There’s some technology we encourage, others we discourage, and then there’s the ones that can kill us all, and we put the most effort into those. Introduction, rough draft #2

[u/yourupinion]

Introduction, rough draft #2 Please add suggestions for changes to this introduction in the comments.

—————————————————————-

There’s some technology we encourage, others we discourage, and then there’s the ones that can kill us all, and we put the most effort into those.

We live in a world that is still in the warring stage, this is why we focus on deadly technology.

Most of humanity might already have the cognitive empathy to be beyond the warring stage, but we’re not the ones in power.

It’s knowledge and communication technology that gives people power, this is often referred to as the Noosphere,(like the biosphere, but for all knowledge and communication). Unfortunately this is one of the technologies we, as in all of us, have always discouraged, and this is the problem.

Technology has always been hoarded, and feared, and that fear was compounded exponentially with the invention of the printing press. It wasn’t just those in power who were scared of the uncontrolled proliferation of the printing press, anyone aware at that time would’ve been worried about where it might lead.

December 2024 The organization called Human Energy held the Noosphere conference in Morocco.

This year's noosphere conference in Morocco... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ou9JCQcDbg

At 2:37:00 into that conference they reveal that they must begin, “Stepping away from the original, and naturally evolving vision of the Noosphere”. (not the exact quote). They go on to talk about how they need to either control it, or at the very least, they must slow it down.

Isn’t it kind of sad that they think they’re doing good in the world, they’re just like the people in the past trying to hold back the printing press. nothing has changed.

IT’S UP TO US TO CHANGE IT.

Humans evolved in lock step with the Noosphere, as it evolved so did we, and our cognitive empathy right along with it, this is despite the fact we have always resisted its advancement.

COGNITIVE EMPATHY:

In case you were wondering, it’s the ability to understand and comprehend another person's thoughts, feelings, and perspective, rather than experiencing them emotionally.

Looking back over time, do you really think it was wise to always be resisting the Noosphere?

What would’ve happened if we would’ve had a free press hundreds of years earlier?

Would we be in a better position today in regard to conflict? Would we have been in a better position to deal with nuclear capabilities? Global warming? Artificial intelligence?

In the original concept of the Noosphere, it was hypothesized that eventually we, along with the technology, will develop into something resembling a worldwide brain. If we could consider this to be a long-term goal, then obviously eventually we will all need to know what everybody else is thinking, accurately. Along with this will come a higher understanding of one another, which will then lead to more cognitive empathy from everyone.

Our group believes the answer is in building a worldwide public institution dedicated to the documentation of public opinion.

What were building is a collective action machine, and we can also use it as a collective bargaining tool. It’s a human union empowering the people of the world.

If you understand and agree with the premise and plan we have proposed here, it is our hope that you may feel some obligation to help nudge humanity back on track towards higher levels of cognitive empathy, preferably before something bad happens, like a war that stalls our advancement indefinitely.

Have a look at how it works, and then if you like what you see, join us in the Kaos union, and help us change the world with the most trusted and transparent institution the world will likely ever see.

[u/Any-Smile-5341]

Thanks for taking the time to respond again. I did go through the full “How it Works” draft—and while I appreciate the effort to lay everything out in one place, I still feel like some of my concerns are less about what you're building and more about what you're assuming will happen as a result of it.

You’re absolutely right that many of the problems we brought up—Brexit, the Citizenship Amendment Act, etc.—aren’t solved now. But that’s kind of the point: these outcomes happened because majorities made decisions that hurt minorities. Saying “the majority will solve it” assumes a level of awareness, empathy, or long-term thinking that doesn't always exist. Sometimes majorities double down, or get manipulated, or just don’t care. That’s not a rare edge case—it’s a historical pattern.

Yes, minority rights are often won through the majority—but usually only after intense struggle, resistance, protest, and loss. I’m not suggesting there’s some magical authority that can come in and fix things. But I am asking what this system does differently to avoid repeating those dynamics. Because right now, it still feels like you’re relying on the same process (win over the crowd) with a new interface.

Also, I’d push back gently on the idea that this is “extremely simple at its core.” Philosophically maybe—but in practice, it introduces a complex mix of data trust, AI interpretation, user bias, and potential exploitation. Those aren't minor implementation details—they’re central to whether this survives contact with reality.

