have courage to use your own reason!”3 - is a call to actualize human dignity through the use of one’s reason. These faculties cannot be cultivated unless the individual can express him or herself freely.Woke culture is an illustrative example of how there is a connection between free speech and human dignity. It shows that when the strategy is to problematize and silence people, no matter how noble or virtuous the goal is believed to be, it only perpetuates a cycle of frustration and anger. The problem with woke culture isn’t necessarily their ideals. We all would agree, or should at least, that people should respect the basic dignity of others, treat everyone as persons, empathize with those with a different experience, and learn and grow from one another’s unique perspective. These are all good things; they’re profoundly valuable. The issue is how woke culture formulated and implemented their interpretations of what these notions amount to, what they call for, and what moral duties they demand. One of its principal goals has been to discern how historical oppressors should atone for previous wrongdoings. Many have come to understand this as meaning that those who come from those lineages are, in some sense, problematic and that, therefore, proponents of wokism have the duty to silence them, to condemn them, to act as if they are a net negative to the social good, and to impose a punishment of silence to atone for the past. This has been a grave mistake. Instead of engaging in a dialogue to reach the other person’s conscience, those who bore this duty have tended to sermonize in a sanctimonious, demeaning way, which only shuts people down and turns off the parts of the brain that promote learning and development, and turns on what generates combative and defensive behavior. The typical approach in woke culture has been enormously undemocratic in spirit due to its preference to force people to adopt reasons rather than opening people up to consider them in their proper light, namely, as claims about morality that make demands on the conscience of the person, which can only be properly understood and felt through the use of his or her own faculties. Woke culture, which offers some genuine insight into the world's contemporary moral situation, failed to respect the dignity of those they wished to persuade by using coercive measures instead of appealing to their conscience. Free speech is absolutely necessary in an endeavor like this because only by upholding such a social practice will everyone’s basic dignity be respected, which is integral to people being open to changing their minds. Moral debates within society should never devolve into a contest of wills. This only undermines the foundation of a democratic community, the basic pillar being human dignity.4But although free speech bears a necessary connection to human dignity, it does not bear the same relation to truth. For free speech to bear a proper relation to truth, one where free speech produces a high probability of tracking it, those seeking out truth must have the right psychological orientation toward it; otherwise, the two easily come apart. In his recent book Nexus, Yoel Noah Harari presents a clear way of seeing this. Harari criticizes what he calls the ‘naive view of information,’ which “argues that by gathering and processing much more information than individuals can, big networks achieve a better understanding of medicine, physics, economics, and numerous other fields, which makes the network not only powerful but wise.” The notion of wisdom is key. While it’s theoretically possible that an information network can be wise (especially with the development of better AI), it will be useless unless human beings have some idea about what wisdom is. If they don’t, then they’ll have to just assume that the information being presented was properly arrived at, i.e., with the wisdom necessary for obtaining truth, which will, in effect, create a servility to the information network and not to the human faculties necessary for discerning and knowing the truth. To use a distinction made by Plato, they will have an opinion about the truth, not knowledge. To know means to understand the reasons why something is the case, not just that it is the case.Harari’s book is important because the naive view of information he presents is prevalent and is most often expressed in the marketplace of ideas metaphor. In essence, the metaphor suggests that free speech operates like a free market because, by allowing individuals to pursue and satisfy their preferences freely, the truth will somehow outcompete falsehoods. Either because people’s preferences are more deeply satisfied by truth, and/or because the beliefs people hold will only have any real value (or utility) when they are true, when they accurately represent reality. But in a marketplace, “people don’t reliably ‘buy’ truths. People buy the ideas they like. And people don’t reliably like truths better than falsehoods. What the invisible hand does, all going well, is efficiently allocate goods to people based on what they want.”5 For truth to reliably outcompete falsehoods, consumers must have a particular orientation around truth. Unless we think ideas are true based solely on their utility, which is itself not a very useful notion, more has to be said as to why consumers would desire the truth over anything else in a marketplace of ideas. Everyone has opinions they cherish and hold to be, in some way, fundamental to themselves and their identities. It is perfectly conceivable that someone will reject any truth that conflicts with these deeply valued sentiments. For a free competition of ideas to track and produce true information, consumers have to want truth to win out, and this desire should motivate the consumer’s decision-making. In other words, one must bear a special psychological orientation toward truth for the marketplace metaphor to be an appropriate model for understanding free speech as being justified for the sake of truth. Again, free speech is important for other reasons, such as human dignity. But whether free speech is justified for the sake of truth is a separate question, and until the proper stance is taken toward truth, truth-based justifications are inapplicable.The fact that the distribution of more and more information doesn’t bear a necessary connection to truth can also be gleaned from historical examples. When a technology revolutionizes human information networks, which allows for information to be shared more efficiently and in larger quantities than ever before, the society that implements it does not therefore obtain a higher fidelity to truth. The opposite is equally plausible. This is the problem facing social media. If truth-based justifications are an appropriate way to justify free speech practices on such platforms, social media must create an environment that promotes the proper psychological orientation toward truth. What matters is whether they can care for the truth rather than adopt a stance that promotes what the philosopher Harry Frankfurt called bullsh*t, which means to be indifferent toward truth. Before explaining this further, let’s look at a historical example that demonstrates the following: First, as new technology arrives and transforms information networks, the information that is consequently distributed can equally promote both what is true and what is not; and second, and more philosophically, the technology can also reorient a society’s relationship to truth, which in turn affects how the society arrives at knowledge.Section 2:Take the invention of the Gutenberg printing press in 1440. Before its inception, the Catholic Church made Western Europe effectively an echo chamber. They dominated the information networks by controlling what could be printed, distributed, and accredited as knowledge. The vast majority of the population couldn’t read, and only a select few could read the Holy writings, which contained information that was considered the highest truth attainable by human beings. Only a select few were blessed enough to be able to handle this sort of information. Because all other information flowed from this central institution, everyone else depended on the Church for what to believe. The reality of that situation, and what it must have felt like to be in such a dependent position, can begin to be imagined by considering the following: “In the thirteenth century the library of Oxford University consisted of a few books kept in a chest under St. Mary’s Church. In 1424 the library of Cambridge University boasted a grand total of only 122 books. An Oxford University decree from 1409 stipulated that ‘all recent texts’ studied at the university must be unanimously approved ‘by a panel of twelve theologians appointed by the archbishop.’”6 When the quantity of information is this low, and in the context of the Catholic Church, is also greatly limited in diversity, it’s difficult even to imagine anything outside the worldview that is being imposed.Now, alongside the Church’s control of information networks, the production efficiency of copyists and scribes who had to manufacture the books was dismally low. It exponentially grew when the printing press automated the work. The historian Sir John Harold Clapham wrote, “A man born in 1453, the year of the fall of Constantinople, could look back from his fiftieth year on a lifetime in which about eight million books had been printed, more perhaps than all the scribes of Europe had produced since Constantine founded his city in A.D. 330.”7 The restriction on information and people’s inability to consider anything outside of the prevailing tradition, as well as the technological and productive inefficiency of the time, left most people in darkness, with no way out other than by following the dim, consoling light cast by the Church. The printing press changed all of this. “It revolutionized the world,” as the philosopher Francis Bacon said.The printing press gave people the autonomy to print and distribute ideas that the Church didn’t authorize and thereby provided the