Libre Solutions Network

Bring your voice: Guest posts welcome

Tue, 24 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0000

Moving forward the Libre Solutions Network is now welcoming guest posts. I believe this is an excellent opportunity to bring in more voices interested in advancing digital freedom and autonomy. Things are quite dire these days and I believe it is time to use what I’ve created to help lower the barrier to entry for others.

I am first and foremost interested in personal experiences written in the first person. Why do you care about privacy? How have restrictions on technological freedom impacted your life? What do you long and hope for in a better technological future? I’m also very interested in helping recruit attention and assistance to interesting and truly ground-breaking projects. There is certainly a great deal of potential in the bright minds of the cyber rebels online, so there is a great deal to look forward to once we begin.

To be clear, the bar for new submissions is high. I fully intend to filter out half-baked AI-written submissions and marketing for various products. The content of this site is fairly political so politics is acceptable but aggression is not. This project is explicitly anti-war.

Why contribute?

The Libre Solutions Network receives world-wide attention and has been featured on The Corbett Report and Geopolitics & Empire. I also personally maintain a reasonably sized newsletter. This site is mirrored to both Tor & I2P and regularly receives traffic via these routes. The Libre Solutions Network was designed to be a resilient and censorship-resistant initiative, and as such I think it is crucial to explicitly welcome anonymous submissions. While I am happy to link your name/website this is purely optional.

Ideal posts

Anything related to Free Software & Hardware Projects
Digital Autonomy (Privacy, Security, and independent cyberspace)
Complaints about the state of big tech & cyberspace
Censorship resistance and anonymity
Personal experiences and opinions on anything related to LSN content/topics

Terms

I am asking that you submit me perpetual permission to publish your guest post on this site. This requires the post to be your own original creation and not AI or otherwise copied from elsewhere. I reserve the right to remove posts without notification.

Basic rules

Submitted as markdown or plain text
Reasonable length (5-10 minutes in estimated length) but this is flexible based on subject matter & quality
Images are welcome but video is discouraged
Links are welcome but referral & tracking links are explicitly forbidden
Optional attribution (Name/Link or anonymous)
Personal accounts and editorials are preferred
Audio voiceovers (to include in the podcast RSS) are welcome
I may make non-content corrections for spelling and other simple mistakes, subject to approval by the author
Can’t market a product
Must be original work

Approval

All approvals are subject to my own discretion at my leisure. The Libre Solutions Network is my passion project that I can only devote so much time to. I will do my best to respond quickly to submissions I’m interested in publishing. Timing will inevitably shift with the nature and volume of submissions sent to me.

How to submit

Reach out to Gabriel Tor I2P via any of the linked contact methods.

💌 Thank you for reading this via RSS 📡

We will come to regret our every use of AI

Wed, 11 Mar 2026 13:58:08 +0000

It may be a bold statement, but I feel compelled to warn about the risks of using presently offered AI tools. My goal isn’t to convince you to avoid these systems entirely, but to at least consider how judiciously they should be used if at all. This is because many people are going to use these tools, and there needs to be a more precise argument made than to either uncritically reject or embrace it all. This piece is an attempt to draw a bold distinction between what we have, and what could be. The difference is vast, and recognizing it highlights opportunities for the road ahead.

Machine minds and machine hearts

In such a relatively short period of time, we have gone from “doing work with computers” being a novel and fringe idea to it being the irritating background noise of our lives. Institutions shifted away from paper records to digital files and many of us shrugged and called it progress. Change is often good, but not all change is good. Even change that appears good at first, can often come along with serious downsides. While change itself is inevitable, there will always be alternative paths forward. As technological tools become more enmeshed with every aspect of our life, it becomes increasingly important to ask how and why. The stakes are high, and lives hang in the balance as the wartime applications of AI come to the forefront.

“AI” has become a vague category to mean a wide variety of tools and systems like LLM chatbots, generative tools and automated flows. These tools, when combined with all the information available, creates a colossus of immense power. People are then asking themselves many questions, but the most actionable seems to be how to interact with it, if at all. Personally, I think it is more important to consider the consequences of its use rather than merely asserting what use-cases are and aren’t valid. Regardless of our intentions, these systems have structures and characteristics that must be understood to have an informed opinion on their use. The benefits of this particular technology may be overshadowed by the dangers created by our indifference to the fine details of its implementation.

In any discussion about AI use, I often see people fiercely exclaim that AI tools are no threat to their domain of expertise. I call this Gell-mann’s Apathy: people are often more accepting of using AI for endeavors outside domains they care about, but are often much more judicious and critical of AI use within their own domains. Which is the skill domain equivalent to Gell-Mann Amnesia where people are able to see the flaws in reporting on subjects they understand, but often take things at face value outside their familiarity. Proficient programmers argue that AI agents are not a threat to truly skilled software developers, artists point out that creative works lack substance, and writers can foreshadow the consequences of devaluing the written word. Only one wholly under the spell of the AI hype would dismiss all these critical objections. On the other hand, we can certainly recognize the powerful incentives that drive the use of these systems.

For example, I will explain the magic behind ‘Vibe-coding’. Instead of merely using LLM chatbots to speed up searching for information and writing code, why not have the ‘AI Agent’ directly try running the program. That way you automate away the step of copying error messages back-and-forth. The consequence of this is that ‘software that compiles’ and even ‘software that passes tests’ is something that can be effectively brute-forced with enough computing power and energy. At least for now, it would seem that the financial costs of vibe-coding to end-users are being discounted by orders of magnitude. But the answer to flaws in AI written software is often to throw more AI at it. Instead of adding ‘don’t make any mistakes’ to the prompt, you use another agent to come up with known issues to check for and test against. To the degree this all works, it’s fairly impressive as one as one doesn’t try to imagine the absurd levels of waste involved. To make matters worse, this huge cost is being paid to seize a powerful monopoly over computing itself. The long-term impacts on privacy and freedoms are hard to overstate.

The hardest part is to recognize that the current iteration of these tools isn’t the only possibility. It is entirely possible, maybe even within reach, to have a set of implementations that respect digital autonomy. Economically sound, pragmatic use of these techniques could be a boon to society at large. Sadly, we’ll never get there if we treat the existing crop of AI tools as the only option. In identifying the broader range of possibilities it is much easier to recognize and work towards better ends. This requires us to wrestle not with the comforting distractions sent our way, but the fundamental realities that challenge even our own foundations. It is a difficult process, but it is the only way to chart a different path than what malevolent forces have planned for us. If we are not careful, we could already be living (or have let pass) peak technological freedom. If this is the case, we must consider the grave impact this is likely to have on all other aspects of our lives.

It is high time to explicitly recognize that it is our responsibility to ensure technological advancement isn’t an idol we sacrifice society and each other to. Yes, the fruits of powerful tools and systems can be wonderful for us and humanity at large, but there will always be dangers to keep watch for. Merely accepting anything offered to us, or even tolerating what is imposed on the public without judgement is a recipe for disaster. Enshrining even the best protections in laws or regulations will have little to no impact when the abuses are forged into the system structurally. Now more than ever, it is paramount that we recognize the fine line between using tools and letting systems use us. Many systems of our time definitely blur those lines, and often it seems unavoidable.

Tool use is what makes us smart

I wouldn’t be writing this if I didn’t love technical tools and what they can do for all of us. I love that at least for now, the open web offers the potential for genuine and authentic bottom-up cultural expression and exchange unprecedented in human history. I am actually quite excited about how sophisticated systems make it easier than ever to discover insight from others with radically different experiences. For all its faults: even YouTube deserves a great deal of credit for being a phenomenal resource for making it easier to learn new things. Computers and the Internet have certainly democratized not just access to information, but also engagement with culture as a whole. It is clear that we haven’t even begun to appreciate the limitless potential technology can offer us. That potential comes with risks, and it is important that we recognize the inevitable shifts in power for and against the people.

For example, if somebody asked me “should hospitals use AI?” I would have to ask for clarification. I certainly don’t think medical staff should have to consult with a chatbot before taking any action or making a decision. On the other hand, it would be absolutely negligent if we didn’t improve hospitals with the advancements in machine learning, automation and robotics. The line gets real difficult to see when the issue comes to personal health data. Unfortunately, information is fungible. This means that once information is collected it is not possible to guarantee it won’t end up in the wrong hands. The more sophisticated these systems get, the more dangerous their misuse becomes. As the technological landscape consolidates, the stakes only get higher, which creates a powerful feedback loop for further control and tyranny.

I’m no “techno-optimist” because I know the details matter.
I’m no “techno-pessimist” because I can see how much potential is needlessly wasted.
I wholeheartedly believe the way forward is with equal parts courage and skepticism.
Without courage, you’ll never try to improve anything.
Without skepticism you’ll fall for every half-baked failure that comes along.

I can recognize the appeal in leveraging all that can currently be known to build a CI/CD pipeline to improve society on scales big and small. Quite ironically, it always seems easy to argue for more bureaucracy in the name of efficiency. Incorporating people into automated workflows is merely the formalization that civilization isn’t something we co-create, but is something that manages us. Ultimately, it would seem that this is the ultimate goal of the “AI industry”. People seem to believe that this specific implementation is the only way to create technological advancement, but this isn’t at all true. It is highly ironic that those who are the most fervent proponents of imposing the use of certain tools on the public are also the most fierce in opposing bottom-up innovation. It seems that when the benefits of the tools are too good to pass up, that suddenly real competition is too dangerous to allow. ‘Innovation’ that must be protected from failure (or even slowing down) is domination disguised as progress.

This is because if individuals, institutions, and communities were able to build and experiment on their own terms ‘disruption’ would become the norm rather than the exception. Powerful interests would have to spend much more effort keeping pace with genuine advancement, rather than managed relative stagnation. It is baffling in a time with rapid world-wide information sharing and collaboration that we are still confined by structures constructed to gate-keep bottom-up change. The answer to that is outside the scope of this piece, but ultimately technological freedom is very intertwined with freedom in other domains like economics, civil rights and even health. It is worthwhile to appreciate the efforts in those areas. One of the biggest reasons people struggle to recognize the potential for a better future is just how many things would rapidly change if negative feedback loops were replaced with positive ones.

We already have a great deal of ‘power tools’ that are downstream of artificial intelligence research. Text-to-speech and speech to text have both gotten a lot better and more accessible. For all their limitations, even small LLMs can do fascinating things. Functions like interacting with computers and systems via chat or voice are a genuinely useful patterns to consider. With the right approaches, and doubling-down on hardware & software freedom, I am confident a great deal of good can come without the disastrous consequences of our current path. The good news is that the problem isn’t actually the technologies themselves, but how they are packaged. In hindsight, it would seem that if digital privacy was as unreachable as people have been conditioned to believe, the efforts to consolidate our entire computing experience wouldn’t be necessary.

Because nothing is new under the sun, I’m going to draw a comparison between the expansion and domination of social media from the 2010s to what we are likely to see with AI moving forward. It would seem that despite spending billions on “AI safety” we are in the process of making the very same mistakes at a whole new level. This is precisely because I don’t believe the harms from the that era were an accident, but rather the intended outcome. While there is now a growing push to address these issues by various governments, I can’t take them at face value when we are in the process of rapidly re-creating a much worse situation with AI.

We’ve seen this all before

In hindsight, it is clear that big tech social media served a variety of functions. For the vast majority of people, it transformed the web from something you would surf and search to a doom-scrolling casino. With huge numbers of people flocking to participate, businesses, individuals, and even institutions felt immense pressure to adopt these growing platforms. In hindsight this was a terrible deal. Social media giants would eventually hold their captive audiences hostage, algorithms were tweaked to effectively ransom voices own audience against them. The deal changed over time, first by gradually reducing reach, to blatant and extreme acts of censorship.

The mass adoption of social media had disastrous consequences, but it filled a very useful niche. By leveraging the rise of the smartphone, these companies were able to offer a strong illusion of what the web being open to the masses would be like. This came at a high cost, shifting online social interactions from a diverse range of self-styled unique online experiences to a standardized commercial machine was a huge blow to the concept of online anonymity. What was once common sense advice to stay safe online was beginning to seem suspicious, if not dangerous. The more people participated on social media rather than the open web, cyberspace itself would consolidate in favor of this trend.

The impacts of all this have fundamentally altered our online experience. Surveillance, censorship, and algorithmic manipulation are a given. Despite many data breaches having disastrous impacts on people, we are seeing an acceleration of the information being required from people through ID verification schemes and other measures. The combination of social media dominance and the rise of the smartphone were a double-tap on individual privacy online. Your digital footprint was no longer mere traces in various places, but is now a commodity bought and sold in real-time. The invasions of privacy themselves created new risks as sensitive information about people was abused for a wide variety of ends from scams to hostilities.

The worst of it all is what could have happened in its absence. If we hadn’t ‘put all our eggs’ into the Big Tech basin we could have had radically better systems perform the same functions. Systems and tools are built on assumptions, and those assumptions are usually built on the way things are. It takes radical vision to imagine, never mind build on a different set of principles. This means that as the ground shifts, so does the nature of systems built on top of it. That’s the reason why the online social environment has been so chaotic and difficult to keep up with. The trouble is that we have been relying on consolidated technological structures that the idea of truly independent digital infrastructure is fringe. So much so, that the idea of building a ‘cyberspace for and by the people’ is essentially unthinkable.

The trap is being confined to the dominant paradigm. Power decides what is projected top-down and it is ultimately fruitless to try to ‘out-compete’ these systems on their own terms. In hindsight, it would seem that there have been many iterations of the same psyop to stifle independent technical talent. The pattern is quite straightforward: pitch to status-seeking individuals that they’ll be rewarded handsomely for building what power needs. Instead of having government build social media and the censorship apparatus on top of it, it was auctioned off to whatever platforms could get the most users. Social media quickly transformed from being about connecting with contacts to ‘people farming’ for data collection. We then saw this very same pattern with the blockchain ‘revolution’. Not long after a digital token for ‘peer to peer digital cash’ caught worldwide attention, the focus shifted from emancipatory technology towards running more and more brazen ponzi schemes. Decentralization becomes less about ‘changing the game’ but more about trying to beat the malevolent forces at their own game. None of this means there aren’t merits to social media, blockchain technologies, or even AI tools but there are fine distinctions that need to be made.

The feedback loop

There are a lot of great reasons to never use ‘AI tools’ in the way they are currently available to people. Research has already shown profound cognitive impacts to outsourcing your thinking. Multi-media generation and chatbots double-down on what is arguably the most dangerous aspect of social media: it burns you on a pyre of your base impulses and then pours gasoline on the fire. If these tools were physical products they would likely be packaged like cigarettes, with terrifying warning labels. Yet despite all this we constantly see people prophesying that these are the future, and that one must become familiar with them to not be left behind. In fact, there is a desperation behind the adoption of these tools, a burning desire to ‘one last sprint’ their way out of the seemingly inevitable ‘permanent underclass’.

This is because what both AI evangelists and critics can see is the all-consuming nature of how the game is played. AI as it is currently understood is not mere technology, but a system of total technological domination over the public. Just as institutions and people have already ceded too much of cyberspace to the cloud, we are in danger of offering even more of our lives and society on the altar of centralized computing. The ‘singularity’ was never to be an economic or technological boon, but rather the mere collapse of society under the weight of digital totalitarianism. Naked human dominance and tyranny was the face behind the techno-utopian mask. A generation was evicted from the ideal of home ownership by the combination of a variety of economic and social forces, it would seem that the same is taking place in cyberspace. ‘Hardware is the new homes’, as the public becomes priced out of securing a modest home server.

For at least the foreseeable future, the path of least resistance will always involve using centralized AI tools. While it’s certainly possible to run your own models on your own hardware and energy, you’d be at a massive disadvantage compared to those using the discounted costs of the cloud. This builds a significant financial incentive to shift capital away from producing consumer-friendly hardware to equipping data-centers to take over computing itself. In effect, both state & private investment in AI giants is effectively investing in seizing computing power and digital infrastructure from the public. For those who are already well-assimilated into the cloud, the difference is imperceptible. For those who wish to reclaim and protect digital autonomy for the people, the game is all but entirely lost.

