A Theory of Evil

First posted Aug. 16, 2019. Revised and reposted Nov. 4. Good to read alongside "Why Be Moral."

For a long time, the nature of evil eluded me. But dark contemplation of the Jeffrey Epstein case and of the very existence of pedophile rings has clarified the nature of evil for me. Here, then, is a brief and provisional theory.

Evil is contempt for the humanity, the human life, of others.

Evil is contempt for the humanity, the human life, of others. I will explain what I mean by this, but first let me clarify what, on this theory, evil is not.

One personification of evil: Jeffery Epstein

First, evil is not contempt for this or that person; contempt can be deserved. Epstein himself richly deserves our contempt. But evil is something more far-reaching: it is contempt for the humanity of others. That qualifier is very important, as we will see.

Another thing evil is not is mere old-fashioned, curmudgeonly misanthropy. Misanthropes might claim to "hate everybody," and they are very much distrusting, but they aren't necessarily bad just for that. Most self-described misanthropes do not hate human life as such; they're just deeply, profoundly disappointed with everyone. They have ideals that we fall far short of, and it is actually their unyielding principles that make them misanthropes. They are impressed with the idea that we are all sinners, so they have not given up the idea of sin. They do not reject the principle that we should value all human beings; they just believe that, due to the inevitable foibles of humanity, we cannot justify admiring or trusting anyone. Distrust and disappointment are not evil at all.

Quite a good book

I have come to the conclusion that a proper understanding of evil—i.e., understanding the very idea of contempt for the humanity of some others—is profoundly important if you are to have a mature, clear-sighted view of your own life and of the world and its history. We might define naïveté as the failure to accept that anyone has such contempt. I have been rather naïve, in this sense, all my life. I have always liked Will Rogers' charming sentiment that he never met a man he didn't like. I have become increasingly impressed, over the years, by the Christian elevation of love, or agape, as a virtue—love for one's fellow man. I thought it was something of a failing in myself that I disliked some people. One of the fictional characters I rather admired was Dostoyevsky's Idiot, Prince Myshkin; his trusting nature, his unwillingness to accept the existence of evil, was his problem, too. I am coming to the conclusion that I myself have been rather idiotic about evil, and that has to end.

Kant

An evil person looks at another person and says: this is a non-person; this is a piece of trash; this is an obstacle or tool to be used and then discarded. Psychiatrists call such people sociopaths. A Kantian would say they treat others as mere means to their selfish ends, not as ends in themselves. That formulation is close, perhaps, but limited. After all, there is also a kind of nihilistic evil, which seeks to destroy pointlessly, due to the deepest contempt for a person, and hatred of their humanity as such—not to advance any further goal. Such dark, twisted, broken souls exist in real life, not just in horror stories.

With that long preamble finished, let me now explain what I mean by the key phrase "contempt for the humanity, the human life, of others." How do I distinguish this from mere contempt of some disagreeable human feature? If the big bad boss sees that an employee does poor work, the big bad boss might look down on, or have contempt, for the employee, but it might be due only to poor work. The stereotypical mean girl in high school has contempt for "ugly girls" and "nerds," but that might only be contempt for ugliness and nerdiness.

However nasty they can be, I don't propose to call the boss or the mean girl positively evil unless they demonstrate contempt for something deeper: their target's humanity.

Not quite evil

So, what is that? I add "human life" as a clue: I mean contempt for the very life or existence of a person, not just for perceived weaknesses, faults, sins, or mistakes. This could entail careless disregard for a person's mind or body, or both; it could entail active desire to harm without regard to ultimate consequences. Certainly this comes in degrees. Perhaps a bully who relentlessly teases is on the road to something like evil, if over time it becomes clear that the bully thinks of the person as merely a plaything for pleasurable torture. But most bullies have some regard for their victims: killing, for example, is out of the question. An accidental killing would inspire deep guilt in most of the world's bullies, who are merely bad, not evil. Lack of a sense of guilt indicates positive evil.

But clearly, evil is not an all-or-nothing affair. There are degrees of evil because there are degrees not just in the scope of one's contempt for humanity (as I will explain shortly), but also in the amount or strength of one's contempt.

I take the latter to be a truism: some people are merely bad, some are inconsistently evil (for example, reformed), and some are "pieces of work." The concept of a "piece of work" has long interested me. Perhaps it can be understood as a person who consistently has a mild amount of contempt for the interests of those who surround him, but who hides this contempt well. In any event, bad sorts have contempt for the basic humanity of others, contempt that waxes and wanes with their moods, their society, substances imbibed, and even their philosophy or religion.

Goya, Saturn Devouring His Son

But generally, I think that for us to call a person evil requires strong and consistent contempt for the humanity of others. By the way, whether a person actually acts on their contempt seems unimportant. An evil monster, locked away with no opportunity to work evil, is still an evil monster.

How should we understand the other key term, "contempt"? A brief gloss is "considering someone to be inferior or worthless." It is typically regarded as an emotion, but there is a distinguishable attitude of contempt as well, one that could be cold and unfeeling, insofar as it merely involves a low evaluation of others. The attitude of contempt would be the contemplation of another person as being unimportant. Someone who regards some others with "nothing but contempt" will not credit them with rights, interests, or consideration typically accorded to (respected) peers.

But contempt for the humanity of others is a special sort of contempt. Note that we sometimes speak of dignity as a sort of "baseline value" that people have, in virtue simply of their being human. Contempt for the humanity of others, then, is the denial of their basic dignity. One who has such contempt denies his victim—deemed "scum" or "trash"—any rights, interests, or consideration.