platform necessary for the Reformation to take hold, which started with Martin Luther in the early sixteenth century. There were previous attempts at reform, but the printing press made a momentous difference. The concurrence of the printing press and the Reformation revealed the corrosive corruption within the Catholic Church. People were finely able to learn about the degenerate tendencies within the institution, which the Church was previously able to stifle because it controlled the information networks. The buying and selling of Church positions and indulgences that allowed people to pay their way out of purgatory, political intrigue, nepotism, bribery, and immoral consolidation of wealth through taxes was disclosed as a consequence of the printing press. The notion that the Church was the medium by which people moved toward God’s grace collapsed, and people saw that “it had become a means of securing worldly prestige, power, and wealth for those who were clever and ruthless enough to bend it to their will.”8But this historical occurrence also unleashed a flurry of misinformation. The religious wars that followed the Reformation were devastating, and millions of people died, an exceptional case being the Thirty Years War (1618-48). The dissemination of Luther’s 95 theses regarding the corruption of the Church spread like wildfire across Europe after he posted them in 1516 on the Church Castle in Wittenberg, Germany, which the printing press made possible. It would only make sense, then, that the Church would follow suit and take advantage of the technology to combat what it held to be heresy and to reinstate its power as the dominant influence in the West (for an amalgam of reasons, of course.) All sides involved in these religious disputes didn’t merely use the printing press to disseminate accurate information. They used it to spread misinformation to satisfy their political interests, intensifying the ensuing wars and battles between the various emerging religious sects and the rising monarchies.This demonstrates the first point: the printing press, which was a revolution in human information networks, produced both true and false information. There was no causal, historical determinacy one way or the other. While it disclosed truths about Church corruption, it was also used as a means to spread political propaganda that fueled the religious wars.Now, as for the second, more philosophical point, the Reformation also reoriented people’s relation to truth by democratizing matters of faith. Whether one believes the Reformation was, in this respect, an overall good or not, from a liberal democratic point of view, it has to be considered good. The Reformation placed faith into the hands of the individual conscience, rendering considerations about one’s standing in relation to God to have a personal, rather than institutional, significance. Before, “the Church was the keeper and protector of Christian truths and the harbor of salvation for those at sea in sin.”9 Luther rejected this picture of salvation and believed one could be saved through faith and scripture alone, without an intermediary. Luther thought that one’s spiritual significance did not depend on authority. He didn’t see the Church as some emanation from God or a reflection of a Divine order that the individual participated in and was guided by to reach salvation. Individuals are solely responsible for their spiritual significance and capacity to reach a higher truth in God. In one of his more heroic acts, he translated the bible into vernacular German from the traditional Latin (which was considered the holy language, the only one appropriate for capturing religious truths). He gave common people access to what was previously sealed off from them. The individual, free from external imposition and constraint, can privately attain truth on his or her own.Luther formulated a radical inner freedom that broke with some of the Church’s fundamental precepts. There was, of course, an inner freedom already present in Catholicism, but Luther placed it at the center of things rather than as revolving around an institution. Before Luther, St. Augustine went to great lengths to demonstrate the spiritual significance of an inner life, and Luther was an Augustinian monk. But Luther went much further than him. In one of his lectures on YouTube, the philosopher Michael Sugrue observes that this amounted to a kind of Copernican Revolution in religion. That is to say that, rather than the Church being the axis by which things revolve around and where one finds his or her salvation, rather than identifying with an institution by which one finds freedom within a corporate body in which lies their place amongst others in a perfectly ordered, hierarchical, and harmonious cosmos, the individual became the center axis of spiritual and religious matters. It’s easy to see, then, how this theological idea possesses the potential to develop into the idea of individual rights and liberties. Luther provided a kind of autonomy10 for the individual, where whether one is saved is bound up with one’s inner conscience and not with external works or good deeds that the Church facilitates. The individual is an irreducible unit of value that is not subsumed by any other worldly object. And the individual's value rests in their conscience and capacity to receive God’s grace. This idea has sparks of the modern sense of human dignity, and it will create a conflagration throughout Europe as it develops. If there is no Church or institution to settle one’s moral, spiritual, and intellectual significance, one is left to use one’s faculties for guidance. And because it is one’s faculties that attain truth and spiritual salvation, they are the center of value in human life, which bears a natural right for protection.At the Diet of Worms in 1521, where Luther had to answer to charges of heresy because of his theological work, the Church demanded that he recant. He refused. But the reasons for his refusal are the most important. He demanded that the Church show him through scripture and reason alone that he was wrong and not through the dictates of authority. His protest demonstrated that the individual can reach the truth through his or her own means. The Church’s decline began far before this historical moment, but Luther made the decisive blow that the printing press made possible. The Church fragmented as a consequence, which, to Catholics, meant truth itself was fragmented and resulted in a proliferation of denominations scattered across Europe.Section 3:What was so subversive about Luther in this respect is that he divorced sanctification, the process by which one lives in the image of Christ, i.e., a life of virtue, from self-transformation. Although Luther carved out the individual as an irreducible unit of value, this also severed the individual from a stable and definite path that assuaged one’s existential suffering: “The Church… assured the individual of her unconditional love to all her children and offered a way to acquire the conviction of being forgiven and loved by God. The relationship to God was more one of confidence and love than of doubt and fear.”11 Luther believed that one was saved through faith alone and by no other means. He thought that because human beings are all sinners, their wills cannot do anything to reach salvation and spiritual peace. How, then, can one tell if they have been saved? There is no longer an authority to adjudicate this. The individual can discover the truth for themself and so must determine what this means on their own. Several centuries later, Kant gave voice to the duty he believed to arise from this new freedom:Thus, it is difficult for any individual man to work himself out of the immaturity that has all but become his nature. He has even become fond of this state and for the time being is actually incapable of using his own understanding, for no one has ever allowed him to attempt it. Rules and formulas, those mechanical aids to the rational use, or rather misuse, of his natural gifts, are the shackles of a permanent immaturity. Whoever threw them off would still make only an uncertain leap over the smallest ditch, since he is unaccustomed to this kind of free movement. Consequently, only a few have succeeded, by cultivating their own minds, in freeing themselves from immaturity and pursuing a secure course.So, while much was gained during the Reformation, the reorientation around truth also had consequences. Self-transformation, the effort of will, the idea of having an inner and outer journey that culminates into something larger and more significant, took on radically different meanings under Luther and the future Protestant countries. To see this, we can turn to Dante’s Divine Comedy, which demonstrates part of what was lost under Luther.Section 4:In Dante’s Divine Comedy, the culmination of the Medieval worldview before Luther, Dante embarks on a Christian pilgrimage that ends in his being saved. Just as with the above, it’s crucial to understand that the point here will not be exclusively religious but universal in the sense that religion, as manifested across all cultures, didn’t create this experience but was the medium by which it has been expressed and made sense of; it provides it a voice. This goes back to William James and his book The Varieties of Religious Experience. There is the private aspect of religious experience, and then there is the institutional component within which the private side takes shape. Buddhists practice meditation and strive to contemplate Nirvana; the Christian prays and goes to mass; the Stoics distance themselves from their inaccurate emotional representations and contemplate what is rational and in his or her control; and so forth. As James points out, what is fundamental to all religious experience, in the private sense, are two aspects: there is an uneasiness, which, “reduced to its simplest terms, is a sense that there is something wrong about us as we naturally stand;” and two, a solution, which “is a sense that we are saved from the wrongness by making