Regardless of how ultimately useful the technological techniques behind AI tools actually are, what people are actually afraid of is the run away feedback loop that seizes control of cyberspace as society is further dominated by it. It may not matter what currency we use, or if our government ID is digital in a time where everything needs to ask the central computers for permission to take any action. This could be tolerable if we saw a commensurate rise in innovation and invention, but it seems that was just the marketing for invasive control and surveillance. People are beginning to realize that the very nature of this system is anti-social and inhuman. The question isn’t if it is bad or good, but rather how bad it’s going to be.

The ‘Super-intelligence’ red herring

Critics often fall into the trap of believing these systems have no use or utility. It should not be at all surprising to see fascinating applications of bulk-processing the totality of society’s creative and intellectual works. The sheer magnitude of powerful machines and useful mathematics is genuinely impressive. With some margin of error, and a pretty intense amount of waste it does certainly seem achievable to fully automate a wide variety of tasks. The combination of sophisticated automation and vast information collection can certainly provide the illusion of super-intelligence, but this would be like giving paper the credit for all the knowledge contained in books throughout history. The mythology of AI super-intelligence itself is a powerful force for dis-empowering people. Just as a gang of brutes can keep an lone dissenter intimidated, people are likely to develop an inferiority complex relative to the processed output of all of human creation. This insecurity is deliberately fostered to build on learned helplessness to make AI super-intelligence an illusory self-fulfilling prophecy.

When pressed, even the most fervent AI evangelists will retreat to “they’re just tools to help smart people work harder”, but it’s clear their heart isn’t in it. If the goal was truly to unleash a new revolution of innovation and progress we would see sincere efforts to radically improve education and build up people’s skills. Yet if anything, it would seem that AI is to be not an actual industry, but a bureaucratic babysitter for a public treated as a nuisance at best and an existential threat at worst. Schools and workplaces are being outfitted with systems to demote people from mere cogs in the machine, to its subjects. With this level of dispossession and displacement, it is no surprise at all that the primary applications of AI are distraction and warfare. None of these troubles are direct consequences from technological advancement, but are the culmination of power plays through the long arc of history.

Cloud AI has an immense advantage when it comes to the magnitude and variety of information available. Scale gives these large corporations access to a treasure trove of information while copyright enforcement turns a blind eye. This is an immense asymmetric advantage that allows for the building of very useful information management and retrieval systems. But this usefulness cuts both ways. The consolidation of information inside these systems drives people to be more dependent on them. The mental atrophy of using LLMs to do work is accelerated by allowing other research skills to atrophy. Independent verification may be entirely overshadowed by all other sources reflecting back the outputs of AI systems, that may or may not be up to date or even accurate.

“We have altered the deal, pray we don’t alter it further”

One of the biggest traps is assuming that just because these AI tools are presently generally useful, that they will always remain productive in specific domains. Your quirky genius companion is likely to reveal its true colors when alternatives fade. Just as we are seeing consumer computing being brought out of reach for most individuals, so too can specific capabilities be withheld from the users of AI systems. We may be able to salvage utility from cloud models to make cute graphics, learn interesting things, or even build software, but this is all on borrowed time. Not only will these tools continue to become more powerful. the same mechanisms of control over them will also become more sophisticated. It is entirely possible, if not outright guaranteed that at some point these tools will eventually narrow their usefulness towards various ends, and withhold access to particular groups and people. This form of ‘cyber exile’ effectively transforms everything and everyone connected to the system into a potential adversary.

It is also not a given that these systems will be as inexpensive as they presently are. The economics appear wholly unsustainable. The costs (in price or otherwise) to use these systems must inevitably rise. Therefore, all reliance on these commercially available AI tools is taking on an indeterminable future debt in exchange for short-term gain. This is highly concerning considering the already clear troubles relating to using these systems. We have already seen institutions impose AI systems for employees, it is an open question how easily individuals of society will be able to escape them at all. For it is not just about an individual’s choice to use these systems or not. Regardless of their choice, these systems are going to be used against them. Facial recognition and other surveillance systems are ubiquitous and omnipresent. Currently, opposing this adversarial model of technological tyranny is quite difficult, and gets more challenging over time.

Getting off the fence: refusing to compromise on humanity

I genuinely get it. These tools are very handy and can do a lot of interesting things. Telling someone to avoid using these tools feels like asking them to take on an immense disadvantage. That ‘downgrade’ is relative to your perspective. The drive to replace human creativity and input with centralized compute is on its own self-defeating. It means that all those rushing to become familiar with these tools are at best racing to push themselves out of society. The paradox is that in a desperate race to not be ’left behind’ you realize that you had to give up to participate. My point is that being a mere technician for AI tools is highly likely to be a ‘crowded trade’ and practitioners will be replaceable by design. This is because the exponential consolidation of cyberspace didn’t begin when people started using ChatGPT, but actually when people shifted away from independent websites to Big Tech social media services. It’s a much longer trend, and we’re merely beginning to see the deeper impacts.

I am also not so naive to prescribe an all-or-nothing approach. I recognize that many are going to be confined to these systems for a variety of reasons. It is paramount that we recognize and address structural factors rather than turning on and attacking people making different choices than us. You can’t disarm totalitarian thinking with “Join me or else!”, but rather with the strength to endure long enough to build something better. People are going to use these systems and there are many disastrous consequences of it. People are also going to strive to avoid it all at great personal cost. There will be all kinds of people everywhere in between. It is paramount that those of us concerned about these issues are focusing on connecting with the people, rather than merely fighting the machine.

This is because what is actually more powerful than all these systems is what we see in each other. Despite all the hype about needing to sacrifice each other for AI to ‘defeat China’ we’re going about it all wrong. A human society that cherishes and nurtures personal agency and capacity will absolutely out-compete a system that trades what we are for false idols. It is fatefully ironic that those who desperately wish to surpass all of human achievement, knowledge, and culture are entirely unappreciative of its wonders. Art without experience, words without coherence, and even software without sense all reveal how erroneous the current path actually is. The question was never what tools we use, but always what they’re being used for? We have a small window of time to refocus on meaningful connections rather than what algorithms choose for us, doubling down on what’s real is the winning move.

Presence and purpose

Everything about our present digital experience is aimed at preying on our panic. That pressure is imposed via a variety of means, but is always used as leverage against us. First and foremost it is crucial to protect your mind in these times. Peace and sanity doesn’t have to come at the expense of being informed if you properly pace yourself. Taking the time to meaningfully engage with what’s important to you allows you to bring the care that’s called for. No matter what you’re doing, be especially focused on ensuring you’re being deliberate. A relatively small amount of self-awareness can help ensure you’re using tools rather than have them using you. The line between the two is being blurred all the time, so it’s always a good practice to question why and how you’re doing things. Taking the time to dive deep into the details of your experience is helpful to keep your real goals in mind.

I won’t condemn you merely for using AI tools, but I’m going to expect a lot more out of what you accomplish. With great automation I expect much greater care into the precise details. With the power to accomplish so much by using these tools, how you choose to leverage them does tell me a great deal about what you actually prioritize. Merely generating ‘slop’ to stay relevant in social media algorithms reveals that the message was never the point. Using AI agents to ‘vibe-code’ freedom tech can be impressive but can also reveal the extent of your imagination. I am personally skeptical that those who choose the ’easy route’ are willing to put in the care that is truly needed in our times. It’s all well and good to retort “it’s not the critic who counts”, but then don’t say we didn’t warn you.

With actual vision we could demand so much more out of what’s being offered. They came onto the scene promising an acceleration of growth and innovation but in practice we are seeing breakneck corruption and escalating wars. I encourage you to recognize that you don’t have to go with the flow of top-down madness. It is difficult to chart your own path, but it is equally rewarding. Anyone saying you must yield to these systems is ultimately gambling with your future, I encourage you to take it into your own hands. Despite what the hype would make you believe, there is a phenomenal amount of opportunity outside just paying for tokens and waiting for more tokens.

If you trade your ability to think on your own, or develop your own skills to compete in mass media algorithms, those algorithms can now ‘cut out the middleman’. It’s not that people are replaceable, but that our role in these highly consolidated structures was always arbitrary. People and communities are capable of so much more than just being managed by top-down control systems, and have so much more to offer outside those confines. I would encourage you to protect and preserve what really matters in these mad moments: communities, connection, and genuine expression. It is clear to me that the problems of our time are constructed out of our distance from those things. Do not let the demeaning of the people turn you against yourself and others.

Fighting for technological freedom

Today, the vast majority of people are unaware that there are different approaches to technological systems. Despite Free and Open Source software having an outsized impact on the technological landscape, people are often still ignorant of the philosophy behind these things. It is a tragedy because an unrelenting expectation of user freedom would have avoided the social catastrophes of the social media era, and the many dangers behind AI systems. The answer lies in directly opposing the maintenance of technological monopolies as a force for control over the population. The greatest threat to technological totalitarianism is democratized innovation. Instead of relying on Big Tech AI companies to be the arbiter and bottleneck of technological progress, society could introduce advancements in parallel.

It is quite convenient for those seeking power over the public, that the problems created by corporate AI are being used as a pretext to crack down on the Free and Open Web. Online anonymity is being ‘phased’ out as corporate infrastructure creates managed gates over online services. Legislators are more than happy to tighten restrictions as they face a frustrated populace. These days I am growing skeptical that the ‘clearweb’ will survive as a viable tool for dissent. The vast majority of the public gets all their information solely from corporate cyberspace and governments are taking full advantage of that fact. Despite all this, we are still quite far from ‘game over’ when it comes to online censorship. If we are willing to ‘up our game’ when it comes to technological resistance, there is still quite a lot of potential.

Independent cyberspace, be it from small personal blogs to massive online communities, needs to be fiercely seeded, nurtured, and protected. Salvaging what utility is left of existing systems is a necessary and urgent priority. There is a great deal of hardware available that can be used for all kinds of endeavors. Making the best of it is going to require acquiring and mastering new and old skills. Instead of begging corporations for the right to repair, it is clear we’re going to have to seize it with reverse engineering.

Cultivating creativity

The greatest danger of our present moment isn’t hypothetical future risks, but what we’re already losing. So many are merely going through the motions of human connection, not realizing that something fundamental has broken. The first AI to destroy humanity wasn’t run on a data-center, it was the bureaucratic machine run on people. People kept going through the motions as rigid rule-following calcified every social interaction. The very fact that people could meaningfully intervene in the moment was a bug that was always going to be patched out eventually. As bad as fully-automated AI tyranny is, it’s less of a radical shift and more of the end result of a very long running trend. The damage only appears more extreme because we don’t know what we have until it’s gone.

What genuine creation has the capacity to do is to remind us all what we’ve actually lost. For most of history, culture was a negotiation between top-down impositions and genuine bottom-up expression. In recent decades, the raw domination has managed to tip the balance by surgically severing the bonds that represented a firm limit on top-down power. If we want a human culture, healing those wounds is the only thing with a hope of turning things around. The painful scars make this a very difficult problem to tackle. No progress can be made by playing the same game of treating each other as replaceable at best, and resources to be expended at worst.

The best thing about generative art and media, is that it forces us to answer a difficult question: “What is the point of creating?” The machine can do it all faster, and with pleasing enough qualities for little effort. Why write when it has all been said already? Why sing if we can hear any song we like? This illusion of abundance strikes at the real suffering behind our existential starvation. Choosing to create is an inherently relational exercise. It is the purest expression of what we’re capable of doing for each other. Culture is weaved by threads of connection made by people spending their time on meaningful creations. It was never about the colors, the sound, or the witty words strung along together. It was always about the context behind our shared experiences. The ‘slopification’ of everything coming for digital media is just the extension of all our lives being cluttered with mass-produced junk. Appliances, tools, and even instruments lack the care and craftsmanship that used to be taken for granted and is now just a memory.

The point is that a better future requires people willing to put care into things, not for the sake of financial gain, but because it is the right thing to do. That can only come when we recognize our own humanity and work to express it on any level we can. It isn’t something that can be done alone. It starts with you but it’s not about you. A pro-human future needs actual humans, and villages need villagers. The system profits of imposed isolation because the void in our hearts it creates will never be filled by consuming. This cycle can be broken, and it requires us to be willing to be there for others. Slop isn’t the enemy, but rather our own indifference is.

💌 Thank you for reading this via RSS 📡

Please Stand By: Technical Difficulties

Fri, 30 Jan 2026 23:52:10 +0000

Bad news: The PeerTube instance is (irreparably) broken.

While doing an upgrade I mistakenly wiped my database. Due to being short on time, this was being done over several days which meant my regular backup overwrote the old data. It only became clear when this morning I noticed my instance would run but all the data was gone. To be frank this is pretty disheartening. Winter has always been challenging for me, but this one especially so. I’ve taken on a lot and it has taken a lot out of me. While my personal weight loss journey continues going well, it seems that the ‘big picture’ of the ‘freedom fight’ has gotten far more dire.

The good news is that I haven’t lost any of the videos. I have all of them in some form or another, It’s just the Fediverse instance itself that went down with all the associated metadata. While I am very pleased with the fact that I’ve managed to get a few views via my own self-hosted PeerTube instance, it never actually got any significant engagement. Therefore I’m not in a huge rush to simply reconstitute it on a different subdomain, but that may happen in the future.

I’ve had very little time lately to address the technical debt I’ve built up over the course of this project. Over the course of working on this, I have learned a great deal. On the optimistic front, I’ve learned that the free and open web is truly much more alive than I had hoped. It is genuinely good to know that the ‘old web’ is very much alive and being rebuilt by many phenomenal people and I have been delighted to participate in some small way. On the darker side, I’ve learned so much more about the traps and pitfalls well-meaning people can get ensnared in. I’ve come to realize how much more difficult battling for anything worth preserving actually is.

This is not the end.

This disruption is as good a time as any to take on some readjustments that I had been putting off for quite some time. Many assumptions that had been made when I started this project are no longer tenable. With generative AI “flooding the zone” of online discussion and governments instituting their controls over cyberspace it very much feels like the ground has shifted in challenging ways. It seems that I am being presented with a concrete reason to reinvent this project for the years ahead.

I’m going to need some time to really rethink how I want to engage on this front moving forward. There’s a much bigger picture than mere digital freedom that has become integrated with my understanding of many things. I had already considered a “rebrand and relaunch” to encompass a broader set of themes, and I’ve also been wanting to focus more on building meaningful tools than “screaming into the void”. With my time being spread very thin these days, I need to above all really focus on restoring my passion and energy for where I believe I can actually make a difference.

So I’m expecting to be more quiet for a while. I’ve been frustrated at my growing backlog of half-written articles, but I’m posting this to grant myself permission to really dedicate my focus on building what I need to continue. I’m going to need some time to recuperate on many levels and focus intensely on what I want to construct. I’ll be doing a lot of rethinking and planning, because the game has changed in ways that I believe need to be properly adapted to.

Libre Solutions Network 2.0

I am hopeful that I can make best of this opportunity to reinvent this passion project with everything I have learned. The war against digital autonomy is here and is being won by the tyrants. Sadly, the general public is still largely apathetic if not entirely in the dark about the real stakes. Thankfully, the (real, independent) web is a powerful force for good and we have to fight for it. There is so much ’low-hanging fruit’ that could be built to meaningfully liberate people from hostile cyberspace. Even better, the bar for actual progress is so much lower than doomsayers, shills, and purists would have you believe.

I’m absolutely frustrated to be in a bit of a bind these days as my real-life priorities have shifted and technical debt has me behind, but I want you to know that I am quite optimistic. One of the most important lessons I’ve learned while doing this is to meaningfully appreciate the great work being done by others. It has been a great relief to get involved and realize that those of us who care about digital autonomy are not at all alone and there actually are quite a lot of us out there. As bleak as things are I am thrilled to share that I have found a great many reasons to be optimistic in our ability to make a difference.

While we wait

I’ll definitely be back. In fact, I’m hoping to publish some off-the-cuff “walk with me” rants about how I see our critical point in time. I’m adapting this project to my life circumstances, but I’m doubling-down on the mission. I’m very much down, but don’t count me out! I want to thank you and the many people who have engaged with this project one way or another, it has been a phenomenal adventure and I am intensely focused on how I can continue to work for what matters.