Contempt for the humanity of others, then, is the denial of their basic dignity. One who has such contempt denies his victim—deemed "scum" or "trash"—any rights, interests, or consideration.

Root of all evil?

Evil is essentially dehumanization. If love of money is the root of all evil, that would be because it reduces human beings to commodities—which is to dehumanize them.

So far I have omitted to mention the varying scope, or target, of evil. Sometimes, the scope is quite narrow. A person obsessed with just one other person can have quite evil feelings and motives toward just that person. Perhaps this is how we should understand certain relationships that go terribly wrong. In addition, some criminals who are prone to outright evil may experience that type of contempt—for the humanity of their victims—on an individual basis. Two particularly evil crimes often directed at individuals are murder and child rape.

If evil can be manifested toward single individuals, can it be manifested toward families and small groups? Certainly it can. The motive of revenge may be understood as the utter rejection of the humanity of a person, well beyond a righteous demand for justice. When the revenge motive occurs to an extreme degree across families, clans, and gangs, we have a blood feud, which is sometimes regarded as a particularly dark sort of evil: members of opposing tribes regard each other as worthless vermin in need of extermination.

"I am a man."

Widening the scope even further, racism is revealed as one of the varieties of evil: it involves the very destructive notion that there is no difference among all members of a race, that they are all equally undeserving of respect. It can be horrifically evil in its more extreme forms, in which contempt rises from lack of respect as a peer to positive desire to harm or exterminate some dehumanized vermin.

War crimes are a tremendous evil: they reveal profound contempt for the humanity of the enemy. War is a terrible plague, because success at the endeavor often seems to require that one dehumanize, or lose all respect for the humanity of, one's enemy. By contrast, noble warriors have respect for their foes and refuse to treat their humanity with contempt. Perhaps that is an old-fashioned notion of war, but it seems the only defensible one. Good soldiers may have to participate in terrible, destructive battles, but they never sink to the level of war crimes because they retain a basic respect for the enemy's humanity. I wonder: Is war psychologically devastating for very good people, unusually so, because it requires they kill people they respect?

Child rapists would have to have contempt for the minds and bodies of the most vulnerable human beings, for their basic humanity, to mistreat them so appallingly.

Jimmy Savile—a child rapist, pure evil, was knighted and allowed to thrive for decades by powerful people. Ask why.

One very broad possible scope (21% of the U.S. population) is children. There are some people in the world—believe it or not—who have contempt for the humanity of children. They are the child rapists. They would have to have contempt for the minds and bodies of the most vulnerable human beings, for their basic humanity, to mistreat them so appallingly.

In the broadest scope, there is an evil, if thankfully small, movement afoot in the world. It appears to be hostile to human life as such, wherever it occurs. In lieu of a better word, which I couldn't find, I invented one: antivitism (anti-life-ism). This is, I want to suggest, an evil movement, however organized or disorganized it might be. "After birth" abortion and active euthanasia of teens for depression are two examples: only those contemptuous of the value of human life as such could champion such things. Again, pedophilia advocacy is another example: the harm to children is so horrible and so obvious that it seems only contempt for humanity as such can explain the defense of it.

One strand of this movement does have a name: antinatalism. As a dictionary definition has it, this is "a philosophical position that opposes human procreation, holding it to be morally wrong." More generally, antinatalists hold that human life is itself a tremendously bad thing, as they never tire of telling you.

One of the original anti-natalists, Théophile de Giraud

Now, let me be fair: I don't claim that antinatalists feel contempt toward their fellow humans. They certainly sympathize with human pain, which of course suggests decency. But anyone who takes such a theory seriously enough to act on it, I think, would have to be among the most inhuman monsters conceivable. If human life is on balance so awful, then the antinatalists would seem to be doing us all a favor by literally putting us out of our misery. This does raise an interesting theoretical challenge to my definition of evil: if antinatalists have contempt (as in, a very low estimation) for human life, but they do not in any obvious way have contempt for people, are they evil according to my definition?

My response to this is not to revise my definition of evil but to accuse antinatalists of incoherence. If they value human pain, then as a matter of fact they do value human life over human death, regardless of their protestations. Please, though, antinatalists, remain incoherent if you must remain antinatalists; please don't start taking your contempt for human life to heart.

I accuse no one of evil of the broadest possible scope, for the simple reason that the accusation would be absolutely extraordinary, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Perhaps some of history's worst murderers were that evil—perhaps many. I would not rule that out.

Luis Alfredo Garavito Cubillos, The Monster of Génova, admitted to rape, torture, and murder of 138 children and teenagers

So much for this brief discussion of the scope of evil. Next I want to maintain that it is of the utmost importance that we accept that evil actually exists. Naïve people have had too little experience with extreme evil to accept that it exists. They react with horror and incomprehension when confronted with it. I myself have willingly used the concept of evil (as in essays I linked to above about murder and child rape) but with some incredulity. I suppose I used it as shorthand for "extremely bad." That's not wrong, but it fails as a definition because it leaves out the essential feature of contempt for humanity.

The existence of evil is simply hard for some people to accept, and that is precisely because they can't imagine anyone having such contempt for innocent life. It was only after wrestling with the Epstein case—only after confronting the increasing evidence from this case from my own lifetime, of monsters callously, deliberately, joyously violating innocence, demonstrating extreme contempt for the human life in their sway—that I was really able to believe it.

A modern impulse, which looks naïve, is to be highly suspicious of the concept of evil. Old-fashioned ideas of evil strike "sophisticated" people, sometimes, as mean, stupid, and insensitive. So they try to sympathetically "understand" evil, to explain it reductively in terms of vague, impersonal root causes rather than the unambiguous attitudes of specific, real people.