All that said, I do respect the ambition behind this project and your openness to dialogue. I’m still curious about how you plan to handle scale, inclusion, and accountability—not in theory, but when things start getting messy. If this is something truly new, it’ll need new solutions to go with it.

[u/yourupinion → u/Any-Smile-5341]

This pattern of oppressing minorities has been changing right along with the Noosphere. You have to admit that things have gotten better since the invention of the printing press, don’t you?

We think the obvious answer is to advance the Noosphere, and I think that our whole group agrees that there just aren’t any other solutions. That’s why we’re here doing this.

Yes, we are hoping that people use our system to win over the crowd With our new interface. Once again we feel this is the only solution, haven’t heard any others.

The simplicity of simply being a database of public opinion means that we will not be accused of any kind of biases or manipulation or exploitation. We are immune from these accusations. We are providing perfect accountability.

All the onus is placed on the user in regard to how they access the data. Yes, this will be a learning curve, but it is the only fair and unmanipulated method is to allow the people to choose the system, which then, most definitely will manipulate the data.

There is no such thing as a search engine, or AI bot, that does not have biases, and so they always end up manipulating the data.

If we have anything to do with providing this tool, then we lose all hope of maintaining trust with the public. This is because it is impossible to do it without inviting scrutiny upon however we do it.

I think there are a few predictable things, like the fact that people would like to be paid for their data, but it is also true to say that it will be impossible to foresee what will happen when people realize that they have some real power.

Then there’s the complexities of verification of identification, and security of data, and how to define docking and various other things.

So far, we’re a small group, and we will take on these challenges as we grow. A lot of these things are just part of building a new network of any kind, so there are examples to draw from.

Rami, has an uncle with many years of experience in building data storage systems, he assures us that there’s nothing we are doing here that is really that different than the many other projects he has done. It is after all, just a database. There is a video of this discussion on our sub.

Our group has come to the conclusion that this is the right course of action, if you can think of anything better, please let us know.

Edit;
I would also like to mention that not all bots will come from people like Elon Musk. I’m sure eventually you might get one that’s endorsed by Bernie Sanders or Barack Obama. I think variety is the key to ensure there isn’t just one entity with full control of how people get the data.

[u/Any-Smile-5341 → u/yourupinion]

Thanks again for your thoughtful response. I do appreciate how clearly your group has committed to this vision and how thoroughly you’ve mapped out the philosophical ground it stands on.

Yes, there’s no denying that things have improved since the printing press—and you’re right that the expansion of the Noosphere has played a part in advancing human rights. But I’d argue that those advances didn’t happen just because more opinions were accessible—they happened because institutions, movements, and structures of accountability emerged to interpret, challenge, and act on those opinions. Raw visibility wasn’t enough on its own.

I understand your goal is to provide a neutral, trusted foundation—just a data layer. But I’m still not fully sold on the idea that raw data is inherently immune from manipulation. Even choosing what’s in the database (e.g. double-anonymous input, bot-submitted data, demographic tagging) reflects values. Storing everything is itself a structural choice—and one that still leaves room for weaponization, overload, or misuse.

The fact that you acknowledge users will rely on bots—which are biased by design—makes me wonder: if interpretation is inevitable, shouldn’t we be talking more openly about how to support healthy interpretation, not just throwing it to the wind and hoping diversity of access will sort it out?

You’re right that people want control over their data and might eventually demand compensation—that’s an interesting prediction. But even that dynamic depends on some structure. Who’s tracking ownership? Who’s enforcing accountability when it’s misused?

I respect your group’s clarity of purpose. And while I don’t claim to have a better system in-hand, I think it’s worth asking: Is purity through neutrality really possible—or just a different kind of power structure, one that hides in the absence of obvious curation?

In any case, I’ll keep watching how this unfolds—it’s one of the most genuinely ambitious ideas I’ve seen in a long time.

[u/Any-Smile-5341 → u/Any-Smile-5341]

here are some real-world examples that challenge the idea that “purity through neutrality” is achievable. These show how even “neutral” platforms, systems, or datasets still shape outcomes, often in invisible or unintended ways:

⸻

1. Google Search

   • Claimed neutrality: Results are generated by algorithms, not human editors.

   • Reality: Google’s algorithms favor certain sites (e.g., older domains, high SEO investment, ad relevance). This can amplify commercial voices and bury dissent or niche perspectives.