proper connection with the higher powers (508).” The first aspect means the self is in conflict, is divided, and desires unification. In religious language, the self seeks salvation and an experience of being saved from their situation, which is characterized by suffering due to inner division and conflict. This can take on an existential mode, as with Leo Tolstoy in his book Confessions, or it can be highly moral. In Tolstoy’s book Confessions, he relates a story of a traveler being chased by a beast that imaginatively captures the relevant phenomena:Seeking to save himself from the fierce animal, the traveler jumps into a well with no water in it; but at the bottom of this well he sees a dragon waiting with open mouth to devour him. And the unhappy man, not daring to go out lest he should be the prey of the beast, not daring to jump to the bottom lest he should be devoured by the dragon, clings to the branches of a wild bush which grows out of one of the cracks of the well. His hands weaken, and he feels that he must soon give way to certain fate; but still he clings, and sees two mice, one white, the other black, evenly moving round the bush to which he hangs, and gnawing off its roots. The traveler sees this and knows that he must inevitably perish; but while thus hanging he looks about him and finds on the leaves of the bush some drops of honey. These he reaches with his tongue and licks them off with rapture. Thus I hang upon the boughs of life, knowing that the inevitable dragon of death is waiting ready to tear me, and I cannot comprehend why I am thus made a martyr. I try to suck the honey which formerly consoled me; but the honey pleases me no longer, and day and night the white mouse and the black mouse gnaw the branch to which I cling. I can see but one thing: the inevitable dragon and the mice—I cannot turn my gaze away from them.”12Clearly, Tolstoy is suffering from a serious existential episode in which he can’t find a purpose or meaning in life that will clear away his anxiety, which is represented in the dragon, which time, represented in the mice, slowly draws him near. This is his “uneasiness.” He must find a solution, then, because his situation is unlivable.Religion has historically addressed this need. In the Middle Ages, the Church was the institution through which people expressed this experience and resolved their inner conflicts, tensions, and divisions. Let’s turn to Dante’s Divine Comedy to see how the private aspect of this experience is made sense of through Christain’s notion of the pilgrimage.The poem begins with Dante suddenly becoming aware of himself, “Midway upon life’s journey,” as he says, and terrified by the fact that he’s lost in a dark world, having “gone astray,” and is in despair because he has begun to lose all hope for himself. “We know nothing of how Dante has gone astray, only that he has, and that he must undertake a journey, therefore, to save his soul.”13 He is, like Tolstoy, experiencing an “uneasiness” (though in more of a moral rather than existential sense; God is always present for Dante.) So, he has discovered that he has been living wrongly, that he’d strayed from the right path, from the way, and despite his attempts to free himself of his sins and burdens, he’s unable to do it alone. Although it’s unclear why Dante has lost his way, “the journey itself is clearer. It will take him through the entire Christian spiritual universe.”14The Roman poet Virgil is sent to initiate and lead him on this path forward. Virgil represents all of Classical learning, from the Greeks to the Romans. Though they were pagans, they represent the highest one can do as a non-Christian, which is to reach, as Aristotle said, the contemplative life15, where one can reflect on the Whole, on the cosmos. But because they didn’t have faith, they could never experience a fullness of being or completeness that produces the solution to the uneasiness that James discussed. According to Christian doctrine, only Christians may experience this. Thus, they had to remain in Hell.Now, for Dante to move down through Hell, climb up Purgatory, and then transcend into Heaven, he must engage with the Classical world by wrestling with the questions they set out to answer, which is an immensely difficult aim to take on; one that will transform the self as it moves through an activity and process of the soul, intellect, mind, or whatever it is that is the center in which human development toward the Good, as Plato would say, takes place. What’s fascinating about this ascent is that, in the Medieval worldview, it wasn’t merely an internal endeavor; it also bore a deep and profound relationship to the external world. By embarking on the Christian pilgrimage, one was, in a sense, becoming closer and closer to reality, to truth, to what is most real, which corresponded with a transformation of the self that is accompanied by an experience of fulfillment. As one ascends, one climbs what was called the Great Chain of Being, a metaphysical (ontological) thesis that was first articulated by Aristotle, which was adopted by, and adapted to, Christian thought in the thirteenth century.The Chain of Being introduces a vertical aspect to reality rather than merely a horizontal one. At the top is the highest Truth, and the lowest is the least real, i.e., the lowest level of being, which consists of matter and material objects, whereas the highest consists of what is immaterial, like consciousness or mind. And so everything and everyone grows increasingly heavier as Dante moves downward through Hell due to being weighed down by an attachment to the material, earthly substance, which produces a growing despair and lack of fulfillment. As Dante moves upward from Purgatory to Heaven, things become lighter and immaterial in proportion to how much something embodies the spiritual, divine substance, which is achieved through directing one’s desire toward the right objects, toward what is more real and true. In Plato’s allegory of the cave, as one breaks free from the chains and shadows at the bottom and climbs toward the exit where the sun can be seen, one also gains more and more insight into reality as things are illuminated more clearly through the light. Like Purgatory, the ascent up the cave is profound and challenging. But the initial insight of seeing into reality, which reveals that what was previously experienced was illusory, produces the desire to see even further into what now appears absolute and true. This desire pulls and aims Dante upward as he climbs higher toward reality and up the Great Chain of Being. The economist and philosopher E.F. Schumacher16 put the significance of this view as follows:The ability to see the Great Truth of the hierarchic structure of the world, which makes it possible to distinguish between higher and lower Levels of Being, is one of the indispensable conditions of understanding. Without it, it is not possible to find out where everything has its proper and legitimate place. Everything, everywhere, can be understood only when its Level of Being is fully taken into account. Many things are true at a low Level of Being and become absurd at a higher level, and of course vice versa.Dante’s pilgrimage, then, aims toward attaining a higher level of being than when he found himself lost in the forest. By turning inward, by engaging in a contemplative mode of being that engages the self in pursuit of an inner harmony that resonates with an external, hierarchic order, Dante is striving to attain a kind of freedom that is somewhat alien to us today. We can think of the notion of freedom in a negative and a positive sense. In the negative sense, freedom is understood as freedom from something; from external constraint, for example. The First Amendment is typically interpreted along these lines. Everyone is free to speak their minds because the state should not be allowed to interfere with our freedom to do so. All are free to do as they please as long as they do not infringe on another person’s right to do so.The positive sense is much different. It is a freedom for something. In Dante’s Hell, everyone found themselves there because they (at minimum) acted free purely in the negative sense. They lived their lives as they saw fit, without regard to any higher form of life. They didn’t act for the sake of a virtuous purpose (although that’s not quite right regarding the virtuous pagans and a few others.) To be free in the positive sense means to act according to a higher aim. When Socrates refused to renounce the philosophical life and was put to death, he made that decision based on a principle grounded in his inner conscience, which he took to express something sacred and higher, which always spoke to him when he was about to do wrong. He accepted the death penalty because the unexamined life wasn’t worth living; it had no purpose toward a higher aim17. 