I don't recommend it

This modern notion that the concept of evil is somehow insensitive is highly pernicious, I believe. If we are not willing to name evil as such, we will understand evil motives badly, we will judge evil actions improperly, and we will punish evil crimes leniently. To deny that evil exists is to make it easier to be evil.

Indeed, in the last few generations—since in the mid-20th century—clinical, merely descriptive, sympathetic, and even celebratory depictions of evil have become the norm in Western culture. I will not here speculate on why this has been the case. I will say, however, that I believe this attitude to explain why crime rose in the same time period (until mass incarceration began), and why horrifically evil crimes seem to have proliferated and to have become ever more popular to this day.

This is a result of the moral abyss we find ourselves in—an echo from its depths, so to speak. If we fail to credit evil people fully with their inhuman motives, if we fail to contemplate head-on the tremendous destructive force of their contempt for humanity, then we allow evil to thrive. That is a fact, a very awful one. It should give us all pause.

If we fail to credit evil people fully with their inhuman motives, if we fail to contemplate head-on the tremendous destructive force of their contempt for humanity, then we allow evil to thrive.

We have been allowing evil to thrive. A good first step to stopping it is to re-examine the notion of evil and begin, once again, to name it for the unspeakable, but very real, horror that it is.

I leave you with a related thought.

What makes humanity loveable, and what inspires the most devotion toward heroes and leaders, is the capacity for creation, the ability to invent, build, preserve, and restore whatever is good, i.e., that which supports and delights flourishing, well-ordered life. What makes evil individuals worthy of our righteous anger is their capacity for destruction of the good, due to their contempt for human life as such.

Ary Scheffer, The Temptation of Christ

If so, then the love for God may be understood as a perfectly natural love of the supremely creative force in the universe. For what could be greater than the creator of the universe, and what could be more loveable? And then it certainly makes sense that they would regard Satan as a force most worthy of our hatred and condemnation, since Satan is held to be an essentially destructive entity, the one most contemptuous of human life as such.


A Civilizational Creed

DRAFT UNDER REVISION

I propose this creed as neither specifically ethical, nor religious, nor yet political; it is what I will call a civilizational creed. Religious creeds define religions; ethical creeds define theories of right and wrong; political creeds define ideologies or parties. But this, a civilizational creed, defines an outlook on what our goals and views that define what our civilization is about, if it is to survive. And when I say "our civilization," perhaps I mean mainly Western civilization, but there need be nothing specifically Western or regional about the sort of civilization I mean, nothing chauvinistic at all, considering that elements of it have spread to various points East. What I am defending is the best elements of the culture I have grown up in. There is nothing wrong with defending that; for anyone to object to my defending that is to indeed to be bigoted.

This creed is not just a statement of belief. It is, in addition, an attempt to galvanize and regain a sense of public spirit, of a shared mission.

What We Stand For, and What We Stand Against

This is not a conservative creed: many old-fashioned Democrats and Liberals could get behind this. It is not a uniquely Christian or Western creed.

It is, however, opposed to a lot of left-wing radicalism as well as racist, bigoted attitudes, both—and maybe most of all the leading Establishment attitudes inculcated through education and media. The attitudes of many "elites" are anathema to much of the following, and we must not be ashamed to place ourselves at variance with them, as necessary. Much of "elite" culture today represents a deep perversion of Western ideals and deserves to be rejected, mocked, and sternly rebuked.

Ethics

We stand for: The deep value of individual human life as the basis for morality; love and kindness; the tragically lost but deep importance of honesty and integrity; hard work; a few other virtues. A belief in human nature.

We stand against: Nihilism; relativism; any view that permits contempt of whole large groups of others.

Religion

We stand for: Deep respect, at the very least, for religious belief as a moral influence; the belief in an objective reality, something larger and ultimately more important than oneself, that places moral constraints upon us; human love and kindness enshrined as a transcendental requirement on us all.

We reject: Radicalism that inspires people to violence; massive, centrally-controlled and -controlling bodies that are not answerable to the believers; bigotry and intolerance toward those with different beliefs; atheism as a destructive, critical project.

Social attitudes

We stand for: The unique value of the individual; volunteerism, public spiritedness; value of the uniqueness of our own local cultures; the deep importance of passing on our cultures; in the case of Western culture, this means reaquainting ourselves and our children with the classics; the deep importance of learning; a deep support and valuation of the traditional family.

We reject: Bigotry, racism; mob thinking (so easy for powerful ideologues to manipulate); cultishness; anti-intellectualism; the sickening influences of degrading pop culture.

Politics

We stand for: Democracy, tolerance, individual rights, free markets, entrepreneurship, the ability of individuals to pave their own way, a fair playing field, equality before the law, equal educational opportunities, beautiful, uplifting public art and architecture

We reject: Far-left socialism; giant faceless bureaucracies passing massive regulatory frameworks that only giant corporations can satisfy; egalitarianism of outcome; ugly public art and boxy, emotionally flat or depressing places of living and working.

Our Obligation

We accept an obligation—we believe it is our obligation to help bring about this civilization, which has never quite existed. We are worried that it will not survive if we don't help.

We should begin discussing this (very common) body of beliefs and come out strongly in its favor, championing it, creating groups supporting it, etc.


Big Tech In Decline?

Massive Shakeup of Major Players Under Way, Especially in Social Media

LarrySanger.org does not usually break news. But since this is such a huge story and no other outlets seem to be covering it, we thought we would do so.

Note: Updated rank numbers (not images), below, with data from Sept. 30.