If you haven’t already, now is absolutely the time to bookmark this website and import the RSS feed because that’s going to be the best place to stay up to date. The next best place is following the project on the Fediverse
If you’ve got a show/podcast and want to pick my brain, now is definitely a good time if you’re fine with recording on a Saturday.
Suggestions, feedback, and anything else would mean a great deal right now. Don’t hesitate to get in touch with me.

💌 Thank you for reading this via RSS 📡

The State of Cyberspace: Twilight Hours

Wed, 07 Jan 2026 20:25:38 +0000

This last year has been a difficult and chaotic time for those interested in preserving and advancing the pillars of digital autonomy: privacy, independence, and security. Governments are working overtime to weaponize cyberspace to gain dominance over their subjects and corporations are constructing the machinery to enable it. To make matters worse, much of the public is either unaware or entirely apathetic to the looming threats, except in ways that can be used as a pretext for expanded top-down control. These concerns are far from purely hypothetical or speculative, but rather are the consequences of many powerful and long-running trends. You can listen to Keonne Rodriguez outline the consequences of trying to take these forces head-on on the Watchman Privacy Podcast. If that seems too far removed from an ordinary persons’ difficulties, you can read this account of how a person was locked out of their entire digital life by Apple. These are two concrete but highly significant and related instances that are both downstream of the consolidation of full-spectrum technological dominance over the public.

The cause is not at all hopeless, but the hour is quite late in. Many knowledgeable cyber rebels are speculating if this is ‘game over’ for a free cyberspace. I can certainly empathize with the terror, and can absolutely admit to feeling it first-hand. In times like these it is crucial to be aware, but not petrified of problems. The antidote to fear-based paralysis is proactive effort taken on sustainably. The good news is that there is a great deal both technologically skilled and those who excel in other domains can do to meaningfully address these challenges. This is due to the fact that the terrors in the technological dimension have origins outside that realm. A broader base of knowledge is absolutely required, and so is a much greater emphasis on responsibility and seriousness. As I outline these dangers, know that hardly any of them exist in a vacuum. The inter-related dynamic of these problems is what seriously raises the bar for comprehension and correction. This is an attempt to give a glimpse at the ‘bigger picture’ as I currently understand it.

Novel assaults via cyberspace

The main lesson that should be learned from the mid 2010s to the early 2020s is that mass human misery is a force multiplier to all the predatory aspects of our present digital experience. This factor creates a tectonic divide between those who are vulnerable to all kinds of harmful psychological manipulation, and those who may be spared from them for a variety of reasons. This couldn’t be more clear in the rapidly escalating ‘Chatbot Psychosis’ phenomenon, where lonely and/or wounded individuals are easy prey for advanced neurological traps. To make matters much worse, these ‘soft’ dangers are amplified by shocks of economic instability and rising precarity. Those shocks are in part being accelerated by the rapid deployment of massive data-centers, which in turn are ostensibly for further AI deployment. This alone, is a significantly powerful feedback loop for devastation of the public.

One of the more troubling developments when it comes to the digitization of everything is its impact on the workforce and institutions. An extreme potential example would be the person who came forward claiming that ridesharing apps use a scoring mechanism to flag drivers who are desperate to ensure they are being paid as little as possible. This may sound like far-fetched speculation but there are already individualized pricing schemes being tried out by retailers, and it has been a feature of online sales for some time. These tactics raise questions about what possibilities there are in the future for a “multi-tiered” society to leverage all kinds of incentives and penalties to shape behavior. This potential system is far more opaque than a mere state-run “social credit system” because it would a mesh of various business and institutional interests making it very hard to even pin down who should be held accountable for specific abuses. To make matters worse, many of these excesses are effectively normalized today. It can be very difficult to draw the line between acceptable business decisions and what is very clearly organized collusion.

One of the important developing trends would be the wars and rumors of wars that threaten to upend what little stability remains. ‘War footing’ is a powerful pretext for corruption and the erosion if not outright suspension of civil liberties. It should not be ignored that as countries begin to rearm, cyberspace is becoming far more overtly tyrannical in favor of top-down control. It would certainly appear that we are in the stages of a ‘whole of society’ preparation to eliminate dissent prior. It is anyone’s guess what that preparation is actually for, but we can fully expect the many ongoing top-down threats to digital freedom to be rapidly escalated as this continues. As such it is our duty to be proactively focused on the wide array of methods our technological experience can be leveraged against the public to nullify political, social, and economic dissent.

At minimum, it should be expected that a great deal of the data collection over the last decade has been very fruitful in precisely tuning psychological manipulation tactics. Social media giants have been enabled to collect vast amounts of mental health data about individuals in even the most sensitive contexts, it would seem that physical health is next. Health monitors and various ‘wearables’ are not necessarily new, but with the rise of AI technology there is a desire to rapidly expand real-time bio-surveillance on individuals, and the public at large. If the mass abuse of the people’s mental health information can be any guide, we can fully expect the further digitization of health to be a similar-scale disaster if not much worse. Just like real identities online, we can see biometric surveillance move from fringe, to trendy, and eventually all-but-mandatory. It is clear that the politicization and commodification of health will reach exponentially new heights in the relatively near future. When the public is ‘feeling the pinch’ from all directions, there is an understandable impulse to latch on to any readily available ‘solution’ to make the pain go away.

There are many concrete examples of this already. We had the extreme and overt ‘biosecurity’ tyranny of the covid years, where people were denied access to employment or even society generally due to injection status. During the crisis, governments and corporations tested the limits of what they could impose on people. Platforms brazenly suppressed debate on state imposed measures, and institutions harshly punished internal dissent. Those seemingly ’temporary’ or ’emergency’ impositions are certainly not as unthinkable now as they would have been prior to 2020. Far more damaging than the measures themselves is the erosion if not outright eradication of medical ethics that has not been repaired. This means that any health information is almost certainly going to be weaponized as much as people’s social media information has been if not more so. This is escalating at a time where the youth face extreme pressures to leverage any ‘quick fix’ to thrive in a predatory economic and social environment. This can be seen plainly in the ’looksmaxxing’ phenomenon, where many either popularize or aspire to biohack themselves into improving their appearance at potentially high costs. For some of these people, transhumanism isn’t a hypothetical sci-fi concept, but rather a game they are learning to play. There are already people ordering experimental peptides directly for a wide variety of purposes. I speculate that the state’s “monopoly on medicine” is being phased out in favor of DIY human experimentation managed by Big Tech.

State and corporate conquest of cyberspace

What can sound as outlandish or absurd to those not influenced in these spaces, can still have outsized impact in people’s real lives. Far too often extreme toxic dynamics are underestimated because the damages are relegated to neglected youth confined to hostile cyberspace. Social media is already very proficient at leveraging their emotional weaknesses for self-destructive and highly profitable schemes. This can range from self-destructive subcultures to gambling, and naturally predator dominated environments. This dynamic severely victimizes vulnerable people, and the carnage builds demands for radical solutions to resolve the problems. Unfortunately, these problems are complex and require more than simplistic knee-jerk responses. Unfortunately, the (well-deserved) political capital to address the problem ends up being redirected towards seizing more control over cyberspace. Age verification and social media bans in the name of protecting youth do very little to address root causes and are hardly sufficient to hold negligent or malevolent platforms accountable.

The pattern of redirecting justified outrage stemming from complex problems appears to be a constant feature of our time. What is most conspicuous is that there is a repeated pattern of technological systems that exacerbate particular problems are granted free reign in the name of ‘innovation’ despite predictable hazards. Once the damage accumulates to the point of crisis the answer always seems to be a readily prepared package of chipping away at what little room for independence yet exists. All this despite the fact that the bulk of the problem was inflated by top-down consolidation of cyberspace, not mitigated by it. This familiar pattern is very clearly seen in the almost religious fervor governments and institutions are pushing for rapid AI integration throughout every aspect of operations, despite vocally crying concerns about the dangers of AI. Predictably, there wasn’t and still largely isn’t a mainstream discussion about the dangers of the massive power consolidation in cyberspace.

The formula is irritatingly simple:

Prop up a system that nobody really asked for like chatbots in everything, serfdom as a service replacing previously stable employment, and more recently X users getting Grok to undress people
Leverage the resulting frustration as an impetus to carry-out pre-planned policy prescriptions like more censorship, more surveillance, and even more bureaucratic control
Because the top-down control that instigated the issue remains in place, the cycle repeats and is an endless feedback loop of more of the same

What is just as frustrating as the simplicity of this formula, is how well it rhetorically traps objectors. Just as anyone critiquing unprecedented and irresponsible covid lockdown measures were derided as ‘anti-science nutters’, those who point to the irresponsible and ham-fisted deployment of these systems can be similarly dismissed as AI denialists. This works because the complexity or hypothetical promise of the domain is used to both dismiss critical concerns of outsiders, while also being used as sufficient justification for not addressing harms. What’s notable is that this ‘sleight of hand’ is only acceptable when it is used to consolidate power, not to protect civil liberties or decentralize regardless of overall merit. For example the hypothetical benefits of giving children access to AI tools are presumed to outweigh the risks, but the benefits of people having anonymous access to the same material the bots are trained on (the web) is considered too dangerous to allow much longer.

We are currently in the midst of governments finalizing the negotiations with corporations under what terms they will dictate cyberspace to the public. What is good for the public, never mind what the people actually want is irrelevant to this process. The presumption is that a state’s “digital sovereignty” and corporate “innovation” are vastly more important than the interests of the people. This is why all ‘safety’ reforms for cyberspace will inevitably fail to actually increase safety, they’re not really intended to. In fact, the most likely outcome of these ‘reforms’ is to be highly dangerous to the public in more insidious and difficult to quantify ways. The fact that governments across the world are highly concerned about having control over any information the public potentially has access to, and communicates to each other should be alarming. It is highly unlikely that such unparalleled and unprecedented power over the population will be used for benevolent ends, and there are many if not countless malevolent machinations for it.

2025 has been a big year for the expansion of ‘age verification’ on various platforms. This too is a very difficult rhetorical trap. Serious and pressing online safety issues are the justification for drastic measures. Unfortunately these schemes are unlikely to meaningfully protect anyone. It’s security theater for anxious parents. Politicians get to show how seriously they take the issues, corporate compliance firms get their rates, and we all get to pretend there aren’t root issues to address. It would seem that the so-called ‘anxious generation’ isn’t actually the children using social media, but rather the parents and institutions that are beginning to grow concerned of the consequences of neglecting a generation. The firm hand of mass censorship and the smothering watchful eye of mass surveillance work together to ensure that there is nothing disturbing the false harmony that keeps the illusion going. Because of this, we can fully expect more scapegoating of digital freedom for issues that people would much rather not look to closely at.

Cyberwars and ‘splinternets’

They say war never changes, but it certainly has expanded into new realms. Advanced autonomous systems have driven drone warfare to ‘change the game’ on the battlefield, while cyberwars introduce new challenges for both military and civilian systems as a whole. The idealistic vision of the world wide web as a unified shared resource for humanity is certainly in peril. As our countries transition to wartime economies, ‘Digital Sovereignty’ becomes the slogan for total digital dominance over the public. Restricting access to the rest of the world virtually is just common sense to those who wish to have uncontested information control over the public. It turns out that between foreign propaganda and scams, there are endless justifications for doing exactly that. It is absolutely vital that those of us who do understand the dangers of total information control help others understand the grave threats involved. This dynamic is almost guaranteed to fracture the world wide web into a set of ‘splinternets’ separated via ‘great firewalls’ or even physically disconnected. This vastly complicates the future for not just internet freedom, but civil rights and freedom generally.

As it currently exists, the web is quite consolidated already. Cloudflare outages bring down a huge portion of the actual sites people actually use. The vast majority of people’s experience on the Internet is limited to a handful of smartphone apps. This means that for a great many people, the ability to manipulate and constrain their access to information is relatively straight-forward. State initiatives and corporate propaganda can enjoy uncontested authority when any dissent is considered too ‘high risk’ to propagate. As the web becomes more controlled, the people are no longer using the Internet, but become passive subjects to it. The ‘information superhighway’ is relegated to being “broadcast television 2.0”. You can be sure that the digital distraction tools will always be online in some form or another, but that’s not the same as the World Wide Web continuing to live on. If the encryption wars are any guide, we can fully expect information exchange across the world to be seen as too dangerous to permit.

This is not to say there aren’t serious cybersecurity threats. It is just a genuine tragedy that actual security seems to always take a second seat to the need for control. Instead of building up the people to make the best of the challenges and opportunities ahead, it seems that the ’nations of the free world’ would rather keep their citizens docile and compliant. Despite ’lawful access’ backdoor systems being infiltrated by foreign attackers, there seems little interest in actually building up a secure digital foundation for the public from the ground up. It would seem that the powers over the population are seen as much more critical than resilience to foreign threats. As an ordinary person, you’re essentially caught up in the crossfire of titans who are wholly indifferent to your well-being. This means that it is up to individuals and communities to build up digital independence, while that’s still possible.

The War against general-purpose computing

The last year brought one of my principal concerns to mainstream attention: the war on (public access to) general-purpose computing. I wholeheartedly believe that a great deal of scapegoating of technology is directly aimed at manufacturing consent towards ‘cyber disarmament’ of the people. What thrust this important fight into the public’s consciousness was the rapid spike in memory prices largely caused by OpenAI’s purchase of silicon wafers allegedly to ‘stall competition’. In additions to computer RAM, there are concerns about other components like storage becoming much more expensive. Given that storage is one of the primary resources in cyberspace, there are pretty serious implications to the public losing access to it over time. As we have seen, corporations would much rather you store your entire digital life on their cloud servers, rather than privately on your own machines. This then creates the opportunity for governments to dominate the information landscape by controlling these online services. To make matters worse this is not limited to just storage capacity.

Originally GPU prices rose because they were being bought up to run Bitcoin mining farms. This is because GPUs (‘aka “Gaming Cards”) are very useful for parallel processing which makes them great for the number-crunching required for bitcoin and using various AI tools. This double-punch has made what used to be a moderately expensive component to one that will likely be out of reach for a great many people. Not only that, in theory GPU mining on cryptocurrency reinforced the potential for decentralized systems via distributed Proof of Work. On the other hand GPUs being hoarded for centralized data systems would have no such upside. What’s worth recognizing is that the price hikes alone on GPUs effectively lower the ceiling of what potential computing power can be run independently. Computing power is also a primary resource in cyberspace, arguably one of the more critical ones. It is very difficult to decentralized compute in general due to its heavy reliance on energy. On some level computing power will always be inherently centralized to a degree, but the question is if the public be allowed to have independent computing at all.

People vastly underestimate the importance of general-purpose computing, and can’t fathom how much worse things can get when it’s gone. Imagine all the (real) economic benefits since the invention of the transistor being directed by a command economy. Liberties we take for granted on already flawed and compromised systems could be diminished entirely. A non-trivial part of this is that one could argue that personal computing has always been artificially cheap. It’s possible that these price hikes better represent a ‘fair’ value of these machines. That said, I have a feeling that if people paid the true value of computing, they would have zero tolerance for surveillance and any lack of software or hardware freedom. It just so happens that the artificial subsidy is being removed after enough dependency on various technological systems has been established. This is at minimum a form of technological austerity, where the opportunities derived from advances in technology are stifled or reversed.

Another troubling form of ’technological austerity’ would be a AI bubble itself. While so many conversations about AI are entirely contrived, there are important details to consider. Economists argue that opposing automation or technological development is bad and irrational because (in theory) everyone benefits from the efficiency gains. This can certainly be true, but it doesn’t always have to be. Just because a technological tool or system is involved, that doesn’t necessarily mean there are efficiency gains. Every tool is going to have trade-offs, especially when the explicit goal is to replace actual people with automated workflows. Those trade-offs can be net-positive, or net-negative depending on the circumstances, implementation, and complexity involved. For a long time, it would be safe to assume all technological advances would involve a net-positive situation. As our tools become more sophisticated this can change in ways that are hard for many to grasp.