17Dante’s Divine Comedy provides a narrative by which the uneasiness one experiences in life, as articulated by James, can reach a solution and resolve the inner conflict and division by providing a framework by which the individual moves closer to reality, to what is most real, and up the Chain of Being.Section 5:Now, the pilgrimage captured in Dante’s poem was not something anyone could take up, at least not in its full dramatic content; it was obviously something only a select few could embark on, and this depended on the situation one was born into, like whether one was wealthy enough to receive an education. One’s salvation in the social order was rarely epic or heroic in nature; it typically meant following the structure imposed upon the individual by the Church. Just as how the cosmos was hierarchically ordered, so was society. The reasons for the social order were Divinely decreed. The social structure was immovable in a way because shifting the social order and rearranging it would violate scripture and God’s Word. Hence people were, as we would judge today, unfree and restricted. However, as psychologist Erick Fromm writes, “although a person was not free in the modem sense, neither was he alone and isolated. In having a distinct, unchangeable, and unquestionable place in the social world from the moment of birth, man was rooted in a structuralized whole, and thus life had a meaning which left no place, and no need, for doubt. A person was identical with his role in society; he was a peasant, an artisan, a knight, and not an individual who happened to have this or that occupation. The social order was conceived as a natural order, and being a definite part of it gave a feeling of security and of belonging.”18 Luther’s devastating blow against the Church in the Reformation rejected the social order and the Chain of Being and set in motion the release of the individual from the bondage they were restrained in. But by freeing the individual, he also eliminated the necessary self-transformation that played a substantial role in the Medieval worldview. Luther democratized salvation, spirituality, and questions about meaning in one’s life.This Copernican revolution in religious matters allowed for a radical reorientation toward truth, which relied on the printing press's efficiency in producing and distributing information.There were, of course, other factors that contributed to the Catholic Church's decline. The literal Copernican revolution and the rise of science being an obvious example. But what became increasingly less present in the scientific worldview that was emerging then is the idea that, as one gains knowledge of the world, one also goes through a transformative experience like Dante’s. The notion that knowledge of truth and reality converges with a meaningful and spiritual ethical development has mostly fallen off. Science’s aim is pure objectivity. For much of history, what is ‘objective’ is also intrinsically beneficial to the subject coming into contact with it. Values in scientific judgment and knowledge are a transgression, a violation of scientific precept, and are opposed to the whole epistemic enterprise (meaning a method by which knowledge is gained.) Science does not care about how one feels, what one desires in life, or what meaning one may find in it and simply presents facts as a body of indifferent and empirically verified knowledge.This is, of course, a caricature, as Thomas Kuhn19 argued in the twentieth century. Scientists certainly value their theories and are not merely attempting to refute them through experimentation. Theories allow scientists to have a grip on the world and a language of concepts that can be used to describe it accurately. This conceptual framework gives the world a theoretically intelligible and discernible order. And so once the anomalies and unsolved problems in a scientific paradigm grow serious enough, those working within it enter into a crisis until a new paradigm emerges (as is what happened when moving from Newtonian mechanics to Eistenin’s relativity.) Still, moving from one paradigm to the next isn’t believed to be an ethical progression. It’s a movement from one framework to the next. Unlike the Medieval worldview, it is generally held that science says nothing about human values and how one ought to live. Being a scientist does not suggest that someone is wise like a Socrates or Plato.Unlike the Church in the Middle Ages, which, in terms of knowledge, played a similar role to science today, science is not an institution that is in the business of handing out ethical and moral guidance. A scientist would likely balk (or should balk) at the idea of being viewed as someone who has gone through an ethical self-transformation to gain the knowledge that he or she has solely because of becoming a scientist. Being one of course requires an enormous amount of discipline, effort, and intelligence, which is, in a way, transformative, but in a different sense than what Dante embarked on. Today, knowledge of truth and reality does not necessarily correspond with an ethical progression.This idea of not requiring ethical self-transformation to gain the highest forms of knowledge is most noticeable in Rene Descartes’ philosophy in the seventeenth century. Descartes set out to rebuild a foundation through which knowledge could be rebuilt from the ruins left by the Church’s decline.20 The Church had lost its viability as something that could be believed to provide reliable knowledge for the social body. It was no longer psychologically obvious that the Church was the principal source and authority of appeal when dealing with matters of truth. Referring to scripture, for instance, could no longer be done by relying on what the Papacy had interpreted it as meaning. Luther (and others) undermined this immediacy for many. The United States faces a similar situation today. There is a diminishing trust in the democratic institutions that have historically served as distributors of trustworthy knowledge. Descartes attempted to deal with a similar crisis by discovering foundations immune from doubt. And he believed himself to have discovered such a foundation through his Cogito: I think, therefore I am. I can doubt all of my mental representations of the world, such as those of tables and chairs and coffee mugs, as well as my particular thoughts and feelings, and even the existence of my own body and sense experience. For all I know, I may be dreaming or being deceived by an evil demon into believing all kinds of imaginary and false representations of things. I can’t affirm or deny this with any certainty. But I cannot doubt that I am doubting; that much is certain. And since doubting is a property of thinking, I can’t doubt that I am thinking.Therefore, I am a thinking thing, an immaterial substance that is distinct from the physical bodies liable to doubt21. This is the most fundamental truth that not even reason could call into question. It’s radically different from truth as understood on the Chain of Being model. There is no ethical transformation involved in realizing this indubitable proposition. It’s self-evident to anyone rational and clear-minded (or so Descartes thinks.) And this is certainly how many people today think of knowledge. And in some cases, quite rightly. Take human rights as an example. John Locke22, a momentous figure who shaped the language of rights and how modernity thinks about them, argued that human rights are self-evident in the same sense as a geometric axiom. It just appears before the mind as something incapable of being doubted (to a clear, rational mind, of course, who has done the proper thinking, like someone who has rightly apprehended a geometric axiom.) The US’s founding document memorializes Locke’s claim: “We hold these truths to be self-evident.” The deepest, most profound truths about humanity are ‘obvious’ to any rational mind. This is, of course, a good thing. It is good that people intuitively find one another intrinsically and irreducibly valuable. But when this notion is taken for granted, when, as we’ll soon see with John Stuart Mill, an idea grows ossified, fixed, and dogmatic, it loses its potency and desired effect. But if one arrives at the idea of human rights through a transformative process, where one realizes the concept through a process of development and growth that culminates in seeing the profound value within a conscious human being, the notion of rights is animating and action-producing; it stirs and moves the motivation of those who go through this process. In other words, it produces a particular psychological orientation around what is believed to be true.Section 6:So, information technologies do not merely distribute previously unavailable information that is then propagated across a network. Nor does the production of such information bear a natural, necessary connection to truth. They can do both, but much more is at play. The printing press allowed for the conditions necessary for the Reformation to occur, and its occurrence produced a radical shift in the Medieval worldview. Truth was hierarchically organized, and those at the top had exclusive access. The Reformation leveled this structure and diffused the notion that all Christians are equal regarding Divine knowledge. There was no need for an authoritative intermediary to facilitate people’s relation to God. People could do it themselves through faith and scripture alone. But this also meant that all the social practices instituted for the purposes of coming into contact with truth, all the rituals and rites used to reinforce the beliefs of when and how truth manifests itself, slowly went with it. Therefore, people’s orientation around truth, how they conceived of it, where it resided, and how one knew it, was disrupted. People weren’t merely given previously unavailable information; the entire information landscape was turned upside down. This can reveal new terrain within the landscape that can lead to deep and valuable truths, such as human rights and liberties, and it can also conceal older, previously established truths, like the notion of transformative experiences being necessary for coming into closer contact with reality.Similarly to the printing press, social media poses a historical parallel. We can see this by looking at the most famous defense of free speech for the sake of truth, namely, John Stuart Mill’s essay On Liberty. We’ll see that, like how the printing press reoriented people’s relation to truth, social media is doing so by increasingly shifting how we conceive of, participate in, and come to know the truth. As a social practice, it’s shifting the culture toward different ways of arriving at truth. It's difficult to say whether it is categorically good or bad. But the focus here will be on what would certainly be a momentous loss in our social practices regarding truth, namely, a departure from Enlightenment values.There is a developing tendency to determine the truth through sheer will rather than discussion and a dwindling desire to correct this error. People seem to care less about deliberation, compromise, tolerance, and the general agreement that the goal is to come to an inclusive decision that is in the best interests of people who share a basic respect for each