Sep. 29, 2019 (THE INTERNET) – Many of the websites that have come under attack in recent years for violating user expectations of privacy, free speech, autonomy, and neutrality are now in decline, according to data published by Amazon's web traffic ranking website, Alexa.com. The decliners include many of the best-known names of Big Tech: Twitter, Facebook, Wikipedia, Instagram, Quora, and more.

LarrySanger.org has been unable to locate any recent articles in the technology and Internet press making similar observations of these startling declines. We rely on our readers to fact-check us. The observations are much in line with declines in downloads of Facebook and Instagram apps, noticed by ReclaimTheNet.org.

Twitter traffic ranking 90-day trend, to September 30, 2019.

Twitter plunged from Alexa rank 11 to 26 in the last three months. The microblogging site, dominated by celebrities and news, now trails Reddit in the rankings. Reddit itself has recently declined from a peak of 12, in July, to 18 today. Twitter was the focus of a "Social Media Strike" campaign last July 4-5. At the same time Wikipedia ex-founder Larry Sanger and others, who organized the strike, promoted a Declaration of Digital Independence.

Facebook traffic ranking 90-day trend, to September 30, 2019.

Facebook slid from Alexa rank 3 to rank 5. This might be significant, though a drop of only two spots, considering that it is within the top five. The social media giant has come under severe attack for its failure to respect user privacy rights, and has been abandoned by millions of users. The two sites that now occupy Alexa ranks 3 and 4 are Chinese sites.

Wikipedia traffic ranking 90-day trend, to September 30, 2019.

Once a mainstay of the top five, Wikipedia, too, has sunk with surprising speed from rank 5 to rank 9—all of this decline just within the last six weeks. Conservatives and libertarians have become more vocally fed up with the website's noticeable abandonment of its neutrality policy, which Sanger originally articulated and still champions. "This is not surprising to me," Sanger said, "considering everything that I have heard from Wikipedia's readers in the last few years. The dominant tone among anyone not on the political left has shifted from grudging respect to outright hostility." A relevant consideration is that the encyclopedia site's traffic can decline over the summer, when school is out, so we will see if it bounces back in the coming months.

Instagram traffic ranking 90-day trend, to September 30, 2019

The Facebook-owned Instagram, which has also come under attack for its privacy and free speech violations, skidded from rank 13 to rank 23 in the last three months. This is in line with a study claiming Instagram engagement declined from May through July this year. As with Twitter, a common criticism of the social photo sharing site is that it tends to induce otherwise quite nice people behave nastily. Left-wing media and activists, as with many others on this list, have pressured the site to adopt policies that disproportionately impact conservative views, leading the right to exit.

Quora traffic ranking 90-day trend, to September 30, 2019

Perhaps the most dramatic decline is that of Quora, which plummeted from the respectable rank of 82—similar to the BBC website's rank—all the way to rank 235, with no sign of a slowdown. The once-dominant social Q&A site has moved gradually left over the last five years or so. The site has shed many disgruntled contributors in recent years, who frequently complain of biased moderation.

Other major recent decliners include Amazon's gaming video site Twitch (slid from 26 to 37), Jimmy Wales' for-profit wiki site Fandom (formerly Wikia; down from 53 to 74), and social sharing site Pinterest (dropped from 71 to 111).

Assuming the data is reliable, it is possible that users of major corporate offerings are finally leaving because they have decided "enough is enough" and that their privacy, free speech, and other legitimate interests will never be properly respected by the Big Tech companies that dominated the scene throughout the past decade. Other explanations are possible, of course.

Not all famous and big brands declined, but it is notable that the English language websites that gained include a few competitors of those that have come under the most severe criticism. Notable gainers include Bing (rose from 38 up to 29, a competitor of much-criticized Google Search), Office (51 to 30, a competitor of Google Docs), eBay (40 to 35), Stack Overflow (50 to 44), Apple (59 to 48), Medium (151 to 93, a competitor of Quora), and some pornography sites.

Some familiar news brands have probably absorbed traffic that might otherwise have gone to the declining social media sites: BBC (87 to 78), ESPN (113 to 85), The New York Times (117 to 103), Washington Post (287 to 178), FoxNews.com (245 to 219), Breitbart (333 to 285), and WSJ (627 to 466).

Some of the risers are of Chinese or Russian origin, the most notable of which is the Chinese TMall (rose from 9 to 4).

It is possible that these are all somehow reflections of some internal changes to Alexa's ranking algorithms; LarrySanger.org has not contacted the company for this report. But this explanation is perhaps less likely since the declines did not happen all at once but have been spread out gradually, over a period of weeks or months.


Constantly monitor those in power

"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"

That's a question we should be asking more in this day and age of constant surveillance.

I'm toying with a proposal: Anyone who goes into public office should have absolutely no privacy whatsoever. Every movement should be available on video, every email and message logged and read, and every conversation recorded. Even the most top secret and sensitive state negotiations should be watched by duly vetted, randomized—and constantly monitored—professional monitors. As with state secrets, maybe for things like sex, bathroom breaks, etc., only some special monitors would have access.

Whether or not monitors actually saw every moment and heard every word, it would all be there, available to the law, not capable of being tampered with. And perhaps we would want monitors to actually watch it all, people duly tasked to catch any whiff of impropriety.

No one would go into public office then, you say? Nonsense. Power is powerfully attractive. No dishonest, secretive person would go into public office—that seems clear.

It would be humiliating, you say? Well, power ought to be a humbling thing. Only those really willing and able to wield it in the full light of day it should be able to.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant—and power, throughout human history, has so often been so profoundly dirty.

It is not as if we don't have the technology. (Well, we do if we create legal consequences for tampering with the monitoring devices.)

Power corrupts, they say; but consider that it corrupts primarily in private. If all email, phone, etc., were transacted under massive, constant monitoring, only honest public servants would go into politics.