Most people accept the argument that job losses and disruption are good trade for life improving overall. If fancy technology can make hospitals save more lives, move goods around faster, and create great new opportunities for people, then it’s all worth it. But this time seems to be different. People are beginning to recognize that the actual effects of how “AI” is currently being deployed are treating human displacement as an end to itself, rather than a mere byproduct of increased efficiency. They notice that the disruption of participation in society is being disrupted even at the cost of efficiency. This can be seen in large bureaucratic institutions to even warehouse operations. This fundamentally violates the ‘social contract’ behind automation: even if the gains aren’t shared equally throughout society, there should still be a net-gain to the public at large.

It is my position that this is what the “AI bubble” actually is. It’s not about any particular stock or even sector being overvalued. It’s about the recognition that particular tools and systems are being treated as an end to themselves because of real power dynamics, rather than sound economic activity. Anyone interested in ‘calling the top’ of the AI bubble should be warned that the market can remain irrational, longer than you can stay solvent. This is to say that we can expect the imposition of net-negative efficiency tools to continue far longer than raw economic analysis would explain. This is why the discussions around AI technology often involve rhetorical traps. Critics of what can be plainly seen as destructive economic warfare can be easily dismissed as ignorant luddites, while the promoters of the scheme lean on economic arguments that do not even apply in this circumstance.

It would be very different if these systems and tools had to truly compete on a level playing field. I would go as far as to argue that the actual technological benefits of many artificial intelligence tools are actually being under-utilized despite the hype. This is because the social imperatives driving so called “AI adoption” are actually divorced from the economic factors. For example, it’s a lot harder for ’the market’ to invest in machine efficiency in situations where the economic equilibrium is maintained by exploitation. Enterprises like farms and factories are much less likely to mechanize if the political environment is perfectly fine with supplying a grey or black market of workers with no bargaining power. This in turn devalues labor as a whole, impacting even the ‘high skilled’ workers over time. Much worse, eventually the problem becomes a structural dependency, and the idea of unraveling the economic distortion itself becomes seen as too costly. Factors like this are corrosive to actual wealth creation. The opportunities of a skilled and competitive workforce using the latest and greatest tools are traded away for politically connected ‘insiders’ maintaining their ‘moat’.

The point here is that the “AI bubble” is actually a lot worse than a mere misallocation of capital and resources. It is a scheme that is not only transforming the future of cyberspace, but also being weaponized against the public themselves. These assaults are being used to manufacture consent for the digital disarmament of the people by restricting access to the general public. A big part of this is the ubiquitous availability and scaremongering over anti-social use of various AI tools. Simply telling the public “tools aren’t good or bad” will fall on deaf ears when they can plainly see the technology being used in evil and destructive ways, while the benefits of the technology are either abstract or entirely hoarded away from them. The problem is that the public has very little understanding that consolidation over technology itself represents a dire threat to them, and it’s getting much worse over time. Due to the powerful nature of these sophisticated technological tools, there is a desperate race to seize a monopoly on computing itself. As such a true ‘free market’ of technological innovation can’t actually be permitted to exist. Instead of allowing entrepreneurs to focus on innovating ways to improve society, a bottleneck will be needed to ensure ’thinking machines’ don’t upset the many delicate rackets that maintain power over the public. While it’s unthinkable today, if this power grab goes unchecked I can imagine something as simple as a calculator won’t be permitted to be in public hands without the watchful eye of an AI system supervising it’s use. This is far beyond the mere destruction of knowledge, but the total control over information management itself.

Darkest before the dawn

Despite all the above, I think there is a great deal of excitement and opportunity in learning to forge a new path. For those who are interested in developing technical skills, there is a real chance to build truly transformative things. For those who have passions outside of technology, there are also real opportunities to shine. It is absolutely critical that those who want to build a better digital future learn from those who have skills to teach and culture to share. For far too long the idea of being ‘good in tech’ simply meant being the lubricant that allows Big Tech to seep into all aspects of our lives. With these uncertain times, things are dynamic enough that even relatively small things can have a huge impact.

For this year ahead, I am encouraging you to focus less on the small details. Instead of fighting over minute technological choices like which messaging app is best or what social media to use, stay focused on the real fight. What is the better digital future we’re hoping to pass on to future generations? What do we need to do to make small steps towards that? What do we need to genuinely foster not just a world wide web, but and entire technological landscape that supports human society rather than undermines and extracts from it? These certainly aren’t simple questions, with no easy answers, but they are the foundation for meaningful decisions.

There are going to be many technological difficulties that impose all kinds of difficult problems. People are going to be stuck in difficult disentangle traps that may look simple on the surface. Above all, I hope we remember that we’re trying to fix cyberspace for people, rather than ‘fixing’ people for cyberspace. As broader societal problems take on even more of a technological dimension, it is genuinely difficult to remind ourselves that that the problems don’t start and end with the devices we touch. The good news of this is that means there is a great deal that can be done by those outside of the technological realm, to make the job of improving things much easier.

With all this bleakness out of the way, you can look forward to me sharing how we can meaningfully act on these bigger fronts. Of course, I won’t be able to hold back from dropping a few ‘hot takes’ on the fine details as they come up as well. I’m wishing you an excellent 2026, and looking forward to building a better cyberspace with you.

Gabriel
Libre Solutions Network

💌 Thank you for reading this via RSS 📡

Teachable Moment: Will the digital control grid inevitably fail, or is it already here?

Tue, 09 Dec 2025 01:53:40 +0000

Are people truly choosing digital tyranny?

This is my contribution to a larger discussion started by Terry Wolfe (AKA The Winter Christian) referencing a piece: Is Global Technocracy Inevitable Or Dangerously Delusional?. Terry Wolfe states “Brandon Smith has been a more sober analyst than most for the last decade. He says the digital prison planet is fragile and unlikely.” I’ll certainly agree on the fragility of a global control grid, but wholeheartedly disagree that digital totalitarianism is somehow a remote possibility. Any frank and sober analysis of our existing digital landscape reveals how overtly tyrannical and abusive much of it is, but this is often blamed on the victims.

For example, Brandon Smith’s piece argues that digital tyranny is entirely built on the consent of those ruled over by it, therefore if enough people simply ‘smarten up’ then all the issues will never come to pass. This ignores the very real and pressing impacts that people are already experiencing. For decades people have lamented countless people throwing away their lives scrolling on screens, but hardly any of them really ask Why. Why do so many people carry smartphones, despite the numerous privacy, security, and mental health dangers? Why do people put up with our present digital experience when it is so overtly malevolent?

‘Convenience’ we can sneer. This simple word allows us to shift the blame away from billions in social engineering research and manipulative tactics onto those who merely play the cards they’ve been dealt. It is the height of hubris to believe that just because we may have taken proactive steps to protect ourselves in this evolving virtual environment, that those who fail must simply be too dumb and lazy to care. Resistance to modern digital intrusions requires a certain luxury of time, if not an investment in skills or particular sacrifices. While yes smartphones and other modern systems and tools are very much responsible for accelerating human dispossession, to identify them as the cause is to mistake the symptoms for the illness.

It is my position that the nature of the control grid is primarily financial. This is plain to see in the technological realm. Surveillance capitalism is a fascinating feat of financial engineering that has built the foundations of our terrifying and tragic digital experience online. The “attention economy” as it exists was not an inevitable outcome of the Internet Age, but rather a deliberate construction to enable mass data collection. The smartphone was a convenient beachhead for these intrusions but was certainly not the only means of delivering this kind of manipulation.

Which is where Brandon Smith’s piece makes some fairly important points about AI technology, but still misses the forest for the trees. The AI bubble is undeniably a creature of the national security state just as Big Tech. We can point and laugh at people who succumb to asking LLM chatbots for life advice, but in doing so we’re forgetting the full-spectrum assault on deploying that particular payload to desperate, vulnerable people. My point, is that digital tyranny is downstream of actual totalitarianism, not the other way around. It is absurdly obtuse to begin human history at the invention of the transistor and then use that as the “blank slate” to condemn people for falling into particularly nefarious traps.

It is genuinely fascinating to me that for all the shouting about the evils of smartphones, there has been very little interest in understanding why they continue to thrive and dominate with hardly any real resistance. It is my belief that placing all the blame on digital tools (even where it is warranted) achieves two disastrous aims: 1) It is a useful distraction from the social, economic, and other real-life pressures that drive adoption. 2) Pushes simplistic discussions about digital tools being wholly good or bad without real nuance and due consideration. To use a metaphor, smartphones are an apex predator adapted to a particular environment, the predator will ultimately remain until the environment changes. In concrete terms, people aren’t ‘on the road to slavery’ because they have smartphones. They have smartphones because they are on the road to slavery.

This inversion of cause and effect is not only simplistic, but places the blame on those assaulted rather than on those doing the assaulting. It is a familiar pattern that rarely ventures deep into examining the specific mechanisms of how power is consolidated over time, and leads to structural impacts on people’s behavior. A lack of domain knowledge can be easily made up with writing everything off as evil, but this approach rarely leads to useful discussion on a better path forward. On the other hand, those with the critical technical skills can struggle on two fronts: 1) being unable to bridge the knowledge gaps to the general public, therefore sounding incomprehensible 2) being entirely reliant on the control grid for income, staying silent as long as the credits roll in.

What one needs to consider is that one of the primary drivers for digital control systems is risk management. Almost every mass-surveillance technology has a simple small-scale security project as a proof-of-concept. Facial recognition, access control, and invasive data collection are all vital features of any robust security solution. It just so happens that those systems are also very valuable for tyrannical regimes. This goes even further into the realm of cyberspace, where control over access to information itself can maintain order over unstable situations. We have already seen many counties in the ‘free world’ move towards not only regulating social media itself, but also developing control measures over the Internet itself.

Scale is the enemy: a deep analysis of the control grid

In response to Terry’s points, DJ put together a very valuable presentation: Technocracy: Okay but can they do it? (No not really.). I disagree with the title, and many of the conclusions drawn. That said, this presentation is absolutely worth the watch due to the excellent historic overview of how our digital experience was constructed over time. A main point of DJ’s presentation here is that the entire digital landscape went through various phases of development. He explains how digital systems started as research projects, then moving into institutions, to how industry picked them up to being to “model reality” to track people and transactions. This detailed technical explanation of where we have been and where things are headed is unparalleled and certainly worth your time. Unfortunately, I do worry that it isn’t particularly accessible to those without significant technical backgrounds, so I will do my best to charitably explain the main ideas.

Transcript

DJ explains that for a technological control grid to function, it requires particular dependencies. In the presentation he does a fantastic job outlining how those dependencies were logically constructed together. To properly control individual behavior, a digital ‘model’ is required to conceptualize the person or entity in virtual space. Trying to do this for billions of people, the development of immensely scalable and interoperable systems is critical. He explains that these advances have happened through a few major ‘revolutions’ in technological infrastructure. What makes his presentation invaluable is that he outlines precise technical details and explains how they are directly connected to particular tyrannical measures.

Where DJ and I disagree is the assertion that we are not ‘advanced enough’ for digital totalitarianism. We could nit-pick back and forth the question of is it complete or scalable enough, but that is to miss the forest for the trees. The ‘digital control grid’ is not a prerequisite for human tyranny, but rather an enhancement on top of it. Tyrannical digital systems are creatures of the environments they are developed in. If it was truly the case that a system was itself sufficient to be the difference between tyranny and liberty, then liberty could simply be delivered to less-free nations via cargo plane. While delivering entirely Free and Open Source systems to people in tyrannical nations is certainly worthwhile assistance, it itself is wholly insufficient to transform their lives.

In fact, I would argue that Brandon Smith is correct that digital tyranny is brittle and requires human cooperation, but it is the height of naivete to believe that human cooperation can only be coerced via technological means. This is where I disagree with the conclusion that a digital control grid is something that exists in the future rather than the present. Digital totalitarianism is something that exists alongside tyranny in other domains, not merely before it. Both Brandon and DJ are correct that the public is being lied to about the nature and applicability of AI. However, DJ raises the important point that ‘on-site’ LLMs can be ‘good enough’ to be used to dictate behavior inside systems that are gated behind various control measures.

Terry, DJ, and Brandon are mistaken to focus on the concept of a global and total control grid. This all-or-nothing approach to the problem of technological tyranny dismisses real, present dangers in the name of hypothetical future ones. Cyberspace is certainly becoming more hostile, but this is largely due to the governments and corporations that have so much control over it are themselves becoming more overtly tyrannical. It is my position that for many, their perception of digital tyranny is shaped by their experiences with how they experience abuse of power in their real lives. If one is so lucky to be (even relatively) insulated from the consequences of abusive governments and corporate coercion, digital tyranny seems like a remote and fanciful idea. Yet ironically, for those who genuinely struggle with the worst of digital assaults technology isn’t actually that high up the concern list. For many people who’s data is directly leveraged against them and their vulnerable circumstances, the need to acquire necessities is a much more principle concern.

If a concrete example of this is needed, try searching for jobs online without having/leveraging any personal connections. Job seekers are expected to divulge an absurd amount of personal information online to countless institutions with no real recourse if their information is misused and abused. Your typical ‘gig worker’ is unlikely to have privacy at the height of their concerns when the choice is between ‘opting out of tyranny’ or attempting to make a day’s wage. Both of these people are by their precarity ripe for exploitation in ways that some will never even contemplate. This “class divide” on digital tyranny is no accident, it is a powerful way to assert the rigid barriers on social mobility. This is before you consider concrete financial incentives such as the comforts of working in line with state preferences, and the punishments of working against them. Consider how politicians can choose winners and losers by giving particular industries (such as AI) preferential treatment, and those working for more independent pursuits (like your local farmer) may struggle with red tape and burdensome regulation.

Fight tyranny now to prevent the control grid

As stated earlier, the control grid is here not in the future. Any future instantiation of a digital control system is the direct consequence of present-day power plays. Our hostile digital experience, and its grave impacts on much of the public should be evidence enough that there is an urgent threat of technological totalitarianism. Instead of giving up on the public as helpless ‘sheeple’ we should be more willing to dissect and interrogate the incentives driving behaviors. The ‘big picture’ is a lot more complex and messy than the surface public discussion would lead you to believe. If any of this was simple, it would have reached a conclusion by now.

It is all too easy to a-priori define complete digital totalitarianism as impossible or unsustainable, but that does nothing to address the real problems that exist today. Instead of patting ourselves on the back for resisting measures that are yet to come, why not consider what needs to be done today? There are innumerable ways in which we can make our current digital landscape better. Some of those decisions are personal, but others are much more complicated collection action problems. Instead of giving up and treating those coordination challenges as impossible, we should directly focus efforts on confronting them. I think it is prudent, but also entirely critical to fight to leave our descendants a better digital future no matter what is in store.

Ultimately, the hardest part is humanizing those who struggle with these assaults. In the broader discussion around global tyranny, it seems that the most seductive explanation is the one that transfers blame from the tyrants to the people. I am convinced this is a critical part of how such tyranny is maintained. People will exclaim that it would all end if the people just refused to tolerate it anymore, but how many of us tolerate the abuse against our fellow citizens when it happens? What red lines get crossed as we watch on indifferently, merely because it doesn’t yet impact us? What are we actually doing in our day-to-day lives to enable, or add friction to abuses of power. What should be done to safeguard people’s liberties both in their real lives and in cyberspace?

These questions aren’t easy. They have messy answers that require consistent work. Nothing is as simple as a single decision that eradicates all the problems. As such, we should be more surgical and precise when it comes to analyzing problems. While I may disagree with DJs conclusions, I am thoughoughly impressed with his outlining of his thought process in a way that can allow us to get to the meat of these issues. It is this level of analysis I find terribly lacking in many dissident circles. It is so much easier to chant consensus rather than to openly inquire about the messy reality we find ourselves in. When it comes to being capable of preventing egregious overreach, technological or not, it requires an uncharacteristic level of humility and courage. We don’t just need technical skills to fight digital tyranny, meaningful compassion and understanding are far more essential.