other’s dignity. All political orientations have growing factions that believe the content of other’s beliefs determines how they should be viewed and treated. Rather than work toward building a community that is able to cooperate with one another and agree on a uniting set of values, the cultural attitude is moving toward a competition between wills for power. But it’s not only behaviorally motivated by power; there is also the belief that all effort by a group toward an ideal is entirely reducible to power. That very well may be true. But if it is, democracy is in a precarious position. So, if we value democracy, we should steer back toward the proper path. For Mill’s account to work, which is crucial if we wish to justify free speech for the sake of truth in Enlightenment, democratic terms23, social media should not be viewed as a truth-seeking information network24. Mill believed free speech is necessary for human flourishing in a democratic society. If it’s the people who are going to be involved in the deliberative processes of society and be the ones choosing what is best, then the people must be able to discuss and exchange ideas, opinions, and beliefs freely. However, just like how the Medieval view operated within a certain orientation around truth, which provided a framework through which truth could be arrived at, so it is with democracy. And like the printing press, social media has placed enormous tension on our democratic orientation. So, if we desire to maintain democratic values derived from the Enlightenment, then we have to take a certain stance toward social media, one that eschews the expectation that truth is situated within its environments, where we expect to discuss, debate, hash things out, and arrive at truth.Now, On Liberty offers two sets of reasons supporting free speech, the first being epistemic, meaning that the benefits have to do with knowledge, while the other set is psychologically beneficial. The first set argues that free speech is an overall good for society because if what someone says is true or partially true, both possibilities benefit a democracy. If what is said is true, it will benefit because it professes a truth that will add to the preexisting stock of knowledge. If partially true, this also contributes to preexisting knowledge; “and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied.” The second psychological set of benefits is primarily derived from the utterance of false beliefs, which have no direct epistemic benefit because they do not contribute any knowledge to form beliefs around. If what is said is wholly false, the opportunity to defend and contest it will also be an overall good because it will demand that the bearers of that knowledge account for the reasons for its truth. Mill expresses this well: “Unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds.” This then produces a further psychological benefit. By remaining a prejudice and not as something rationally grasped, “the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost or enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect on the character and conduct; the dogma becoming a mere formal profession, inefficacious for good, but cumbering the ground and preventing the growth of any real and heartfelt conviction from reason or personal experience.” Therefore, contesting what is true will keep beliefs from devolving into prejudice or dogma.Section 7:The first thing to observe about Mill’s reasons for free speech is that the first set of epistemic reasons really depends on the second set (the psychological ones). But it’s peculiar to speak of the latter as ‘benefits’ because of this. It’s more accurate to say that a certain psychological orientation must give rise to them. We can think of this as a kind of feedback loop that produces the benefits Mill is speaking of. One must have the proper psychological orientation toward truth to break into this loop. That is to say that the members within a society must hold a psychological orientation toward truth that allows for the free expression of true, partially true, and false beliefs to be a net good, i.e., to bring about the best possible consequences within a democratic community. With the psychological reasons offered for free speech, notice that the benefit is derived from the speakers and listeners within the community being open to receiving true, partially true, or false utterances. The beliefs they hold must be perpetually open to revision because they may or may not be in possession of the actual true ones; they understand that their knowledge is an ongoing process, something that is constantly unfolding, and so hold a particular stance toward the free expression of beliefs.They would understand that, even in the best instances of human knowledge, the most stable kind (like knowledge of physics), it is still susceptible to be overturned by future evidence, as was the case with Newtonian mechanics and Einsteinian relativity. That is not to say truth is therefore unattainable, but only that there should be a fair degree of epistemic humility within a democratic, truth-seeking community, given that our best knowledge often falls far short of absolute certainty. As the psychological reasons specify, if the people within the community hold their beliefs as prejudices or dogmas that are fixed and unchangeable, they will be unreceptive to being challenged. So whatever anyone utters, whether true, false, or in between, it won’t provide the benefits Mill intended. There must be a certain psychological orientation toward truth for Mill’s argument to succeed.Let’s now specify what this orientation should look like and see how it’s vital in upholding free speech arguments for the sake of truth. There are three components to this orientation: (i) certain beliefs, (ii) certain desires, and (iii) certain attitudes born out of (i) and (ii). (i) consists of two beliefs. The first belief is that truth exists, and the second is that it is, in principle, knowable. (ii) consists of two desires as well. The first desire is to attain human flourishing, and the second is that truth is constitutive of this aim. Given that there is truth, one must also have the desire to attain it. But this is also a special kind of desire; it’s a desire that fulfills what must be viewed as a higher need, one that is constitutive of human flourishing or happiness. We can call this a fulfillment need. This means that we desire truth because it occupies a natural place in the space of human good. We will lack something fundamental to our flourishing if we don’t have contact with truth; we therefore both desire it and have a powerful motivation to attain it because we desire to flourish. Fulfillment needs should be understood as part of what constitutes this principal end in life that characterizes human excellence.For those who know Greek philosophy, this will sound familiar. As Aristotle says in his Ethics, all things aim at some final good. Achieving this good means for something to actualize its potential and attain excellence. The final aim of human beings is to flourish, or, in Greek, to attain eudaimonia, and to attain this means to achieve human excellence. Excellence, says Aristotle, means to fulfill the particular function assigned to a thing's nature. An eye’s function is to see, a car’s function is to drive, while the seed’s function is to grow into a plant. Human beings’ nature is to be rational, to optimize their cognition, to reduce error, and to reach the truth. Again, since the ultimate aim is to flourish, and because seeking truth is constitutive of that goal, we desire to know the truth as a fulfillment need, which helps satisfy the principal good in human life. Now, while Aristotle’s claim about human nature is of course disputable, if Mill’s argument for free speech is to work, and it’s important that it does, Aristotle’s account of human beings, or something resembling it, must be held within a democratic community.That being said, there’s a deep plausibility to the notion that humans have a fundamental need to be in contact with the truth, and presuming rationality is necessary for this, Aristotle may very well be right. In his lecture series Awakening From The Meaning Crisis, John Vervaeke offers a powerful example to illustrate this. Imagine your parents one day asking you to follow them into a hidden room you had never seen before inside your house on your eighteenth birthday. When you enter, you see a wall of monitors showing old footage of you throughout your life. Your parents then turn to you and say that your entire life has been an FBI experiment; everything has been manufactured. The love you thought to be sincere and nourishing, all the support you’ve received throughout the years, the holidays you have come to cherish, and the memories and feelings you’ve come to have are, in the most profound sense, fake. None of it was real. Your parents then tell you that you have two options. You can either act as if this incident had never happened and move on as usual, or you can move out and move on with your life. What’s the desirable option? Most of us would choose the latter. Why? Because none of what was thought to be real turned out to be true. It was all fabricated, illusory, and bore no substantive relation to reality. For the majority of us (although hopefully everyone), there is no going back to the way things previously were. The truth makes a fundamental difference in the decision-making between the two options. By discovering that our life is untrue, we feel a deep absence, a lack of fulfillment, an incompleteness on account of what we’ve learned about ourselves. An essential aspect of the decision to move on, then, is a deep motivation to discover what is in fact true. It’s like Dante when he discovers himself lost in the dark forest. We’ve been led astray, and now we desire to find the right path, which is the one that converges with truth, with what is most real. This is what happens to Jim Carrey in The Truman Show when he decides to leave that disturbing, manufactured simulation dome he was