What state interest—to use the language of the lawyers—is really served by public officials having privacy, in light of the awful consequences of allowing power to be wielded in secret? Is the privacy of a President, Senator, or big city mayor really so important that it outweighs the public's profound interest in making sure that power is never abused?

We might have a similar legal requirements regarding executives of companies worth over $N. Clearly, they too wield far much power for us to trust them to exercise that power responsibly. They need a rolling, anonymized, and confirmed-independent cadre of monitors.

The precise social and technical requirements of monitors as a citizen role (and, perhaps, profession) would be difficult to work out, granted, but not insurmountable. Monitors might sell secrets? This is why monitors themselves would be monitored. They might collude with each other and with power to overlook misdeeds? This is why they would be unknown to each other and reassigned on a rolling basis. Isn't there still a need for privacy even for the most powerful positions, in the case of sex or using valuable cryptocurrency keys? These are technical problems with technical solutions, to a certain extent, and the punishment for violating your trust as monitor would be harsh.

What kind of person would a monitor be? Professional monitors would be vetted for honesty, intelligence, and responsibility, I imagine, not unlike judges. It is probably important that the monitors be drawn from pre-vetted but fairly large public pool, not (or not just) a privileged professional class. The role would be like jury duty. And again, the consequences for a monitor divulging legitimate secrets would be very serious.

It is also possible that people would be available only to do random spot checks; or even less, just to monitor that the system is working reliable and recording everything. The mere fact that the data is being saved constantly would probably be an adequate disincentive for most criminal politicians and executives.

Finally, this proposal would make leadership more of a moral calling. That's what it would be, then, too: difficult and wise leadership, not morally fraught power. It would require real personal sacrifice; it would require you to be on your best behavior, and that your best really can stand up to close scrutiny.

Obviously, I'm not sure of the details. But it sure is fun to think about a system in which there is totalitarian surveillance of the powerful and not of the people.

Totalitarianism only for the powerful—never for the people.


On the misbegotten phrase "surveillance capitalism"

The loaded phrase surveillance capitalism has been in circulation since at least 2014, but it came into much wider use this year with Shoshana Zuboff's book The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. The phrase means the system of extremely widespread surveillance by giant private corporations, entailing the systematic invasion of our privacy as well as control and abuse of our personal data.

I am opposed to the phenomenon that the phrase names, but I also am opposed to the phrase itself. How so? As I've made amply clear in this blog, I think we should care much more about privacy, and indeed we should be hardcore about it. Moreover, the best defense we have against incursions on our privacy by Big Tech is to decentralize social media (and other data, too, come to think of it) and to embrace data self-ownership.

The problem with the misbegotten name "surveillance capitalism" is that it implies that it is because of capitalism that we currently live under a regime of surveillance through social media (as well as financial, medical, and other data). This is nonsense. Indeed, it should be obvious why it is nonsense. But I enjoy explaining obvious things, and sadly it sometimes seems necessary. So here goes.

It isn't capitalism per se that is responsible for our massive surveillance. The Internet was capitalistic in 1999 but did not feature 2019 levels of surveillance. We could still institute new decentralized systems of data exchange that would make what Zuboff is pleased to call "surveillance capitalism" much more difficult. Moreover, massively intrusive surveillance can be expected to happen, and actually does happen, under socialism, as it does in China.

The reason we live under a regime of massive surveillance is not economic or political but technological: blame it on the cloud. Because we need to sync data on our various devices, and between large networks of people, our data came to be put in the cloud. Though they could have been, different networks were not made interoperable, so that you and I could take exclusive control of our data if we wanted to. Instead, each of the Big Tech giants—Google, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc.—came to have its own internal data standards which allowed it to operate its own walled garden, insulated from the others and from smaller competitors. The economic system of capitalism is, quite simply, governments permitting free markets to operate with comparatively little regulation. The presence of such a system is not enough to explain why we found ourselves with such proprietary standards and walled gardens.

If you are still not convinced, then imagine, if you will, that the Democratic left took control and converted America to the sort of government-controlled economy so many democratic socialists want with increasing desperation. That would not make it more likely that we would adopt a system of neutral, open standards. Why would it? Data standards and our economic systems certainly seem to have little to do with each other. Indeed, a socialist economy would be much more likely to impose various kinds of surveillance and top-down control. After all, such control is essentially what "market socialism" is all about. In the market socialist economies that the American and European left hanker after, giant governments and massive corporations would naturally work together to surveil the populace via the social media panopticon. Not for nothing has the Western left-wing commentariat backpedaled on their original expressions of horror at Chinese social credit system. Maybe it wouldn't be so bad, some are saying.

And that, of course, would be surveillance socialism.

By contrast, the adoption of common, open standards that would allow us to own and serve our own data without fear of interference by massive authorities, corporate or governmental, would essentially be an individualist, pro-liberty system, much as the Internet itself was and to some extent still is.

The irony is rich indeed when giant institutions like Facebook and Twitter are led by avowed progressives but, because they are corporations, it is capitalism that is blamed for their immoral power-grab. At best it could be blamed on corporatism. What's the difference, you ask? Capitalism is defined by and highlights the freedom of economic interactions. But, you ask, wasn't it corporate freedom that allowed Big Tech to take control? Not really; not necessarily. Corporate freedom greatly underdetermines why our privacy has come to be systematically violated in 2019. In other words, it's not enough to explain the problem. Corporatism, by contrast, involves the wielding of power by giant corporations; by now, it is clear that it was the desire to shore up their power, economic power to be sure but also ultimately their political power, that motivated Big Tech to make our data into their private fiefdoms. So the more apt term is, surely, surveillance corporatism.