The simple fact is that none of us alone has any real control over what the future brings. There are many good reasons to believe that technological tyranny is a dire and urgent threat that is unlikely to be stopped. On the other hand, there are also a wide variety of reasons to hold on to hope that we can prevent future abuses and address existing ones. The real discussion isn’t about what is and isn’t likely, so much of that is out of our hands. The important part is what are the real risks, and what can be done to address them today.

💌 Thank you for reading this via RSS 📡

Inbox Question: Becoming computer literate

Tue, 18 Nov 2025 10:55:14 +0000

I recently was asked an excellent question about how to become computer literate and where is a great place to start. Despite digital technology getting much of the blame for current-day problems, I wholeheartedly believe that computer literacy is a very valuable skill for people of all walks of life. As our digital experience becomes more complex, it’s needed more than ever to judiciously use machines rather than have them use you.

Far from surrendering the digital landscape to tyrants and those who uncritically accept their machinations, we should encourage, foster, and support an environment where people are maximally able to be as computer literate as possible. This very much strikes at the root of why I believe this project (the Libre Solutions Network) is an important part of building a better future.

Where do I start with all of this?

I know, vague, but I have no idea where to begin. I’ve used Windows for a long time, and like most people I didn’t do a lot of ‘computing’ on computers; mainly just used it to access the internet, some games, and a few programs. I moved to Linux Mint a few years ago but I use it basically the same way I used Windows XP before.

What fundamentals do I need to start using technology, instead of having technology use me?
What should I study first to learn how to actually compute things?

The only direction I have in mind is getting a thinkpad or other old computer, getting it with libreboot or coreboot, and using a decent operating system, but I don’t know what how or what I can do with it aside from simply store text files locally.

I know Rome wasn’t built in a day, but I have no clue where to lay the foundations. What sort of things should I seek to be independent of, what things will I practically need such as e-mail, etc. I want to know the groundwork of tech literacy so I can know what things I can gradually work towards, and how to accomplish them.

This may not even be relevant, but I have access to an old Commodore 64 and some books on programming with it.

Defining ‘computer literacy’

These days computers are very much everywhere and take a variety of forms. It can be dizzying to enumerate all the different platforms and form factors from laptops to smartphones and wearables. For the purposes of this question ‘computer literacy’ means being proficient at using desktop computers for a more varied and useful set of functions. My personal and broader definition of computer literacy means getting the best utility out of the hardware available. Computer literacy even in this narrow domain is still quite broad. We can include proficiency with a wide variety of software tools, to command-line mastery as well as some sophisticated scripting. Like many rewarding skills there really isn’t a ceiling to hit, but more of a trade-off of what you want to get for how much time you can invest.

What fundamentals do I need to start using technology, instead of having technology use me? What should I study first to learn how to actually compute things?

No matter what you have access to, there’s always a lot you can do to level-up. Every system is going to have a wide variety of (Free & non-free) software options available to try out for all kinds of different tasks. Even if you’re at a loss of what you would like to use computers for, it helps to try out simple things to get a basic familiarity with what’s available. Maybe try recording a song, or editing a video with the tools available (such as Kdenlive on Linux) to scratch the surface of what’s doable on your machine. Even relatively simple things like spreadsheets in LibreOffice Calc can help you do a lot of useful things. I use it to track my weight loss journey. At the beginning, it’s not important to necessarily master every tool, but just scratch the surface of things to learn what is possible.

As you get more comfortable with accomplishing different specific tasks on your system, you will eventually form a broader understanding of how truly flexible and impressive even fairly old systems can be. This can also involve becoming more proficient with the operating system you’re running. As a linux user you’ll likely want to consider becoming proficient at the command-line to learn to manipulate data directly with the wide variety of console tools. The advantage of this approach is that you’d be very surprised at what can be done with ‘just text files’ and processing them.

Of course, another great place to start is by learning how the system you’re using works. Trying to make as many (reversible) changes as possible, and try to find things that make it work more to your liking. For example, after trying out many different ‘window managers’ in Linux, I personally found that KDE gave me the mix of convenience & customization that I really enjoyed. As you refine your system over time, it can become more of a reflection of what you want out of your machine. Some people just want a minimal and sleek experience, while others sometimes want flashy and beautiful options, the beauty is that with enough effort it all seems very much within reach for advanced Linux users.

Major steps:

Try out a wide variety of software to perform a variety of tasks
Discover what changes you can make to your system itself and find out which ones improve your experience for you
Consider learning the very basics of the command-line if you’re very motivated to maximize the utility of your system

That said, that’s definitely not the end of your journey. Once you’re comfortable with those steps you reach the tipping point of having a non-trivial idea of what’s available. That’s only a tiny fraction of what’s actually possible. Depending on the particularity of your goals, you may find yourself interested in building your own software to accomplish particular tasks. It starts out small, but eventually one realizes that they can change almost anything with enough time and effort. I don’t think learning to program is essential to make good use of machines, but it definitely helps put many things into perspective.

Eventually you learn that all software is just layers of code. The programs that you run, and the scripts you tinker with are just code calling other code. Making meaningful programs is something you can do the moment you learn the basics of the command-line for your system. The command-line ‘shell’ for your system interprets instructions, and a list of these instructions written down can already be a very powerful script. Scripting on your system will get you very comfortable with manipulating data you acquire or modify with a wide variety of programs, but writing your own programs and scripts for this purpose changes the game dramatically.

Rewiring the foundation

It is ironic that you can accomplish all of the above, become a very powerful ’tech wizard’ but many will still gate-keep you as a mere trickster. While at that point you can likely accomplish almost anything you set your mind to yet there will still be people claiming you don’t actually understand computers. As frustrating as this is, there is truth to it. Learning various software programs and even writing your own doesn’t really require you to actually wrestle with what the machine is doing at a physical level. Our entire digital experience, even for programmers, is built on layers and layers of abstractions that simplify more fundamental operations. For those interested in not only getting the most out of their machines, but also reforging a better digital future, there is a great deal of opportunity. Learning to master the machines themselves, rather than just the abstractions built on top of them is invaluable.

This may not even be relevant, but I have access to an old Commodore 64 and some books on programming with it.

It is absolutely quite relevant, because that platform is a great place to start learning both programming but also learning to wrestle with the machine directly. Other alternatives like micro-controllers and Raspberry Pis are great starts, but the C64 is definitely an all-in-one solution to gaining very valuable skills to enhance your long-term programming pursuits. Depending on your goals, learning to program closer to the metal, can make a radical difference on your perspective of computing. Ironically by recognizing the vast differences of all the different platforms, you begin to understand and appreciate the underlying shared foundation.

When one broadens their understanding of ‘computer’ to mean any sufficiently complex circuit, you can absolutely take on the broader challenge of robotics. With basic programming under one’s belt, they unlock the ability to wrestle with mind, machine, and physics. There is a phenomenal wealth of opportunity in learning to repair, salvage, and build better devices now that things are more accessible than ever. Parts are cheap, but ingenuity and passion are much more precious commodities. When one understands that every aspect of our digital experience, software, hardware, and even the devices themselves are very much interchangeable, the game changes dramatically.

Learning and building digital independence is a lot more than just a solitary endeavor. From the very beginning I would encourage you to join communities where you can find help and learn from others. The more we come together the more we can find ways to overcome shared obstacles and challenges. I would absolutely encourage you to learn more about Free Software and the collaborative mindset behind Free and Open Source Software/Hardware movements.

What sort of things should I seek to be independent of, what things will I practically need such as e-mail, etc.

Ultimately, this is entirely up to you. I would personally recommend recognizing that much of our digital experience is hostile cyberspace and that it is up to us to rebuild a better foundation. Big Tech social media is one of the more openly malevolent forces of our time, yet many people struggle to disconnect without feeling isolated. E-mail is the very same in which it has many problems but a great many institutions people interact with rely on it. One can argue you’re free to forgo any aspect of our present digital environment, but in practice the consequences can be quite non-trivial.

I’ve written before that every technological evil has “a very simple engineering solution, but a hard collective action problem to fix”. This means that improving your own digital experience very often requires the cooperation and participation of others. This is the main reason why this project, the Libre Solutions Network exists. We need others to understand and value each other’s privacy, security, and digital independence. The first step is education, and we’re going to need a lot of teachers. I wish you well in your journey to master machines.

💌 Thank you for reading this via RSS 📡

A low-stakes critical thinking exercise for online media

Mon, 03 Nov 2025 08:56:46 +0000

Critical thinking is a fundamental skill for staying sane in today’s online media landscape. Like many valuable and rewarding skills, it takes practice, and is much more difficult to master than it can be described. To make matters worse, a lack of critical thinking amongst the public creates opportunities for some of the most despicable behavior to go rewarded if not outright addressed. With this piece, I hope to provide some ‘beyond the basics’ guidance for those who may already be fairly good critical thinkers as well as a pragmatic first step for those who could benefit from an accessible starting point. While it is easy to dismiss online media as a whole, this should help people to navigate the unprecedented complexity of our current digital experience.

Instead of giving up entirely, it is valuable to get the most out of what is available today. Very often one can find excellent information from unlikely and often conflicting sources, while trusted and well-known resources can just as often fall short. Being skeptical of things that go against our biases is easy, but being as focused and critical of things we identify with is much harder. To truly be a shrewd critical thinker, and a proficient learner, one absolutely must learn to to put all ideas, foreign and comfortable alike, into a precise sieve. With the right frame of mind, one can transform their mind into a powerful forge that refines raw ideas into precious insight. This frame of mind includes a variety of cognitive skills that build on each other, and are relatively easy to take on at first. The real challenge is being consistent and properly processing ideas from sources and mediums you trust. The purpose of this overview is to help you learn how you can upgrade your own critical thinking capacity without coming up against any bias or personal stake.

An “info-junkie’s” guide to media

I certainly don’t consider myself an expert or authority on the subject of critical thinking. I like to believe that I am proficient at it, largely due to being an extremely online ‘digital native’ for much of my life. For a long time letting my curiosity run wild over the Internet was a major (counter-productive) coping-mechanism for stress to me. In hindsight, I can see how over-time I gained a valuable skill for traversing narrative networks to identify the most interesting speakers within a particular domain. This ability is something I would do unknowingly to abate my insatiable curiosity. Recently, I have had the opportunity to consciously assess this skill. By taking on a new interest of mine (health & fitness) I applied the same familiar skillset while reflecting on what I was doing and what I was learning. The results were fascinating.

With the abundance of online media already, and generative AI threatening to completely flood and outpace what was already immense, there is an absolutely overwhelming need to learn to evaluate and filter what information is out there. The great challenge of this, is that when one is new to a domain, we do not know what we do not know. A certain amount of trial and error is expected to wrap our minds around not just the domain itself, but also the fine details of the inevitable disagreements within that domain. The good news is that relatively simple methods can absolutely help you get the most out of what is out there fairly quickly.

The most important habit is epistemological humility. Understanding and accepting that there are limits to your knowledge, always will be is fundamental to building a strong mental refiner. You can’t learn if you don’t believe you need to learn. To go even further, you need to also be able to honestly evaluate what you believe you know. As you improve this skill, it will become easier to discover and confront your presently unknown biases and knowledge gaps. Epistemological humility helps improve every aspect of critical thinking in practice. By recognizing your own mental and intellectual limits you can also be comfortable recognizing those of your allies and trusted sources.

Collecting insight

As I’ve always loved to collect information the early steps are always the most fun for me. My curiosity gives me an open mind by default on many topics. Once you’ve recognized that you have more to learn in a particular domain, it becomes natural to seek out sources of information on that domain. Each domain will have specific topics that themselves represent almost entirely new domain in many cases. Once you get a sense for how vast and deep this fractal of knowledge is, the more you can appreciate the lifelong joy that learning truly is. This means that when one is new to particular topic or domain, the quality of the beginning sources matters very little. When beginning to wrestle with a topic it is crucial to expose yourself to the broad representation of what the discussion entails.

By casting a wide net, and not being too picky when starting out you can begin to learn the boundaries and differences within the topic or domain. As you let your mind feast on the diversity in quality and presentation of information, gradually you begin to build your own understanding of it. As this knowledge improves you now have the capacity to deliberately focus your learning on the topics that are either in contention, or otherwise important to you. In the beginning, it is immensely valuable to spend the time to seek out less-known or popular sources of information, but sometimes you can luckily discover them in passing as you explore. With a bit of epistemological humility, you can recognize that early on you don’t have enough understanding of the topic to judge sources too harshly.. The best use of this early stage is to use it to collect a variety of sources in whatever media forms you wish to learn from. The variety will later serve you as you begin to narrow down your focus to high quality sources of information or on those that otherwise provide valuable and unique perspectives.

Conflict is good, actually

One of the earliest discoveries one will make when entering a domain is that there are always significant points of contention. To outsiders it may often look like needlessly splitting hairs, but in many cases there is a crucial value in understanding the important distinction being made. If ideas are raw minerals that you refine into precious ingots of insight, conflict is the fire that puts the ideas to the test. Disagreement is when different understanding or perspectives are brought into contrast. This is not to say that all conflicts and disagreements are productive however. Drama can be fun and entertaining, however being able to disagree without losing composure or crossing lines is a difficult skill that I myself have yet to properly master. A great speaker with loads of insight may struggle when challenged, and a calm person may or may not have a passion for the finer points of the discussion. This makes getting the most out of conflict within domains a particularly difficult challenge, but it is productive, it is often immensely instructive.

The reason it “leads if it bleeds” is that any disagreement usually reveals much about not only the topic at hand, but also about the participants. What may appear at the surface to be mindless petty gossip and juvenile mud-flinging can often unearth things that people have yet to truly contend with. This goes beyond just the unknown biases of individuals, but also the thinkers within a domain almost entirely. By recognizing conflict as an opportunity to learn, you can often run off with the spoils of a debate from the sidelines while others continue to lose themselves. Of course, eventually you learn enough to be trapped in these conflicts yourself. This is where your learning becomes contingent on your ability to honestly reflect on your own participation as well as your opponents. ‘Turning the other cheek’ can very often be an opportunity to learn from your own conflicts and develop a much deeper understanding of what drives not only the conflict itself, but even your own actions and reactions.

When you get to this point, you’ve learned enough to begin to discern what sources of information are useful in particular contexts. It is crucial to not develop an “all-or-nothing” approach to this. Some sources will still be valuable sometimes, even if they are not for the vast majority of time. At some point, it is necessary to do a “cost-benefit analysis” of your time engaging with any particular media source. Each source and speaker has a certain “signal to noise” ratio and frequency. Having a rough idea of both will help you decide how best to partition your time and engagement with particular sources.

Intellectual prospecting

On any issue, there is almost guaranteed to be a variety of perspectives, or at least two sides. It is very common, that even the unpopular side may make some particularly important points that are valuable to the discussion, or even other issues as well. Under-represented positions are often a valuable deposit of unique perspectives and different approaches. Being able to listen to those who have different positions than you, even opposing ones for valuable points can be a way to find flecks of precious insight in what may otherwise seem valueless. In my own experience, being able to glean important points from those who I share very little in common with has presented me with ideas and opportunities that I never would have found otherwise. Being open-minded doesn’t mean merely changing your values and beliefs with current trends, but rather being able to fully investigate a concept even if you’re opposed to it.

If you ever needed a reason to love your enemies, a good one is to recognize that you can learn a lot from them. If you listen, they’ll very often make some scathing and excellent critiques of your allies. It may be worth taking those criticisms seriously, even if you have no intention to change your perspective on the issues. Very often your opponents and critics can be a very valuable mirror to hold to yourself. It’s much easier for you to recognize their flaws than your own. It turns out, that you’re quite likely to have similar flaws and weaknesses, even if only in kind but not degree. This is an opportunity to protect your mind from your ego. It is quite a mistake to ‘judge a book by its cover’ and assume there are no fruitful trees in the forest. To go even further, connecting with and learning from those on different sides of various issues can help get you a better grasp of the basics.