raised in. He could have stayed, but he was psychologically unable to. By obtaining this new self-knowledge, he would have never achieved eudaimonia. He would have remained stuck in life because he would have been bullsh*tting himself (again, I mean this in a technical sense and not simply as an explicative, which will be explained below.)This brings us to (iii), which is to bear a particular attitude toward truth provided (i) and (ii). The proper attitude toward truth is one of care. To care for the truth means to know how to reliably arrive at it, which means utilizing the relevant cognitive processes in forming true beliefs. Recall the quote at the beginning of the article from John Milton, which expressed that it is a heresy to arrive at a belief in the wrong way, namely, by not properly using one’s own reason. It matters, then, how we form our beliefs, and what matters is which cognitive processes are used to get there. For ease of presentation, we can use the psychologist Daniel Kahneman’s formulation of these cognitive processes from his book Thinking, Fast and Slow. Kahneman lays out two cognitive systems, System 1 and System 2. “System 1 operates automatically and quickly, with little or no effort and no sense of voluntary control.” Whereas “System 2 allocates attention to the effortful mental activities that demand it, including complex computations. The operations of System 2 are often associated with the subjective experience of agency, choice, and concentration (p. 21).” To see the difference, take the two following examples of arithmetic: “2 + 2 = ?” We have an immediate cognitive reflex to such an equation, and little to no effort is required. Filling in the answer resulted from System 1. “17 x 24 =?” Now this equation typically demands more effort. A reasoning process is engaged to determine the answer that requires concentrated effort and isn’t reflexively provided. Such a process is supplied by System 2. For another example, say someone is hiking and spots a tree in the distance. If such a person cares nothing for botany, then the object will have a great deal of transparency, and the person will carry on about their day. Such a process would be within System 1. But if the person is a trained botanist and has never seen this kind of tree before (say they’re in a foreign country), they may begin to observe it, inspect it, and direct their effort toward retrieving the relevant information that may help identify the tree. That person has engaged System 2.Caring for the truth means knowing how to optimize these two systems so that System 1 and System 2 are in a recurring dialogue with one another, with the aim to arrive at the truth. Now, there are at least two aspects to this idea of care. The first can be classed as having to do with general skills in critical thinking, which primarily consists of analysis. Examples are things like working out one’s cognitive biases and reducing error. In essence, being successful in this regard means being able to reason well and work through problems rationally. Take a case of confirmation bias, for example. Imagine a republican voter who believes certain conspiracy theories about the democratic party and who is watching a presidential debate and hears the Republican candidate make an assertion attributing misconduct to the Democratic candidate. Because the assertion confirms the prior beliefs of the voter who is watching, it will be easy for that person to immediately agree with what was said. Engaging System 2 is effortful and costly in mental energy, and so it is easier, as well as cognitively more pleasurable, to passively (probably unconsciously) consent to System 1’s impulse, which presents the Republican candidate’s statement as attractive and belief-worthy. If this person cares for the truth, however, he or she would engage System 2 upon receiving what System 1 has provided with the aim of verifying whether the assertion accurately represents or corresponds to reality. Perhaps the person reasons through the assertion. If the candidate said something like, "Inflation has skyrocketed due to the current administration, which she’s a part of,” the voter watching may reason that, while it’s true inflation has risen, her position in the administration bears little to no significance on that outcome; therefore, the assertion is misinformed. Or perhaps the voter doesn’t understand government structure very well and does research, visits several sources, and concludes based on the information that the assertion is misinformed and implies an invalid conclusion. Whatever the route taken, the voter is presented with the potential to make a cognitive error through System 1, and because he or she cares for the truth, System 2 is utilized to solve the task presented.Competence in this aspect of care, which means to be a competent critical thinker, consists of knowing how to obtain propositional knowledge, which is knowledge that accurately represents reality. One has the tools and skills to work through assertions, analyze arguments, and appropriately form beliefs according to the evidence. One can situationally respond by engaging System 2 when one detects that System 1 is presented with information expressing propositions about the world. Someone who has mastered these skills has developed dispositions that engage the relevant cognitive behavior under the relevant conditions. In other words, such a person knows how to instinctively and properly respond to the appropriate cognitive stimuli.25The second aspect of caring for truth is deeper than this and, like Dante’s journey, more transformative. Caring for truth in this sense means optimizing System 1 and System 2 by using them to shape one’s conception of the good. What reason, for example, would this argument, rather than another one, be more relevant to someone competent in critical thinking? Why care about what this person has to say rather than that one? Answers to these questions will suggest the underlying conception of the good that is assumed when one finds one set of information more salient. In other words, the second aspect of caring for truth means understanding one’s conception of eudaimonia, or flourishing, which is one’s final aim and idea of human excellence. Critical thinking in the propositional sense is a highly valuable set of skills that is fundamental to the whole project of pursuing truth. But what it consists of does not provide a final criteria to judge what one should believe about human flourishing and what it amounts to. It plays a vital role in articulating and grasping this goal but won’t deliver it. In other words, critical thinking is a powerful tool in reaching one’s goals, but it itself cannot bestow the goals themselves. This requires the second aspect of caring for truth, which means optimizing System 1 and System 2 to become aware of what final end is guiding their operation. Regardless of how much one engages in critical thinking, irrespective of one’s mastery of logic and reasoning, if one never utilizes these skills toward understanding what provides the salience of one set of information over another, they may never satisfy their fulfillment need for truth.Tolstoy’s book, The Death of Ivan Illych, illustrates this. In the story the Russian protagonist, Ivan Illych, lives his life in pursuit of what is pleasant. He shuns the annoyances and discomforts that arise in life and views them, in a way, as unnatural, as occurrences that disrupt how life should be. His goal in life is to maximize pleasure and avoid pain and suffering. He’s not, however, a Don Quixote or an extreme hedonist; he’s not trying to experience all the possible pleasures one may have. He wants to live a successful and acceptable life that commands the esteem of his colleagues, makes his family happy, comfortable, and at ease, and allows him to pass through life with as few disturbances as possible. He holds a very familiar and common conception of the good.And Ivan does in fact find this success. He rises to be a great and respectable judge in Russia. He’s highly competent, makes a substantial living, and can buy and provide his family with whatever he pleases. Yet he finds himself running into the disturbances he’s always tried to avoid. He’s constantly fighting with his wife:There remained only rare periods of amorousness that came over the spouses, but they did not last long. These were islands that they would land on temporarily, but then they would put out again to the sea of concealed enmity that expressed itself in estrangement from each other. This estrangement might have upset Ivan Ilyich, if he had considered that it ought not to be so, but by now he took this situation not only as normal, but as the goal of his activity in the family. His goal consisted in freeing himself more and more from these unpleasantnesses and in giving them a character of harmlessness and decency; and he achieved it by spending less and less time with his family, and when he was forced to do so, he tried to secure his position by the presence of outsiders.He’s experiencing the “uneasiness” formulated by William James above. His solution is not to reflect on his final end in life, his conception of the good, his idea of human flourishing and excellence, but to find other means to attain it, which is to turn away from what he’s representing as unnatural and frustrating. He’s not deficient in critical thinking; he’s a highly competent and successful judge. He lacks the wisdom and self-knowledge necessary for reflecting on and evaluating what makes some things and not others salient for him, which is his goal in life to live pleasantly. There’s a reason why he finds spending less time with his family a more obvious solution than trying to get at the root of why it is he feels so frustrated and annoyed at the fact that he’s not feeling fulfilled despite his success; and he’s not utilizing System 1 and System 2 to investigate that reason, i.e., he’s not caring for truth in the second sense. It’s only until he is faced with a random, coincidental death that he realizes he hadn’t been