Indeed, it is only a free market system that could be counted on to support and guarantee any future possibility of privacy, or freedom from surveillance. If enough of us are left free to build network of decentralized social media, decentralized (and properly encrypted) cloud storage, and encrypted communication, then how will it be possible for us to be monitored, except with our very clear acquiescence (as when we write public blog posts)? If we join together in decentralized networks, it will be impossible for us to be subjected to the same sort of surveillance. Well, it will be impossible if we are left alone.

But governments could require that we make our data capable of being monitored. Those politicians and bureaucrats who have insisted on having (probably unworkable) government back doors for encryption fall into this camp. The problem is that progressives and socialists ultimately want to regulate (if not collectively own) pretty much everything. But to do that, they need to surveil everything; they certainly can't permit conversations and economic transactions going on out of earshot.

So let's call such a system of government-sponsored regulation, indeed, surveillance socialism and possibly surveillance corporatism. Unlike "surveillance capitalism," those really would be apt sobriquets, because it would be the essentially socialist demand for regulation or collective ownership that would require our data to be left open to government surveillance—and indeed, perhaps also to corporate surveillance by the wealthy friends of politicians. Such chummy back-scratching is, after all, how market socialism, or corporatism, works.


The challenges of locking down my cyber-life

In January 2019, I wrote a post (which see for further links) I have shared often since about how I intended to "lock down my cyber-life." That was six months ago. I made lots of progress, but it seems I'm far from finished, too.

In that post, I explained three problems about computer technology (viz., they put at risk our security, free speech, and privacy). I resolved to solve these problems, at least in my own case, by executing a lengthy to do list involving such things as adopting a better method of managing my passwords and quitting social media.

So the problem is that I didn't quite finish the job. Finishing the job, as it turns out, is kind of difficult. There's always a little more that can be done. Simple-sounding tasks, like switching browsers, can have aspects that one just never get around to. So in the following, I'm going to discuss the things I haven't actually done. Perhaps in a later post I'll make a to do list that you can use. But first I need to just talk things through.