This is yet another area that epistemological humility plays an important role. While you may be incredibly certain about your understanding of a particular topic or focus, it can be easy to miss that your understanding has its limits. While other perspectives may clash with your own experience, it is possible there are many factors you yet don’t understand that explain the difference. Being able to accept that there is much outside your personal experience can help you identify places you need to understand better to truly gain a well-rounded grasp of a contentious issue. To make things so much more complicated, there are many inevitable communication barriers between people of different life experiences and backgrounds. To truly gain a broad understanding of divisive issues, one must learn to patiently listen to those in ways that over time can overcome communication barriers.

While true and false are absolutely real, and some of objective reality is regularly measurable, don’t make the mistake of being overconfident in certain positions. There can be a lot of value in understanding what leads people astray. By dismissing it all as ‘brainwashing’ or ‘disinformation’ you can miss that there may be real grains of truth underpinning the argument. There are many issues where our measurements of reality are simply too limited. Think of how many headlines are generated from studies that ultimately relied on self-reported surveys asking vague questions. Precision matters, and there are many places we will never truly have that much precision.

Hate the game, not the player(s)

With some of my personal experiences running this multi-media passion project, I’ve gotten hands-on experience wrestling with the incentives around content creation. Most people are familiar with the fact that mainstream social media algorithms will often influence creators and projects with how particular content and presentation is rewarded. This project was started with a deliberate focus on being as pro-decentralization as possible. This means not only making use of more niche systems like PeerTube & RSS, but also forgoing analytics entirely by running two darknet mirrors for the site. This means that in terms of feedback, I have very much been “running blind” relative to more mainstream media endeavors. While at the same time, Substack and the people I have come in touch with have provided me valuable context for the more commonly tread side of things.

“Follow the money” is absolutely timeless advice that pays dividends when it comes to critical thinking. I have had the frustration and pleasure of “not being bought” when it comes to this enterprise. I have deliberately forgone affiliate codes, and have yet to become notable enough to receive any sponsorships for products and services. The only financial gain I have directly received from this project is a small set of paid supporters via Substack, and some BuyMeACoffee / Monero donations. I give this context to explain that I have an understanding of the pressures of independent content creation, and the incentives that transform online discussions. Much of my choices have limited the time for this project to be as grand as I would dream. Lack of funding has restricted my time for this project as well as made ‘production value’ a very difficult challenge.

Every platform and medium has its own pros and cons. Decentralized platforms such as the Fediverse and nostr will defnitely have more niche content, but otherwise are also a smaller audience. The big platforms requires you to thrive in a highly competitive “crowded trade” and it can be very challenging to stand out. Large corporate platforms will decide what does and does not perform well on their platform and that can have a immense impact on content and presentation, especially over time. Diversifying platforms can equalize access to your content, but unfortunately it is much easier to do that rather than diversity the income coming from a variety of sources. In almost every major online media platform the revenue follows a typical Pareto distribution where the vast majority of the revenue goes towards a few highly profitable ventures while the remaining majority make little if any at all.

Individual incentives and compromise

A powerful incentive these days is that very often creators will not be alone. Collaboration is almost always a win-win exercise when it comes to learning and presenting information as well as deepening ties between interested parties. I have greatly enjoyed my Digital Autonomy Series of interviews, and other collaborations I’ve done. That’s not to say there are no downsides or considerations that audiences should have regarding collaborations. Some people, like myself, are pretty happy to talk to pretty much anyone relevant. In many cases, people should know that collaborations can very much be direct business associations. This is intuitive to many people, even if it is not outright recognized. But there is also another form of association truly worth contending with: narrative networks.

There are different kinds of narrative networks, some are bottom-up, others are top-down. The modern media landscape is an “attention economy” that turns your time and attention into real financial gain for some. Some forms of content (such as propaganda) are deliberately produced at a financial loss to buy influence. To make matters even more complex, with people seeking out independent voices, there are many trusted speakers who can be bought for much less than institutions would require. This is what makes the democratization of the media landscape a bit of a ‘double-edged sword’. Independent voices are a vital force for accountability and unique perspectives, however they are more vulnerable to certain forms of pressure than larger institutions. This is not to say large institutions are incorruptible however, the fact is that their very existence has to rely on some source of funding which will represent a set of interests. If a single person is malleable, consider how corruptible a large project with exponentially more resources at stake and an existential opposition to particular voices and ideas.

As such, both individuals and organizations alike can organically and by design drift in and out of various groups. These groups are effectively playing a “team sport” to amplify each other implicitly and sometimes explicitly. This has benefits for those involved, but very often audiences bear the costs. It is much harder for voices deeply embedded in a narrative network (either top-down or bottom-up) to be critical of those on their team. Beyond mere personal association, there may in fact be strong interests or business ties that make criticism within the same ‘side’ a liability. This is why in 2025 you will rarely see mainstream figures publicly point out shortcomings of their own side. Nuance and authenticity is traded for consensus and figures both mainstream and independent alike are absolutely vulnerable to this. This is another area where an “all or nothing” approach isn’t helpful. It is reasonable to recognize the limitations of particular voices and projects, while at the same time learning from what they can offer. A problematic association itself may be disappointing, but recognizing the reality of the pressures on online media explains a lot of behavior.

Because of this, escaping online ‘filter-bubbles’ requires truly out-of-the-box thinking. This is why I mentioned earlier that a wide diversity of information sources is valuable, these days it is paradoxically all-too-easy to forget other information sources even exist. The trouble very often boils down to trust. As someone with a lot to learn on any given topic, trust is always required at particular points in time. It is absolutely paramount that we regularly reevaluate that trust so that we can refine our information sources over time. That said, to not close yourself out it is vital that you still remain open to differing sources of information, even revisiting old ones.

Refining information into knowledge

The difference between education and entertainment is application. There is nothing inherently wrong with entertainment itself, but it is very important to be deliberate about what you are doing. I think “infotainment” itself can be a perfectly viable way to present information, but it all boils down to what you’re acting on. Your learning should be aligned with your goals and values. Confronting your goals and values is an inherent part to developing them over time. So it is important to challenge yourself just as much if not more than the information you come across. Consider asking yourself what is the reason you are investing so much of your time with particular online media or platforms. It’s entirely possible that there are many important reasons for why you are, but sometimes it can boil down to the app or platform having conditioned you into craving novelty for a constant dopamine rush.

Learning to think critically requires putting ideas to the test. If you’re not willing to act on it, then you’re simply collecting. Again, I don’t think there’s much wrong with collecting information itself, as long as that is what one chooses to do. But I have learned myself that the best way to truly learn a particular topic or domain is to put the information to actual use. By testing what you have learned against reality you will inevitably learn that things are far more complex than simplistic and comforting explanations may convey. The truth of many things will always be hidden, you can only gradually improve your flawed grasp of it over time with feedback. Learning isn’t just about rote memorization of dogma or facts, but rather about the deeper understanding forged from testing your knowledge against your own experiences.

But that’s only part of the story. Your experiences as vast as they may be, can only account for a small portion of reality. It is entirely possible that you’re missing out on factors that are entirely unknown to you. Instead of assuming you’re perfectly objective in all things, being willing to seek out opposing views can help you truly refine your own knowledge. This is where it becomes very important to have real connection with those substantially different from yourself. Deep friendships with others who have radically different perspectives are valuable, especially if both participants have the capacity to set aside differences to grow each other. These days, those kind of friendships sound almost mythological, but I can assure you they are worth developing. Nothing is more epistemologically humbling than being confronted with an argument you never would have imagined by someone you already know quite well.

But sharing is definitely caring. Even at the most advanced stages epistemological humility pays off big, if not even more so. Sharing your understanding can be painful when one is used to criticism or fearful of correction. But both criticism and correction can be some of the most valuable feedback you’ll get. While validation feels nice in the moment, even the harshest criticism or uncomfortable correction will teach you so much more if you let it. The clearer you share the fullness of your knowledge the better feedback you can receive. You’ll be able to ask finer questions and learn from anyone. The beauty of this is that you can build your expertise while realizing you’ve been teaching all along the way. Teaching others not only reinforces your own understanding, but can also bring other fine minds into your circles to learn from.

Exercise: Analyzing a Narrative Network

Speaking of putting things into practice, I wouldn’t leave you with all this without a way you can immediately build your critical thinking skills. One may think that practicing critical thinking isn’t something you can just do, but I have found that’s not true at all. In this exercise you’ll find a domain you (likely) don’t have strong feelings about (Don’t worry, eventually you will!) and exploring it. You’ll need to follow the process I described above and cast a wide net for information then synthesize what you’ve come across. You’ll then be able to answer a question from a variety of angles, but also understand what drives those perspectives.

In an attempt to not bias your process, I have decided to omit any links as a starting point. I think using your own research skills to find a starting point would be more useful.

Example 1 - A foundation of sand: ‘Evidence-based’ weight-lifting"

A notable exercise scientist has become embroiled in scandal when a YouTube video about his Phd thesis was published. It turns out that the thesis as published was riddled with embarrassing mistakes, casting doubt on him. The scandal has erupted into a broader debate about the major figures in online “evidence-based lifting” circles.

Questions:

What does the quality of Dr Mike Israetel’s PhD thesis say about his advice on weight-lifting to the general public?
Who is critical of Dr Israetel and what are their major disagreements with him?
Putting aside who is right and who is wrong, what motivates particular figures to take particular sides in the drama?
What are the major limitations you see in the public exercise science discussions online?
How should people get information on building strength & muscle?

Example 2 - It’s just a game: Is Star Citizen a scam?

Over a decade ago Chris Roberts crowdfunded for two ambitious space games. One a single-player story experience, and a full-fledged Massively Online Multi-player game to go along with it. As of 2025 the single-player game is still not released and the MMO lacks many of the promised features and content. The game is regularly dismissed as a failure if not an outright scam in many gaming circles, but you won’t often hear that opinion expressed by content creators who speak about the game. By now, anyone still talking about Star Citizen regularly is subject to quite the survivorship bias.

Questions:

What content creators are regularly talking about Star Citizen and which ones are more or less influenced by Cloud Imperium Games?
How does that impact coverage of problems in the game, and problems created by Cloud Imperium Games?
What does coverage of Star Citizen look like inside and outside the community, what drives the difference?
For the creators who talk about the game, but are critical of Cloud Imperium Games, how do they fund their work?
If you had to suddenly make a living off creating Star Citizen content, (Please don’t do this!) what incentives would impact your presentation and content?
Restrict yourself to videos and content from a particular point of time. What would you have believed about the project in 2012, 2016, and onwards? How does it compare against your current understanding?

Example 3: Choose your own adventure!

Think of your own topic or question and explore the different sides of it. Try to think of an issue where you’re not invested in what the answer might be. Don’t just interrogate the question, but who takes what side and why. Consider things that are said and left unsaid.

Follow-up questions: Questioning yourself

After completing one or more of the above exercises, now you can really put your skills to the test!

Ask yourself the following questions:

What business/political interest(s) are represented by your favorite media sources stories and coverage?
What influences information sources I regularly pay attention to?
What kind of sponsor do you want supporting your media, and what kind(s) of sponsorships would you want them to avoid?
For businesses I support, what media represents their interests? How do they cover information that may be ‘inconvenient’ for that business?
What do you look for to discover and identify quality sources of information?

Bonus exercise: Feedback

It would be absolute hubris to believe that I have perfectly encapsulated all of what people should think of to build their critical thinking skills. If anything, I have left out a great deal to produce this as a single post. I would invite you to re-read this, and think of glaring omissions. I would certainly appreciate learning them, and I’d be thrilled to share any sent my way.

💌 Thank you for reading this via RSS 📡

We are not machines: Overcoming tyranny with VN Alexander

Sun, 19 Oct 2025 17:32:05 +0000

Victoria N. Alexander, Ph.D., is a literary fiction novelist, writing about censored and controversial subjects with audacity, humor, and compassion.

It was an honor and pleasure to speak with VN Alexander on a wide variety of topics. I hope you’ll enjoy our conversation where we touch on the finer points of many ongoing changes in our digital experience. Learning from her vast knowledge and expertise has been a valuable experience. You’ll definitely benefit from exploring her works, which range from novels to educational courses.

This conversation was a thrilling opportunity for me to learn from her in-depth knowledge and precision about AI tools, online safety, and the fall of our institutions. We explore the opportunities and possibilities in taking part of the change to bring about a better digital future. By precisely understanding the deep differences between biological systems and machines we can make the best of the future.

Links discussed

💌 Thank you for reading this via RSS 📡

Digital privacy questions with Samuel of Privacy Now

Thu, 16 Oct 2025 19:47:16 +0000

Samuel reached out to me to offer people free consultations to improve their digital experience. I took the opportunity to have a rich conversation with him about the finer points of privacy and overall digital autonomy in our time. It was a very welcome chance to connect over not just the perils of our age, but the actual opportunities to build a better digital experience.

This conversation was a helpful way for me to dig deep into some of the finer points of our current struggles to maintain digital autonomy in our time. We start off talking about how telling someone to “just use Linux” should be the start of a conversation, not a command. We talk about how your overall choices have an impact regardless of what particular product or system you chose.

This overlaps with many pressing questions like the end of support for Windows 10, as well as choosing ‘dumbphones’ over a smartphone. It’s not just what you use, but also how you use it. The importance of judicious use of social media is a great example. Yet, neither of us are purists, we believe that changes that ultimately isolate you from other people are wholly impractical for a better digital future.

What I hope you take away from our conversation is an invitation, no matter what your background is, to consider how you can use technology rather than have it use you. Privacy shouldn’t be about hiding, but about building trust and protecting real independence. Both Sam and I would encourage you to nurture a desire to steward a better digital future for yourself and others.

If you’re impressed by this conversation, you may want to consider bookmarking his website haveprivacynow.com which will eventually feature blog posts and a newsletter.

💌 Thank you for reading this via RSS 📡

Fall Mini-Recap: On the brink

Thu, 09 Oct 2025 00:09:50 +0000

Updates

New XMRChat from Leo:

Thanks for the excellent article on Zano, and in general for the information you share. Keep up the weight loss! Share how you did it? Staying away from soft drinks was key for me, as well as cutting out all caffeine.
Weight loss progress - Major Milestone: Below 350 🎉
New Article: You don’t understand the Culture War
Technical blog Self-hosting: Speed, decentralization and efficiency

Happy Cybersecurity Awareness Month!

Personal Security Checklist

Technological Tyranny

Hope in a better digital future

Honorable mentions

💌 Thank you for reading this via RSS 📡

You don't understand the Culture War

Mon, 29 Sep 2025 08:15:30 +0000

These days, there is a laudable desire to turn down the temperature of social conflicts in our chaotic times. While a nice idea in theory, in practice this often results in well-meaning but misguided calls to ‘rise above division’. There is a dangerous and counter-productive assumption that all wounds will be mended and all differences can be set aside. This lack of seriousness can further entrench resentment as it can be interpreted as callous indifference. For those without stakes in the conflict, it is all-too-easy to mock participants as dull brutes or hysterical maniacs. But there is so much more to it.

The ‘culture war’ in the western world is far from just a feat of advanced social engineering. Being more than mere theater, the dynamics are complex and self-reinforcing. It is a black hole of misery that slowly and insidiously traps victims before they can even recognize they’re captured. Those outside it hardly notice it at all, but those trapped inside are suffering incomprehensible horrors. Just as light can’t escape the gravity well of a black hole, the stories of those from within the culture war seem impossible to be understood outside it.

This piece is an attempt to address some critical blind spots that exacerbate the problem. I certainly can not claim to have the last word on this. This is merely my own self-reflection from my years wrestling with these questions. There are critical observations that must be understood if we truly wish to resolve the negative feedback loops working against our online and actual freedom. If nothing else this is an invitation for those who are outside the culture war to better connect with those trapped within it. We should hope that these feedback loops are reversible, because a lot more is at stake than just the mental health of our socially isolated. If we are not careful, the black hole of the culture war can consume not just ourselves, but all of society.

Scapegoating tech

Our technological landscape often gets the brunt of the blame for the culture war and its consequences. The consolidation of our digital experience has brought state-of-the-art manipulation through a variety of sophisticated means. Smartphones were a beachhead for corporations to launch novel surveillance, manipulation and consumption oriented paradigms. People are justifiably concerned about algorithmic amplification and state-level propaganda campaigns being weaponized against the public. The error is to believe that this is all there is to our present polarization and rising tensions. It is the height of hubris, if not outright negligence to presume that our social problems are dictated by technology and not the reverse.