searching for a solution to his “uneasiness” that converged with truth. Not truth in the propositional sense, but truth regarding human flourishing and excellence. Insofar as he was unable or unwilling to direct his cognition toward what was guiding it, he remained incapable of progressing and transforming toward an aim that would afford him self-awareness, self-knowledge, and, ultimately, eudaimonia.Both aspects of caring for truth matter if Mill’s benefits are to be obtained. It matters propositionally (the first aspect of care) because critical thinking and analysis are necessary for seeing information clearly and discerning whether something maps onto the world. But caring for the first aspect alone will only clear the fog, so to speak, and allow one to see the landscape with more specificity and definition. It will provide knowledge about the causal regularities that govern the territory and the predictable patterns that follow from them. It will not, however, indicate what to do with that knowledge or inform one of what it means. For free speech to be justified for the sake of truth, which means free speech plays a substantial, instrumental role in sorting out the true information from the false, people must care for the truth. They have to find it salient in the right ways. If people don’t care and don’t share the proper desire to pursue it, then no amount of discussion will necessarily bring the community any closer to the truth. They may easily settle for something else.Section 8:The claim, then, is that social media does not warrant truth-based justifications for free speech. Because social media platforms don’t promote or incentivize the psychological orientation necessary for truth-seeking but reward the opposite behaviors, the idea that one is seeking truth within such a context is false. The view that social media as a public space is best characterized as a social practice that aims toward truth has generated an insidious confusion within the culture, and we would be better off by evaluating it differently. Social media is certainly an information network, but it’s wrong to presume all information networks are oriented toward truth production.To see this, think of a university. The principal purpose of this institution is to generate knowledge (there are other purposes, of course, but put those aside.) Now, there are many parts to the structure of a university, but let’s zoom in on the classroom environment. Within it, there’s a hierarchy in place. The teacher’s purpose is to guide the students through a curriculum, get them to think critically about the information, debate and discuss it, foster their abilities to engage with it, cultivate the necessary faculties for this, and to ensure that they learn something specific about the given information, as well as something general about learning, something they can use in all cases. To achieve this, the teacher must orient the students around truth-seeking, i.e., he or she must teach the students to care for the truth, as explained above. The teacher must challenge the students’ cognitive biases. Logical errors, bad reasoning, and lack of critical thinking have to be checked, corrected, and reinforced by the teacher.Ideally, the teacher will also help the students think critically about their conceptions of the good. In the ideal scenario, the teacher not only challenges their cognition but also fosters their ability to question what human flourishing and excellence looks like. It’s ideal because claiming that this is absolutely necessary for an information network to warrant being evaluated as a truth-seeking social practice is, perhaps, too high. But it is what one should aim for. However, it’s important to bear this in mind because it will be shown that, even if the threshold is lowered in this sense, social media still fails at what any information network that is correlated with truth should provide, which is to promote the proper analytical skills in getting clearer about reality.Now, an important reason universities are trusted as truth-seeking information networks is partly because of the teacher's role in distributing that information. It’s trusted as an institution because those who go through it are supposed to have been guided by experts who demonstrate how to pursue knowledge. Students who leave the institution are expected to have participated in a social practice that taught them to be competent in their field (and hopefully to be a good human being as well, whatever that means precisely) and who can now further distribute and utilize their knowledge by applying it to other domains within society. The teacher’s function within the institution is essential to this goal and fundamental to the trust granted to the institution itself. Let’s call this function a Socratic function.27Social media doesn’t have a Socratic function, and any information network trusted as a distributor of knowledge should have something resembling it. Worse than this, however, is that social media actually promotes cognitive behavior that is opposed to the whole project of pursuing truth. As an overarching, general pattern, social media reinforces and incentivizes things like cognitive bias (the immediate and intuitive presentations of System 1.) The whole business model is aimed at maximizing attention. People easily become addicted to these platforms and binge content endlessly. The only way to achieve this is by easing the user’s cognitive effort as much as possible and stimulating them with dopamine responses, allowing the user to enter a semi-hypnotic state. Of course, not everyone is affected like this; most people can assert moderation when using social media. But in an ideal world, one where social media is optimally thriving, everyone would be glued to their screens. Practical circumstances of course make this impossible, and therefore it wouldn’t truly be in social media’s interests because no one would show up for work, but if we turn the dial on the business goals of these platforms to the max, then this would be the logical consequence; it would maximize profits.Social media serves many purposes, though, and the claim is certainly not that it is, for these reasons, entirely bad. It’s only the contexts, circumstances, and situations in which it is reflexively represented as a competent and trusted information network that deals in matters of knowledge and truth that it creates an overall deficit. This is because of the intellectual and ethical confusion it produces, which is caused by its lack of a Socratic function that incentivizes and reinforces the proper psychological orientation around truth-seeking. Again, it has the opposite aim, which is to ease the effort of System 2 as much as it can and allow System 1, with all its cognitive vulnerabilities, to be at the helm. Because of this aim, social media has a Sophistic function, which contrasts the Socratic one, whose defining characteristic is to be a bullsh*tter. As mentioned above, this notion is a technical one and needs to be properly explained.The notion of bullsht comes from the American philosopher Harry Frankfurt and his essay Bullsht. Sam Harris uses this term often, especially regarding social media. First, let’s clarify what it means to lie. Lying involves an intent to deceive on the part of the person lying, who wishes to get the other to believe something contrary to the truth. The seventeen-year-old who sneaks out, gets caught, and tells their parents that they forgot their phone at their friend’s house and went to get it in the middle of the night is lying because they’re trying to deceive their parents into believing something false about reality. But reality is still salient to their aim. Although attempting to distort it, they still have reality in their conscious field of intentions, motives, and desires, i.e., they care about truth rather than caring for it. Someone who bullshts, on the other hand, has no regard for truth. It provides no reason for consideration on its own, independent of the bullshtter’s aim. Whereas the truth matters for the liar, it’s of no concern whether what one says is true or false in the case of bullsht. The bullshter’s enterprise is characteristically different than the lier in this regard. The liar “is attempting to lead us away from a correct apprehension of reality; we are not to know that he wants us to believe something he supposes to be false… The fact about himself that the bullshitter hides, on the other hand, is that the truth-values of his statements are of no central interest to him; what we are not to understand is that his intention is neither to report the truth nor to conceal it.”26The classic archetype of a bullshtter is the salesman. The truth about whether the product sold is efficient, useful, or whatever else is indifferent to the salesman. What matters, and what distinguishes one who is good from one who is not (in the sense of achieving their goal to sell the product, pure and simple,) is whether they can deceive the consumer into believing that the bullshtter is asserting something they themselves believe. There are few constraints on what a bullshtter may say to achieve their aim. Whatever helps satisfy their goal is fair play. The liar is unable to be creative like this. They must strategically and purposefully contend with the truth by believing they know it. If the liar doesn’t in fact know the truth, this will likely spoil their plans. They will be unable to grasp the situation and will likely misunderstand what the circumstances call for. A bullshtter doesn’t need to know the truth at all. They just need to make the other person think that they do. The truth conditions of their beliefs and assertions are, by itself, irrelevant.Social media is a bullshtter in incentivizing and rewarding behavior that employs bullsht. It therefore has a Sophistic function. The chief culprit for this is, of course, the algorithms. The algorithm's aim is to curate content that maximizes user engagement and attention. Whether what it presents a user with is true or false is a matter of indifference. It can