  1. Stop using Chrome. Well, of course, I did stop; that was easy. I'm not sure when the last time I opened Chrome was. I switched to 95% Brave, but also 5% Firefox for those times when Brave seems to have a weird Javascript issue (what's up with that, Brendan Eich?). But I still have so many questions:
    • What do all of these different features of Brave do, really?
    • Do they really work? Are they adequate? Are there other plugins I should be using on top of what is built into Brave?
    • When I don't want a website to be able to infer who I am, must I use the Tor feature? Does browsing "Privately" help at all? (It deletes cookies, OK, but...)
    • What should my cookie strategy be? Should I generally browse with cookies off?
    • What are best practices for browsing generally? I remember reading a bunch of things in The Art of Invisibility that I thought were good ideas but which I don't think I ever implemented.
  2. Stop using Google Search. I use DuckDuckGo about 90% of the time, StartPage (which uses Google results) for the 10% when I think Google might have better results (which it does maybe 20% of the time, to be honest—that's when I'm dissatisfied with what I get from DDG). Sadly, I do rarely use Google News when I need to look more deeply through the news. So:
    • How do I comprehensively search recent news without using Google News? (I just haven't investigated the question, that's all. There are lots of apps, but are any really comprehensive while also respecting user privacy?)
  3. Start using (better) password management software. Don't let your browser store your passwords. And never use another social login again. So I'm doing pretty well here. I did stop using social logins many months ago and never looked back; if you're already using a password manager, they aren't an added convenience. The password manager I use is Enpass, which is easy to use and allows me to sync directly between my devices and my NAS, bypassing the cloud (unless you want to call my NAS a "private cloud"). My only misgiving is that Enpass is not open source, which means they could be sending copies of my passwords to their servers, and customers (who would otherwise be helped by the OSS community) wouldn't be any the wiser. Now, I guess I trust Enpass, but I'm thinking:
    • Is there in 2019 a password manager that is (1) easy to use (has autofill capabilities in browsers, at least computer browsers), (2) open source, and (3) allows me to sync my passwords across iPhone and two Ubuntu computers (using WebDAV)? I haven't taken the time to look into Bitwarden yet.
    • I have inadvertently saved a few passwords in my browser. Gotta delete them.
    • I am still using old, insecure passwords on many minor accounts I haven't opened in years. I should at least do an audit of the most important accounts I haven't touched in a while (that could pose a danger) and change those passwords.
    • I have to get my wife and younger son using password managers, both for their sake and because *ahem* it's possible they could be a backdoor into my systems.
    • WebDav is a secure protocol, right?
  4. Stop using gmail. Well, I'm mostly done with this; I pay for my own hosting, although the data itself is on somebody else's server, and I use my own domain name (sanger.io). But I still have a Gmail account, and that simple fact is still bothering me. Part of the reason for this is that there are still some accounts I made that made use of my Gmail account, and I might lose control of them if I delete my address. The other problem is YouTube. In sum:
    • Is it adequately secure that I host my own email? I've protected my privacy against incursions by Gmail (as long as there isn't a Gmail user in the thread...), but shouldn't I be using a service that provides zero-knowledge encryption? That would be quite a bit more expensive, I think.
    • Again, I need to review all my old accounts for importance, and switch the email address and passwords from Gmail to my personal email address.
    • Probably, I should turn on a vacation message for a couple of months, just on general principles, before permanently deleting.
    • Wait, is it possible to delete my Gmail account without entirely removing my Google account? Oh good, yes it is.
    • I still haven't downloaded and started separately maintaining my own address book (this is a huge oversight on my part). I think I should do that before deleting Gmail.
  5. Stop using iCloud to sync your iPhone data with your desktop and laptop data; replace it with wi-fi sync. This is mostly done. I mean, I flipped some switches, but completely extricating yourself from iCloud if you've been actively using it isn't simple. I went through a bunch of different menus on my phone. On the other hand, I think my son is still using my account's free iCloud space on the MacBook I gave him (that was when I switched to Ubuntu). So I'm not sure.
    • Investigate thoroughly how to ensure that I'm no longer using iCloud and whether I really for any purpose must use it if I'm going to keep using my iPhone. Pretty sure I don't.
    • Discuss with/negotiate with/frown sternly at son to determine whether he really needs to use iCloud. He likes the "find my iPhone" feature. Ugh.
  6. Subscribe to a VPN. Done! But:
    • Look again into my choice of VPN now that I've been using it for a few months.
    • Should I not perhaps give myself another option? Other people switch between VPNs. I haven't had a need to yet.
    • VPNs might protect you from being protected from unsophisticated identification tactics, but they don't protect you from malicious/tracking cookies (see above), digital fingerprinting, or VPNs who lie and/or collude with governments or criminal organizations about whether they keep logs. What really is the best way?
  7. Get identity theft protection. Done; this is one area where I have nothing further in mind to do.
  8. Switch to Linux. Yeah, baby! Ubuntu installed on my desktop and laptop. Very happy with it. So much nicer in many ways than both Windows and Mac. Not looking back. I very much recommend it. But:
    • I'm not sure I've optimized my systems for security adequately. Need to do an audit.
    • First, I need to do research on what such an audit would look like. Maybe this, maybe more.
    • Ugh, if I'm going to do this right, I need to study Bash more so I can really understand networking (like iptables) better.
    • And then I need to study infosec properly. Something like this?
  9. Quit social media, or at least nail down a sensible social media use policy. I quit and have nothing left to do (as far as I know) with Facebook, Instagram, Quora, and Medium (at least). This is still, however—it turns out—is a huge pain point for me. I'll just dive into the individual issues:
    • I said I'd stay in touch with family and friends via a mailing list. I haven't been doing that. I'm sorry. But there's a huge difference between interacting randomly with people I know and pushing out my personal news to a bunch of people's email inbox.
    • Hence I'm inclined to think I need to start interacting a lot more on some alternative social network. But none seem to be "happening" yet, although there are some. We're getting there; we're getting closer.
    • So maybe I should organized another strike or a mass try-out as I said. But ugh. Both of those are a lot of work and distract from other important priorities. I'm not trying to be a rabble-rouser except to solve my own problem here, honest.
    • YouTube is increasingly problematic. But I still use it. BitChute and others have some copies of videos I want to see, but definitely not all of it. Maybe I should use a proxy/republisher/search provider of some sort, but wouldn't that still enable Google/YT to track me? Well, how would I use it without being tracked—like an anon account I use only behind Tor or something? Is that even feasible? Could I live without it? Should I? (I would be cutting myself off from a lot of stuff I want to keep up with. Are there other ways to keep up with it?)
    • Twitter: well, OK, just in the last few weeks I've started posting more randomly as I used to, not just in promotion of my blog and Everipedia and programming. Again, I'm sorry. I've been a bad boy. I think I should rein myself in. Right? No doubt. I should probably just re-read this. Maybe update it.
    • I gotta think about installing my very own Mastodon instance. It could get big. I have a friend (several friends) who could help. Hmm. This might be a good idea for me. My friends would join. Then I'd just have to get them to interact with me and each other there. Could work!
  10. Stop using public cloud storage. This is 90% done! I installed a NAS, all my files are on it. But:
    • I need to do a proper sync with my desktop instead of accessing via the (convenient, but slow and not right for daily workstation use) browser and mobile apps. (You'd know what I meant if you had a NAS. This is a problem you want to have. You just want a NAS. You will thank me.)
  11. Nail down a backup plan. I have a zero-knowledge encryption service...but in the cloud. So it's done and I think it's secure, but I'm not that happy about it. For backup, I'll switch to another less centralized solution when I am convinced that one works properly with all the features I need; I'm pretty confident that none do yet, but there are plenty of people working on such.) Issues:
    • All righty then, how are those decentralized alternatives coming along?
    • Is zero-knowledge encryption backup really secure? Come on, really? And the service I'm using isn't open source, is it? That sucks.
    • I haven't organized my old backup files (which used to live on a large old external drive) and investigated them generally. I did back them up, right? Surely I did. Need to triple-check.
  12. Take control of my contact and friend lists. Well, I don't store my active contacts in iCloud, so that's a start. The most up-to-date database is the one that is local to my iPhone. I really haven't made much a start on this:
    • I don't use my Gmail address book, but Google still has access to it, so that sucks. Really need to finally delete Gmail so I can delete those contacts. I feel like I'm letting my friends down by letting them keep that data.
    • Pretty sure Microsoft still has some contact data in the cloud as well. Looks like I'll have to fire up the crappy old Windows partition, investigate, and nuke.
  13. Stop using Google Calendar. So here is a way in which I am cooler than you. (There aren't many ways, but this is one.) My calendar works via my NAS. I set it up using CalDAV, which frankly I wouldn't have been able to do if I weren't comfortable with rather geeky stuff. That isn't to say you couldn't engage your geeky friends or family members to set your NAS up with this functionality. I still use the Apple app but they don't have my data; it updates directly with my NAS via CalDAV. I even gave an associate of mine an account for updating my calendar directly, something I wouldn't feel so comfortable doing on gCal. Anyway, no adjustments needed at this time.
  14. Study and make use of website/service/device privacy options. OK, so now this is a bit of a problem. I never really did this properly. I spent many hours, but I was haphazard and I left out a lot of important sites. Indeed there are some sites that perhaps I shouldn't be using at all if I really want to be hardcore about privacy. Let me give a partial list, with notes:
    • Amazon: They're pretty goddamn evil. They do store a hell of a lot of data about you. But I should check them out some more and make sure of my harsh judgment, because just getting rid of them would be pretty difficult. They're so convenient. But the rest of the Internet is very big, you know. I could look stuff up on Amazon without logging in and not using cookies, and then buy elsewhere (e.g., books from Powell's in Portland, or whatever).
    • Netflix: It (like Prime Video, which we ditched) is becoming more like TV used to be, as someone predicted not too long ago. As these services proliferate, you'll have to subscribe to many if you want to have good access. Well, my family went without any access (just DVDs) for years. Didn't do us harm. I know my wife wouldn't complain, except insofar as the boys would complain. And is it really necessary to get rid of a big source of entertainment just to secure your privacy?
    • Expedia: Do they sell my travel data? Well...so should I buy direct from the airlines? Are they any better?
    • Etc. I need to go through assorted other apps I have installed and accounts I have opened, which I have ignored but which might find ways to track me, and which it might actually benefit me to uninstall/remove account. This could extend this to do list very long indeed.
  15. Also study the security and privacy of other categories of data. I haven't done this at all. Another long list, in each case asking: well, what are my risks to security and privacy, and how can I mitigate them?
    • banking data
    • medical data
    • automobile data
    • telephone/cell data
    • credit card (including shopping) data: Is it getting quite unreasonable to make a regular habit of buying gift cards and using them to avoid putting all that shopping data out there? Well folks, I'm not afraid to admit that I'm thinking: maybe.
  16. Figure out how to change my passwords regularly, maybe. I've been thinking about this one and I'm fairly sure I'm not going to bother with most, but I do have more refined ideas about how to approach this. I think this is reasonable (comments welcome):
    • Make a list of unusually sensitive passwords. Not too many (maybe 5-10) or you won't do the next step:
    • Change those ones quarterly.
  17. Consider using PGP, the old encryption protocol (or an updated version, like GNU Privacy Guard) with work colleagues and family who are into it. I looked into this but never followed through. Won't take long. Just need to take the time, and then start using it with those very few people who are geeky enough to use it as well.
  18. Moar privacy thangs. None of these are done.
    • Buy a Purism Librem 5 phone. Just to support the cause. I might actually do this, but I've been waiting for more evidence that I'd actually, you know, want to use the damn thing. But I sometimes think I'm morally obligated to spend the money anyway, because the thing so badly needs to exist.
    • Physical security key. Maybe just for the laptop, when I'm traveling. I have one. I might get a different one (since this one was given to me, and so...). The biggest trouble is to pick one out and then learn how to use it.
    • Encrypt my drives. Is that even possible after I've started using them? No idea. Is it really worth it? Don't know. Need to investigate.
    • Credit card use for shopping. I could buy some prepaid credit cards or gift cards; this is a Kevin Mitnick suggestion, which he goes into in great detail in The Art of Invisibility. I might not go into all of that as I am not a federal criminal. My wife, who is also not a federal criminal, might go in for this as she is soo private. "How private is she?" you ask. She's so private, she would probably not want me to say that she's very private. True!