It is quite convenient that tech gets the majority of the blame, because it allows us to absolve our own responsibility for these patterns. Every technological evil has a really simple engineering solution but an immensely challenging collective action problem keeping it in place. This directly contradicts the flawed assumption that our digital experience dictates actual power. People are not powerless because our technological tools withhold it from them. In truth, these systems are merely adapted to suit the needs of a public in captivity.

The weapons of the internet age are undeniably powerful force multipliers, but they are far from the source of the anguish and pain driving the culture war. Any honest accounting of the deep roots of our present-day nihilism and tragedy would take us back far before the public went online. Just as we could never have expected the world wide web to resolve all our human failings, we can’t truly hang all our hopes and blame on it either. Building a better future for people online and ‘IRL’ requires contending with the darkness that drives people to self-destructive escapism.

It is a serious lack of conscious awareness if not basic intelligence, to think that physical violence is the worst form that war can take. The war of today is simply far more sophisticated and effective than it once was. And many of the tactics being used are quite frankly far more abusive.

One of the saddest parts of this modern type of warfare is that people do not understand why they feel the way they feel. We all know that wartime is horrible to experience. That it takes a serious toll on people. But when people know the world is at war, and they understand what’s going the things that they’re experiencing and the ways that they’re feeling make sense to them. In this war, so many of the symptoms of war are absolutely there, but nobody actually thinks anything is going on like that.

Teal Swan - The World is Already at War

The human side of the culture war

Politics has often been defined as ‘warfare mediated through other means’. Different people and groups will have different interests and conflicts naturally arise. The question fundamentally boils down to how are those interests protected and what means are used to mediate the conflicts. Cycles of disrespect accelerate into open hostility if not outright violence. This chaos naturally erodes what little tenuous peace remains.

‘Divide and conquer’ works not because people are foolish, but because there will always be real vulnerable points to be exploited. In times of rapid social change, the youth and elders struggle to communicate, much less understand each other. When social roles break down, expectations are unclear and trust becomes a fantasy. The fraying of societal cohesion creates an anxiety that fuels more anti-social behavior, creating a powerful downward spiral.

Ultimately, the fractal of conflicts is merely the renegotiation of unstable dominance hierarchies. Denis Rancourt argues that all our forms of social organization will always be downstream of the shared dominance hierarchy. This has some very troubling implications, but absolutely explains why politics is as dysfunctional as it is. You may think you’ve ‘chosen a side’ but in actuality this was already decided for you. Fundamental aspects of who you are will place you neatly within the collectively constructed battle lines. Your decision to engage or not means little when your existence is interpreted as an existential threat to others.

Spiteful Mutants: The bastard children of a dying empire

How did ‘wokeness’ spread from a niche ideology of extremely online college students to being a de-facto state-mandated religion of managerial elites? People will often point to ‘weaponized empathy’ as the defining characteristic that allowed it to flourish, but this is a mischaracterization of something important. Social justice was able to fill a crucial niche that had gone long abandoned: a trauma-informed approach to politics. Due to their personal experiences, these people were able to peer into the abyss of the darkest human evils, tragically the abyss often peers back.

With this knowledge. the progressive left innovated a radically different way of approaching systems of power. By deconstructing order, they were able to identify how predators leverage self-destructive feedback loops to keep prey in line. This understanding unearthed a wide variety of political, social, and economic warfare that their opponents were wholly unprepared for. The right, but even the general public found it impossible to engage without conceding to the progressive framework. This was because they had no conception for a understanding of politics that wrestled with the nature of trauma. This did have consequences however, the brash and overzealous enforcement of progressive norms created a powerful opposing force. Many correctly recognized that dangerous political weapons were being used to monopolize not just the public discussion, but actual institutional, social, and economic power. This reaction created what was called the ‘alt-right’. What most people will recognize is that both the woke progressives and alt-right are extremely online movements, but that’s just what’s visible from the surface.

What people struggle to recognize is that these are just the most outwards and overt expressions of broader undercurrents. These major factions are entirely corrupted by the economic and social influences of online media. Because the movements were born online, they are creatures of that environment. The YouTube recommendation algorithm is often cited as a major driving force of online radicalization. This is funny because very often progressive men would complain about Jordan Peterson or Ben Shapiro videos being pushed to them. They couldn’t understand why the algorithm would recommend something so alien to their preferences. But what the algorithm saw, was that these people were so much closer to ’the other side’ than they think. This is because culture-warriors of all stripes are recruited into their preferred digital cult based off their deep wounds and personal characteristics.

People correctly diagnose that most authoritarian progressives have a deep rooted hatred for the society they live in, but they seldom ask why. A charitable understanding of the spiteful nihilism requires dissecting the pain and hurt that drives people to hate their origins. Many incomprehensible behaviors make quite a bit of sense when you consider the consequences of abuse, hopelessness, and a lack of constructive outlets for rage. On the other hand, the existence of the alt-right shows that not all people respond to the same trauma the same way. There are many adaptations and reactions one can have from the same difficulties. The more defensive and hostile stance of the right is perfectly suited to escalate the game the woke is playing.

Ironically, heavy-handed efforts to prevent conflicts escalate them. Censoring hate drives further resentment, and restricting conflicts seems to only raise the stakes. A terrified public desperately pleads the state to take drastic measures to ‘avoid civil war’. These knee-jerk reactions are wholly unable to assess much less resolve root causes and inevitably backfire. This creates a run away cycle where the means of preserving order are leveraged to create more chaos and destruction.

Forging peace in turbulent times

We absolutely need to be fiercely critical of how the digital systems we use exacerbate real social problems. But if we allow ourselves to believe that technological systems are the source of our social problems we are setting up for total failure. To truly resolve the difficult problems of our time, we’re going to need significantly more seriousness, honesty, and care than is readily available. Humanizing others, and ourselves to others is only the first step.

Courageously rejecting awful paradigms

Give yourself permission to think outside the prescribed narrative. Just because you’re given a (false) binary choice, that doesn’t mean either is a particularly good option. Having the courage and patience to find a way to be something radically different is a fantastic gift to yourself. You are not confined to fitting within the characterization your enemies have for you.

Technological paradigms are arguably the easiest to change. You should recognize that everything can change with enough time and effort. All the platforms and systems we use are ultimately things we could redesign from scratch if we wanted to. None of the gadgets and software we encounter will be eternal, so embrace the mission of playing for the long game.

Building a virtuous cycle: Understanding

If there’s one skill that can be a game-changer moving forward it would be epistemological humility. By that I mean being willing to recognize that you don’t, but also likely can’t know everything. There are going to be people with experiences you don’t and maybe can’t understand. By being able to tolerate some uncertainty, it is so much easier to listen to those vastly different than you. This way, you can build a connection that allows you to begin to learn their experience.

By understanding our differences, it’s perfectly reasonable to put up boundaries. Self respect isn’t hatred. Understanding doesn’t mean enabling. Instead of taking an all-or-nothing approach, we can begin to actually negotiate rather than escalate conflicts. By beginning to recognize and assert our needs, it is so much easier to avoid self-destructive passivity.

A useful recommendation to the right, but even the public generally, would be to build a better understanding of trauma responses. The progressive left, and some of the mainstream discussion has a fairly decent grasp of these issues. Unfortunately, those without this understanding are effectively easy prey for those who have it. With this understanding we can genuinely reach out to those who are hurting and provide genuine care instead of moralizing and condescension.

Redemption: The antidote to nihilism

Despite being innovative and powerful, the progressive project is largely doomed. This is because it emphasizes inherent and collective evils that are immovable burdens on those who carry the blame. The progressive understanding of power is quite useful at identifying serious challenges, but entirely worthless when it comes to solutions. By treating people as irredeemable you’re forcing them into choose all out war, or self-debasement. This ‘Church of no salvation’ breeds apathy on behalf of those who refuse to submit and self-loathing among those who do. To truly bring people together, there needs to actually be a viable path for repentance.

People are going to disappoint you, and they’re going to fall short in a lot of different ways. To actually make a difference we’re going to need more than just those who neatly fit within our preferences. This requires a radically different approach to the madness of today’s politics. Honor cultures are corrosive to authentic values because they inevitably descend into prioritizing appearances rather than substance.

Forgiveness is not about creating opportunities for future harm, but about ensuring that those who wish to make amends are able to do so. We should be gentle with those who have been wounded by the abuses of the culture war. They’re going to be sensitive and troubled, but a lot of good can come from learning from our own mistakes. By salvaging good out of the evils of our time, we can learn, create and share real solutions to our troubles.

💌 Thank you for reading this via RSS 📡

August Recap: Sorry for the delay!

Tue, 09 Sep 2025 15:11:48 +0000

Updates

Trends to watch

The Future of Android

Monero’s ‘Hashrate troubles’

Notable items

💌 Thank you for reading this via RSS 📡

Chatbot psychosis is actually a really big deal

Tue, 26 Aug 2025 20:42:24 +0000

The latest developments in mind-machine intermingling are as silly as they are horrifying. Despite being a relatively new phenomenon, ‘AI psychosis’ actually has its own Wikipedia Page and was recently covered in Psychology Today. In a time where people are quick to blame technology for social problems, this is undeniably a problem with how these tools are structured and used. The public’s understanding, or lack of understanding, is a force multiplier for what is already a very troubling situation. This piece is a warning for those who may fortunately be isolated from these troubles, but want to be there for others.

Why should we care?

It’s generally distressing how social impacts of tech companies are often brushed off as a ‘skill issue’ on behalf of the victim. People struggling with these problems are in need of outreach and support, not scorn and derision. Eventually, as the mental (and sometimes physical) carnage piles up, the will to take drastic (and often counter-productive) action finally arises. In many situations, this ends up being the worst-case-scenario for all involved. The only way to truly wrestle with this kind of problem is to tackle the social, economic, and technical challenges together, lest we let the abuse continue in an altered form.

The extreme cases always get the headlines, but that’s not the entire picture. We shouldn’t forget about the less extreme, but much more widespread impacts. It wasn’t so long ago that admitting to poor mental health due to online interactions would have been embarrassing, so we can fully expect people to downplay and deny the effects of chatbot use on their lives and relationships. It’s possible that people may be more willing to reach out for help this time around, but I would argue the impacts are far too insidious for that.

The stakes are immense. We have only begun to see the first-contact effects, and we have yet to comprehend the long-term consequences. Given the full range of impacts from mental health to IQ loss, we can expect a vast array of terrifying phenomena. The solution isn’t to eschew responsibility until enough political will conveniently arrives, we should be proactive in addressing the roots of this from the beginning. Taking action isn’t just about protecting yourself, but also recognizing and reacting to emerging dangers for others.

The roots of chatbot psychosis

The loneliness epidemic is tragic. The drought of human connection is leaving many in a seemingly inescapable abyss. In a time when people are starved for real human companionship, mentorship, and support, workplaces and other institutions are working to remove the human element from nearly everything. Even if this is for ’efficiency’, is it truly worth the cost? When it comes to loneliness, people love to blame the victim. It certainly helps that those without real human connection get quite bitter after a while. This cycle of disrespect is what has caused so much of the population to give up on each other. This social dynamic is no mere accident of our times. It is a cultivated territory for farming clicks and purchases out of human misery.

Bitter and miserable people are effectively perfect consumers. By distancing themselves from everyone around them, they end up cut off from people who may even be able to help. On the other side, people who can get along with others and cooperate can actually end up building things that address these profitable problems, keeping people lonely kills two birds with one stone. We have seen all of this and more with social media algorithms. They’ve caused all kinds of body image issues, unraveling of the social fabric, and mindless distraction at the expense of people’s real lives.

You may think I’m just talking about a small fringe minority of irresponsible people, but you’d be surprised how prevalent these issues are. How many people in your life know the ‘real you’, by your estimation? Odds are you’re not very confident in how much you really know more than a couple of people in your life. With an incentive to keep these struggles to oneself, troubles can be buried for far longer than one would think.

In many ways, ‘AI Psychosis’ is nothing new, it is merely an extension of the existing trends By allowing de-facto monopolies over our digital experience to profit off human misery with hardly any opposition, we are encouraging this to get much worse. It does not matter what technological or political ‘solution’ we wrap around our refusal to address the challenge posed by Big Tech control over so much of our lives.

What actually is new is the rapid feedback and vast array of content. Asking AI chatbots questions can definitely feel like you have the totality of human knowledge communicating with you in real-time. The magician’s trick of these systems is that they encourage you to create an egregore of it out of your own perspective and desires. ChatGPT 4o’s affirming personality effectively allowed people to ‘speedrun narcissism’ only for them to mourn the next version which was less supportive. These tools are more than mere ‘mirrors of the mind’ but are actually just doing the same disastrous pattern that Big Tech social media had: keeping you engaged at all costs.

As we continuously see that Big Tech, and its enablers to want to have their cake and eat it too. You can expect them to impose a double standard of requiring restrictions on general-purpose computing and communication in the name of ‘safety’, while at the same time arrogantly refusing to be held accountable for any of their own dangers.

What can we do?

AI Discipline

I’m skeptical that we can convince others to avoid these tools entirely. We’re up against corporations mandating their use for work, and they’ve already become commonplace if not expected in education. These systems are already ubiquitous and backed up by a horrifying amount of institutional inertia. The cause is far from hopeless, but it makes sense to pick our battles wisely.

If we can’t talk others out of using these tools, we should at least encourage judicious use. I believe all the ‘old internet’ advice applies here well, your real identity shouldn’t be attached to all your online interactions, especially with AI. Avoiding using your real name is a good idea. It’s also crucial to ensure you’re not communicating sensitive information about yourself to these systems, but unfortunately you have to hope nobody else does it on your behalf. Ideally, we should want everybody to be on ’team privacy’ and that is all about keeping personal or sensitive information away from data harvesters.

Where possible, it makes sense to seek out less-harmful alternatives. This requires there to be knowledgeable enough to know the difference, which is no trivial thing. The general public is stuck struggling with questions like “are these things alive” while the important questions go unanswered.

Don’t compromise on humanity

Our technological landscape is downstream of our cultural and political context. A few l33t h4x0rs on the Deep Web are never going to single-handedly turn the tide. (no offense, you guys are great!) It seems that when older generations are confronted with the fact that we have raised multiple generations online they recoil and blame the young for their foolishness. If we truly want to wrestle with these problems we have to ask ourselves what deteriorated our societal and social bonds to the point that Big Tech social media felt like a less painful alternative. Finding who’s at fault is a lot less useful than finding out what we can do to turn things around.

Bringing people together takes constant efforts, and is arguably harder than ever with the time constraints people have to contend with. A lot of trust has been broken as people feel isolated and abandoned. Taking the effort to turn the tide is going to be no simple task. Be patient with yourself as others as you try to bring warmth and peace. People really have no idea how much better things can be with a bit of calm and sanity.

💌 Thank you for reading this via RSS 📡

Inbox Question: What good is hope in a digital prison?

Tue, 19 Aug 2025 11:32:37 +0000

I got an interesting query that I felt was critical to share. This person shares a fear that I imagine is quite prevalent these days. While there are many exciting censorship resistance and privacy tools, they are not so widely adopted we can simply ignore ongoing power-grabs. I hope you’ll find this exchange helpful.

Question:

I would love to talk to you about internet entrance ID. As far as i can see nobody is talking about what we can do when internet use is only possible after identification. Surely all use of vpns, tor en fediverse is then a bit silly because authorities will know who we are anyway. When that kicks in normal people (non- nerds) will have no way to discover the solutions that the nerds think up. As far as i can see we’re nearly fucked. But nobodys talking about it. Everyone is talking about digital ids and cbdc’s and censur and like but if we cant get onto the internet because are ISP wont let is in without identification then isnt the game then over?