matter in a sense, but only if the user is disposed toward viewing content that is oriented around truth, which is of no concern to the algorithms. The function is to bullsht the user by minimizing cognitive effort and maximizing the incentives that will keep their attention, e.g., by triggering dopamine responses through a constant succession of content patterned according to the user’s preferences. If the user desires content that aims at truthfully representing reality, he or she has to maneuver through a minefield of bullsht. There is no Socratic function that guides them through it, as there would be in any other social practice that is considered an information network whose purpose is to distribute knowledge. The proper psychological orientation that warrants discussions about how free speech is necessary for pursuing truth within a given context is entirely absent within the social media model.Hence Mill’s influential argument for the utility of free speech for the sake of truth doesn’t apply to social media. Let’s reflect on what Mill said after this long discussion. Recall the epistemic benefits he argued for. He said that letting everyone freely express their minds produces the best outcomes within a democratic community, regardless of whether what one says is true, partially true, or false. If the truth doesn’t move people, and if the general tendency to find truth salient is absent, then letting everyone say what they think is self-undermining. Why would truth matter if everyone free to speak their mind disregards it? Seeing truth as a reason for a social practice means truth is fundamental to the aims that characterize the institution, and this means being properly oriented around it, which means caring for it.Section 9:I want to end now with a discussion about how this all relates to Nostr and how it has the potential to be an information network that performs much better than social media as a context concerned with knowledge and truth. The principal reason that will be considered here is Nostr’s pursuit of a fully decentralized model that aims at user autonomy. Autonomy makes a crucial difference between an information network that more reliably tracks truth and one that is indifferent to it.Social media reduces users' autonomy by trying to use them as a means toward further ends, namely, their attention, engagement, and data. The algorithm's job is to sort through users’ information and curate it in ways that maximize profit. This generally results in the spread of bullsht because what determines information as worth spreading does not depend on that information’s truth value. However, when users can curate their own content by judging for themselves what information they wish to retrieve from relays; when it’s left to each user to decide what content is valuable and what isn’t; when users themselves can determine what is worth censuring and not be subject to the interests of a centralized server, the aim is clearly to place autonomy back into their hands. What’s important, though, is that autonomy has a certain purpose in the Nostr context: to allow people to create at all protocol levels. Part of what a centralized server does is create a fixed infrastructure that greatly restricts what users may do on the platform (the chief restriction being to yield as much profit as possible for shareholders.) Creators especially are affected by this because the value they contribute to the platforms is filtered through what will necessarily constrain it. Nostr, however, is different. What largely motivates the value of autonomy is the desire to let creators create content freely and without outside constraints, which, of course, is to provide them freedom of expression. By users having the freedom to build and the autonomy to curate and choose what content is personally valuable to a user, truth becomes highly relevant within the context. Now, if Mill is right when he says that only true beliefs have any utility (and false beliefs necessarily lead one astray in some sense,) users who produce content will be highly incentivized to track the truth, to have an accurate representation of it, because to fail at this will result in unappealing content due to its lack of value. No centralized authority is supposed to be able to force something to appear valuable; it’s up to the users to determine this. And if something will endure and not fade once the reasons why it may have trended disappear, it needs to track the truth. If it doesn’t, if it only matters to people because it is sensational or cheap, if it’s bullsht, it will always lose in the long run.Since people on Nostr have the autonomy to build and curate their own content, unlike social media, there is less at play that can ossify the network. There must be a great deal of motion because, in principle, no user or client can monopolize the space. This built-in fluidity captures an important aspect of truth-seeking, which John Milton expressed when saying, “Knowledge thrives by exercise… Truth is compared in scripture to a streaming fountain; if her waters flow not in a perpetual progression, they sicken into a muddy pool of conformity and tradition.” Everyone has to earn their success on Nostr, so the principal way to do this is to create something valuable. Again, if Mill is right, the value must largely be derived from the truth that the content represents, creating an incentive to care for the truth. Bullsh*t can’t be forcefully distributed because it maximizes some desired metric. Information is chiefly distributed by individual users valuing it.Nostr provides a way to see if Mill was right in thinking only true beliefs have any real value. Since the intention is to move away from social media’s business model, there is an opportunity to determine whether people will naturally choose the truth through their own autonomous decision-making. If there are no algorithms that aim to seize and maximize user attention, people are free to choose what content they wish to consume. It is a choice whether truth prevails over its opposite in the Nostr context because individuals are incentivized to contribute what they want to see. And if things go astray, people can fix it by creating something better.Notes:For a similar but far more elaborate, comprehensive, and complex argument of this kind, see John Vervaeke’s Awakening From the Meaning Crisis on YouTube.For an elaboration on free speech justifications, see Greenawalt, K. (2007). Free Speech Justifications. Colombia Law Review.For a history of Free speech, see Jacob Mchangama’s book Free Speech: Socrates to Social Media.Kant, I. (1784). What is Enlightenment? (p. 1). Hacket Publishing.This is not to suggest wokism is the sole culprit of this cultural trend. It’s one example amongst others on all parts of the political spectrum. But it’s an important example because wokism aims to be virtuous and moral. Therefore, it’s a good example because it is important to question whether their moral claims are correct. Furthermore, a plausible reply on the part of one who may subscribe to something like wokism (whatever that means precisely) is that it isn’t the duty of those who have been oppressed to teach those they consider to be oppressors. The duty falls on the latter. This is a challenging question to settle, and it makes up the potentially unbridgable gulf between wokism and its opponents. But if empathy is a virtue (or a vital moral response), it’s central that everyone exercises it, not just those who are held to be guilty of something.Simpson, R. M. (2024). The Connected City of Ideas. Daedalus.Harari, N. Y. (2024). Nexus. Random House.Eisenstein, E. L. (1979). The Printing Press as an Agent of Change (p. 45). Cambridge University Press.Melchert, N. (2007). The Great Conversation (p. 304). Oxford University Press.Melchert, N. (2007). The Great Conversation. Oxford University Press.Wagner, C. (2012). Scientia Moralitas (Moral Autonomy and Responsibility - The Reformation’s Legacy in Today’s Society). Scientia Moralitas Research Institute.Fromm, E. (1941). Escape From Freedom (p. 54). Discus.James, W. (1902). The Varieties of Religious Experience (p. 54). Penguin Classics.Dreyfus, H., & Kelly, S. D. (2011). All Things Shining: Reading the Western Classics to Find Meaning in a Secular Age (p. 122). Free Press.Dreyfus, H., & Kelly, S. D. (2011). All Things Shining: Reading the Western Classics to Find Meaning in a Secular Age (p. 122). Free Press.Aristotle, A. (1953). Ethics (p. 122). Penguin Classics.Schumacher, E. (1977). A Guide For the Perplexed. Harper Colophon Books.As Isaiah Berlin makes clear in his essay Two Concepts of Liberty, it is easy to see how positive freedom may easily lead to foolish and immoral action due to its purposeful nature. It is quite challenging to dissuade someone that what they believe to be their purpose in life, their ultimate meaning, relies on false premises.Fromm, E. (1941). Escape From Freedom. Discus.Chalmers, A. (1974). What is this thing called Science? Hacket Publishing.Descartes, R. (2010). Meditations on First Philosophy. Oxford World's Classics.See Bertrand Russel’s The History of Western Philosophy for how Descartes's argument is logically invalid. He can’t doubt that some process of thinking is occurring, but whether something is doing the thinking isn’t obvious.Locke, J. Two Treatises on Government.Justice Holmes made the Marketplace metaphor popular in Abrams v United States (1919), and has become a central precedent in free speech cases.For a similar argument, see Nevin Chellappah’s “Is John Stuart Mill’s Account of Free Speech Sustainable In the Age of Social Media?”Ryle, G. (1949). The Concept of Mind. Penguin.Frankfurt, H. (1986). Bullshit. Princeton University Press.To see the Socratic function in real time, watch The Joe Rogan Experience episode #2171. Eric Weinstein demonstrates what it means for an expert to engage with someone outside their respective field who claims to have knowledge that overturns the discipline but with no professional training to back it up. His attitude demonstrates a care for truth. @yakihonne