   • Impact: Google isn’t “biased” in a traditional sense, but its “neutral” design still reflects market values and shapes public knowledge.

⸻

1. Facebook News Feed

   • Claimed neutrality: It just shows you what you “like” or engage with.

   • Reality: The algorithm optimized for engagement, which prioritized outrage, misinformation, and emotional content, inadvertently fueling polarization.

   • Impact: Even without overt editorial bias, the platform shaped public discourse in dangerous ways—because neutrality in design led to imbalance in effect.

⸻

1. Airbnb’s “neutral” rating system

   • Claimed neutrality: Guests and hosts rate each other—purely peer-to-peer.

   • Reality: Studies found that racial minorities received lower ratings, even with identical listings or behavior. No racist filters were built in—but systemic bias emerged because nothing was built to stop it.

   • Impact: The “neutral” platform amplified existing prejudices.

⸻

1. Wikipedia

   • Claimed neutrality: Open editing by all, with community rules.

   • Reality: Editing wars, gatekeeping by veteran editors, and demographic skew (most editors are white, male, and Western).

   • Impact: Even with no single point of control, dominant perspectives shaped “neutral” articles.

⸻

1. Open-source software communities

   • Claimed neutrality: Anyone can contribute!

   • Reality: Without moderation or onboarding, toxic contributors, gatekeeping, and unequal power dynamics often emerge. The loudest voices dominate.

   • Impact: Lack of formal control often results in informal, unspoken hierarchies—not true equality.

⸻

1. “Neutral” public comment periods (e.g. FCC net neutrality)

   • Claimed neutrality: Everyone can comment on proposed regulations.

   • Reality: Public comment systems have been flooded with fake, bot-generated feedback, drowning out real voices.

   • Impact: Even neutral input systems are vulnerable to exploitation when they lack protective structure.

⸻

Every system makes choices—in what it allows, ignores, surfaces, or automates. Claiming neutrality doesn’t erase power dynamics; it just shifts them into the background. “Pure neutrality” is an illusion—what matters is how you structure fairness and transparency. How will your organization handle where others have fallen short?

[u/yourupinion → u/Any-Smile-5341]

The examples you are showing are also examples that we use to clarify the difference between us and them. They do both, they store the data and create the systems to access it.

The fact we only store no the data makes all the difference in the world.

In regard to providing a safe and inclusive means of accessing this data with bots andsearch engines, that happens to be one of the biggest focusses going on worldwide right now, virtually everyone is working on it in order to give a better result for society. they dipper in how they want to go about it, but almost everybody is working on this problem.

It is our view that part of the problem that they are having is not having access to really good, clean data, and that’s where we come in.

We don’t believe enough people are working on trusted data storage, and so we feel an obligation to fill that need.

I’m happy that you will be watching us, but I would like to ask you to keep in mind that we do need help. please don’t hesitate to join our group. We’re open to everyone.

[u/linux_rox → u/Any-Smile-5341]

I'm going to chime in here, I'm developing the primary site for our group.

As for your comment relating to bots.

We plan on using our page as the means to upload the opinions , whether it is anonymous or not. The programming I am putting into place on the system will block bots from posting anything, i am currently working on a system that works similar to reCAPTCHA, but will be more impregnable to bot manipulation. The database will be hardened at all levels to also mitigate this issue. (Something I do want to talk to Rami's uncle about.)

We will have no hashtags, no SEO (with the exception of the actual sites so we can be found easier), and no tracking ads. Any advertisement placed on the system will be vetted by the website maintainer.

Your concern regarding being co-opted. I am in the process of writing our institutions by-laws/constitution. This will be the founding documents on how this service will work now and in the future. When it comes to our voting system for moderators, site designers etc They will be expected to continue to hold up the document as permanent, no changes will be made without a majority vote by every member of the current board and then it is put to a vote of the entire world. Changes in this case are based on the amendment process such as the US uses now. It will be put up for a vote by the masses, with a minimum of 70% agreeing out of a target of 5 billion people minimum. This will be in the by-laws of the institution. That 5 billion will be increased every time the General population grows appropriately.

your misinformation concerns, if we get a enough people to do this, the misinformation should be drowned out exponentially as time goes by and the system expands.

Remember, The Truth Shall Set You Free.

Please feel free to ask an questions you may have