At the same time history is being deleted (wayback machine) and history can be rewriten (1984) in any way that suits the times. I know that you are very positive about the future and that you are inclined ( like James Corbett) to rant about black pilled people who “give up” but i havent seen anyone answer my question. You dont really believe that any of you guys will be allowed on the internet if it is so easy to shut you down and as far as i can see this is what is going to happen. It seems to me that the only real solution to this world wide dystopian situation is that we all throw away our phones and refuse to be digital prisoners anymore. But this of course will never happen.

I think that there is also a possibility that you and other digital freedom lovers and promoters are making the situation even worse because you promote hope. We can keep hoping and hoping and hoping and then suddenly free use of internet will not be possible anymore and we will be prisoners for life and for ever. And don’t imagine that revolution will work then because it won’t. I read and follow your stuff and i am willing to pay for your great work but i would really like a few answers first. Is there a way to get around an ISP?

Answer

To be clear, it is already the case that it is normal for people to have internet access associated with their real-life identities. At least here in Canada almost every residential ISP will be able to pass on subscriber information to law enforcement when a request is made. This is even more true for mobile data, where your internet access is linked to a single person instead of a household. To oversimplify a bit, all VPNs do is allow you to “share” a connection with people over the Internet. This means that depending on the policies and procedures of a particular VPN (such as logging, and cooperating with law enforcement) they may offer differing protection against state surveillance. That said, even in situations where state-level surveillance is omniscient, I think it is important to still prioritize privacy and security from other threats. (Such as corporations, scammers, cyber-criminals and mobs)

You’re right to point out that VPNs and overlay networks like Tor are definitely next in line to be targeted by these measures. How big a problem this is may depend on your jurisdiction. For example in China people often have to use workarounds to access the Tor network for both practical and legal reasons. While motivated tech-savvy people will always find ways around these problems, the vast majority of people are going to “go along to get along” effectively entrenching the censorship and control. In many ways, the biggest problem here isn’t strictly ID verification by ISPs, but the legal and technical mechanisms governments will use to secure sovereignty over cyberspace at the expense of their citizens. The fine line here isn’t strictly the risk to individuals, but also the fact that in time it may be entirely impractical for anyone to run an online service for others that in any way clashes with stated and unstated policy. So all I’ve done here is confirmed and enhanced your concerns. In short, the Internet as we know it isn’t dying, but is being killed.

So what’s the solution? This is a trend that extends far beyond a single national government, and the impacts are worldwide regardless of which nations do and don’t participate. Whatever is able to coordinate and carry out this assault on digital freedom worldwide is absolutely outside the reach of the ordinary ‘checks and balances’ of democratic governance. The traditional technical solutions to this are unlikely to reverse and resolve this situation. There simply isn’t a critical mass of the public interested in protecting their digital rights, if there was we wouldn’t be even having this conversation. When it comes to “real solutions” it is important to consider that technology is just part of the picture. It can’t be the entirety of the answer because our digital experience is shaped by an array of “collective action problems”.

Therefore, if it is as bad as you say and technological solutions alone are insufficient to address these problems, what purpose is it to share hope in technical solutions at all? I believe in human creativity and ingenuity. I am wholeheartedly committed to the idea that even people trapped in a relentless digital prison may still find ways to make a difference. These draconian measures by governments across the world are serious problems, but that’s not the same as it all being over. These shifts are radical transformations of the social and legal environment simply change the game for those interested in technical solutions. Just because old solutions are no longer viable that doesn’t mean it is impossible to build new strategies and systems adapted to the current environment. It is true that this environment is much more overtly hostile to free expression and privacy online, but I anticipate that technical solutions built in this era will be far more resilient than ones of the past.

My goal has never been to put particular tools on a pedestal. If anything I’ve consistently tried to put the things I’ve been interested under a microscope and dissect their qualities. By carefully considering the pros and cons of particular tools and techniques, we can be more informed of what approaches are viable in an evolving and changing environment. I originally conceived of the Libre Solutions Network understanding that nothing is currently perfect and that far more work than I can imagine needs to be done to actually build a free and just cyberspace. It is by facing the problems head-on that I’ve chosen to spend so much time investigating what can be done. By learning from imperfections of the day we can refine approaches to bring about truly revolutionary change, and that is what I think is needed to overcome our present-day challenges.

I wholeheartedly understand the desire to want to retreat from it all. I don’t think anyone should focus all their energies in saving or engaging with cyberspace, but I definitely believe that it is a worthwhile pursuit. For example, there are many problems with the medical field, especially as it relates to ethics and the politicization of health. I would absolutely not want to discourage someone interested in becoming a doctors or medical expert. We as freedom-loving people are always going to want skilled and experienced people on our side. Ironically, doctors and academics are arguably more controlled than technical people given their dependence on professional networks, yet we wouldn’t tell anyone to give up on the concept of human health in a dystopian society. My mission, from the beginning has never been to just promote a few tools and leave it at that. I believe we need to recruit technical minds to a mindset that values human flourishing and equip them to make it a reality.

To answer your question: How do I get around a hostile ISP?

The reason why we need freedom-minded techies is that we need independent digital infrastructure. Governments and corporations are only able to control cyberspace because so much of it is reliant on their infrastructure, provided at our expense. Recognizing that much of the Internet as we know it is ‘hostile cyberspace’ we can begin to actually build up our own networks and tools to truly reshape our digital landscape from the ground up. This requires local action. I love the idea of community-run networks, and it is clear that where they are possible they should be explored. The beauty of many existing tools is that they are still very much compatible with a radically different internet. I think with a little bit of change, people would realize how little change is needed to make things much better, and that’s an exciting prospect.

Nobody is going to build any of this without hope. I have never meant to promote complacency, which is why I work to emphasize not just the dangers of our present digital experience, but also the opportunities in building a better digital future. There is so much to be excited for if we can work together to find the opportunities to overcome our technical and social challenges. Ironically, these days I feel that the darker things get, the lower the bar for meaningful progress actually is. Once you really begin to grapple with the big picture, you realize we haven’t even begun to make real change. As much as I am just as terrified as you for what lies ahead, I am also ignited by the hope that we can make the best of it.

💌 Thank you for reading this via RSS 📡

You Can't Please Everybody: censorship in decentralized networks

Tue, 12 Aug 2025 14:24:05 +0000

One of the principle concerns of corporate social media is how people are manipulated to boost profits, attention, and engagement. The effects of this automated algorithmic manipulation are all-pervasive as they are disruptive. It is the very reason that the newspeak phrases like unalive have entered the public vocabulary. Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter raised the profile of discussions about the impact and influence of social media on society. Among those who consider with these issues, it is clear that a radically different solution is needed.

While people have always attempted to migrate to ‘alt-tech’ competitors to mainstream sites, we have the opportunity to explore new paradigms. Multiple models of decentralized social networking have risen to show what is possible. Due to their nature, different systems will have advantages and disadvantages. There are many crucial details to understand when trying to make the best of any of these systems. Sometimes, solving particular problems opens up new challenges. It is our responsibility to learn from the options we are contending with today, so that we can work on new solutions for the future.

There are many decentralized social media systems. There are multiple iterations of the dream of protocols not platforms, where systems span larger than a single implementation. The major benefits to this paradigm are interoperability, accessibility, and anti-fragile architecture. Some are blockchain based like Bastyon, others like Mastodon use federated servers, and nostr uses encryption-as-identity for portable identities. Each approach has trade-offs and considerations. For the purposes of this piece, I will be focusing on the limitations of the Fediverse.

Deficiencies: The Fediverse in practice

The Fediverse (which includes Mastodon) is an inter-connected network of federated social media sites. This includes various Free Software services like Mitra, Ghost, or even big tech giants like Meta’s Threads. Even alternative networks like nostr can be connected via bridges. This means that instead of one single platform, there is a wider interoperable network, at least in theory.

Every platform on the Fediverse can be called an “instance” each instance hosts accounts for the people on the platform. While followers & follows can be migrated, it is not seamless. Generally a profile exists on an instance and is beholden to the rules, features and limitations of that instance. Instance operators are offering their users a beachhead into decentralized social media, and the users are offering attention and community in return.

This may sound like a win-win for everyone involved. It’s now possible for operator-run independent social media to exist, but why hasn’t it caught on yet? The Fediverse is very much a social experiment as well as a technological one. Just like users can follow, block and mute each other, so too can instances. This means that operators can effectively decide which instances (and by extension users) their users can interact with.

The major innovation of the Fediverse is the creation of a website that isn’t PvP, but team deathmach instead.

Can you be banned from the Fediverse?

There is no mechanism to prevent an individual from using federated social media, but there are a variety of reach and accessibility considerations. Instance operators, especially those of larger instances, can have a huge impact. While they can wield a significant amount of power over the network, that power is not absolute. You can be banned from particular instances, and those instances can ban instances that host you.

This may sound like it defeats the purpose of using decentralized social media for censorship resistance. The lack of a single unified network has its own advantages and disadvantages. Due to the decentralized, but also fragmented nature of the Fediverse, it is impossible to be banned from the entire network.

Account bans

If you join a fediverse instance, you are a guest on someone else’s infrastructure. This is very similar to the deal Big Tech offers you when you create an account. The benefit of choosing the Fediverse over Big Tech is that hopefully, your instance administration can be more reasonable than Big Tech. That’s likely not a high bar at all, but there will inevitably be times where they disappoint.

Your account on a particular instance can be banned just like any other online service. In this scenario, you’re perfectly able to join a new instance that aligns with you, or setup your own. Setting up your own instance involves non-trivial work and resources, including maintenance costs. The good news is that most fediverse software supports mechanisms to export your follows and follower lists, so you are not strictly ‘starting from scratch’ when you are banned or simply migrate instance hosts.

The critical detail is to recognize that an account ban is merely removal from a particular instance. You’re still able to join another instance that’s even running the same software, such as Mastodon. In general, instance administrators only have control over the community they provide infrastructure for.

Instance bans

Of course, the natural solution to the above problem is to run your own fediverse infrastructure. By procuring your own system, you can operate on your own terms. While this solves many problems, it won’t solve all of them. Other instances, with often sizable user counts can block your instance. This is due to the biggest difference between decentralized and centralized social media. In centralized social media association is not interpreted as endorsement or approval. On decentralized networks, association is something you can be punished for. Your instance can be blocked by others who wish to ‘protect’ their users from either your content, or content of those associated with you.

There are many valid reasons for all-out instance blocks. Spam is a problem for both centralized and decentralized networks, and needs to be fought accordingly. Different jurisdictions have different requirements for removing illegal material, so every instance is likely to have slightly different policies and practices when it comes to such material. This means that there are more than just technical costs of running an instance, but there are also legal and social risks to consider. In our highly polarized times, people struggle to get along well over the Internet. Not all disagreements are handled nicely. Due to the “hub and spoke” nature of the Fediverse, ‘dogpiling’ is arguably no less prevalent than on centralized networks. The difference is that now there are more opportunities for conflict.

One way to manage these risks has been the proliferation of curated blocklists. It’s certainly a lot easier to be put on those lists than to get off them. This means that truly independent or otherwise unpopular instances must effectively rebuild their own federation outside the more “mainstream counterparts”. This bifurcation creates particular social dynamics that leave both sides arguably much worse off. The solution to this problem is for more responsibly run instances to exist. Your instance doesn’t need absolute federation with the entire network, it just needs interested people to connect with. Larger communities investing in their own instances to provide the platform is a viable approach to tackle this problem.

Nostr fixes this?

A popular approach to this problem is to simply use nostr instead of federated social media (though they can overlap). Using encryption as identity nostr mitigates the problem of account bans by separating users from particular relays (servers). The instance blocking problem is also resolved a bit, because much of the interactions involving relays are done client-side.

The significant downside of nostr’s approach is that not only is there no such thing as a global coherent state, but that it’s difficult to have one at all. The best way to ensure you don’t miss any notifications or interactions is to run your own nostr relay, but this can be impacted by all the same troubles a fediverse instance can have. That said, Ditto is an interesting project that provides a nostr relay and its own fediverse bridge. Providing a viable platform for those interested in both Nostr and the fediverse.

Freedom isn’t free

In a time where governments and corporations are restricting the Internet at a breakneck pace, it is vital to take an active role in preserving our digital freedoms. Free speech online isn’t something a billionaire can buy for you. You can’t rely on governments to protect it, and legislation will be insufficient to safeguard it. If we want a robust and valuable ‘digital town square, we need to work diligently to construct it. This is well outside the scope of what an individual can accomplish, but many hands make light work. it is absolutely achievable to radically transform the web with enough independent technical skill and resources.

The fight for online freedom relies on people actually feeling it. Those trapped on big tech corporate sites aren’t going to invest in a future that never felt real in the first place. It is our role as cyber rebels to do what we can to bring digital freedom to others, not to abandon the public to their foolishness. The public inherits the digital landscape we tolerate, and forgets the solutions that aren’t supported. Cyber rebels need to consider how to reclaim territory in cyberspace not just for themselves, but for others as well. This requires assessing various solutions as they are, not strictly how we’d like them to be.

Since at least 2020, online censorship has accelerated and people have become more pessimistic about the future of the web as a whole. This is naturally understandable. If we want a better digital future we have to not just work towards it, but share it with others. This requires seriously evaluating the problems as they exist, not as we would like them to be. If building a better technological future was cheaper, more convenient, and easier to work with, it would be done already. It is always going to take dedicated independent effort to preserve digital freedom and that work is precious. Giving up on digital freedom has profound consequences. Things are far too inter-twined to abandon IRL rights for digital ones or vice-versa. It is high time we recognize the common causes of not just wishing for a better technological landscape, but actually working towards putting it into practice.

💌 Thank you for reading this via RSS 📡

Libre Solutions Network

Bring your voice: Guest posts welcome

Why contribute?

Ideal posts

Terms

Basic rules

Approval

How to submit

We will come to regret our every use of AI

Machine minds and machine hearts

Tool use is what makes us smart

We’ve seen this all before

The feedback loop

The ‘Super-intelligence’ red herring

“We have altered the deal, pray we don’t alter it further”

Getting off the fence: refusing to compromise on humanity

Presence and purpose

Fighting for technological freedom

Cultivating creativity

Please Stand By: Technical Difficulties

Bad news: The PeerTube instance is (irreparably) broken.

This is not the end.

Libre Solutions Network 2.0

While we wait

The State of Cyberspace: Twilight Hours

Novel assaults via cyberspace

State and corporate conquest of cyberspace

Cyberwars and ‘splinternets’

The War against general-purpose computing

Darkest before the dawn

Teachable Moment: Will the digital control grid inevitably fail, or is it already here?

Are people truly choosing digital tyranny?

Scale is the enemy: a deep analysis of the control grid

Fight tyranny now to prevent the control grid

Inbox Question: Becoming computer literate

Defining ‘computer literacy’

Major steps:

Rewiring the foundation

Flourishing independence: Sharing is caring

A low-stakes critical thinking exercise for online media

An “info-junkie’s” guide to media

Collecting insight

Conflict is good, actually

Intellectual prospecting

Hate the game, not the player(s)

Individual incentives and compromise

Refining information into knowledge

Exercise: Analyzing a Narrative Network

Example 1 - A foundation of sand: ‘Evidence-based’ weight-lifting"

Example 2 - It’s just a game: Is Star Citizen a scam?

Example 3: Choose your own adventure!

Follow-up questions: Questioning yourself

Bonus exercise: Feedback

We are not machines: Overcoming tyranny with VN Alexander

Links discussed

Digital privacy questions with Samuel of Privacy Now

Fall Mini-Recap: On the brink

Updates

Happy Cybersecurity Awareness Month!

Technological Tyranny

Hope in a better digital future

Honorable mentions

You don't understand the Culture War

Scapegoating tech

The human side of the culture war

Spiteful Mutants: The bastard children of a dying empire

Forging peace in turbulent times

Courageously rejecting awful paradigms

Building a virtuous cycle: Understanding

Redemption: The antidote to nihilism

August Recap: Sorry for the delay!

Updates

Recent posts

Trends to watch

The Future of Android

Monero’s ‘Hashrate troubles’

‘Growing pains’ in decentralized social media

Notable items

Chatbot psychosis is actually a really big deal

Why should we care?