What have I left out? A fair few of my readers know all this stuff better than I do. Can you answer my questions? Please do so below.


On the clash of civilizations

There is a global conflict underway. A good way to understand it is by looking at the different interests that are coming into conflict. And a good place to begin is, of course, with:

The immigrants. People from the “global south” are immigrating north, inspired by the images of prosperity they see on television and the Internet and drawn by ever easier and cheaper transportation and lax immigration policies. In some cases, they are actually escaping real oppression. In most, however, they are merely running from poor, backward, relatively lawless, and restrictive systems. In any case, there is certainly mass immigration, mostly northward.

The conservatives. Conservatives view the demographic and cultural changes that this mass immigration brings with alarm. They have many different concerns:

  • If demographic trends continue, it is easy to see how Christianity (or more precisely a slightly Christian secularism) might well be replaced in Europe by Islam within a few generations.
  • Already, the presence of Islam in Europe is changing some legal processes, and Sharia law could well be instituted in some places before that much longer, if the Muslim population continues to grow.
  • In the United States, immigration from the global south means more Democratic voters and more enthusiasm for socialism. Conservatives don't like that.
  • In general, Western civilization (religion, languages, tastes, mores), maybe especially in Europe, are weakened as non-Westerners move in.
  • In Europe, places that have been largely free of crime for generations are suddenly dangerous. In America, a talking point (I'm not sure how well supported it is by statistics) is that there is more crime if we have more illegal immigrants.
  • And yes, for some there is surely a racial element to their concern: they don't want Europe, or America, to become less white.

The nationalists. I make a separate category for the Japanese, Hungarians, and others who are broadly opposed to immigration, period. They may be distinguished from Western conservatives who are often perfectly happy with a fair bit of immigration, just not unregulated, indiscriminate, and too much immigration. The Japanese, Hungarians, and quite a few others simply don't want to change the character of their societies, as immigration might well do. They look at the effects of immigration on Europe and America and say, "No thank you."

The progressives. On the other side, there are many progressives and liberals, as well as many libertarians, who essentially want there to be open borders. As with progressives' demands for censorship, their increasing moral fervor for open borders is evident, but they don't often want to admit it in so many words. But the reasons for the stance are clear:

  • These are disadvantaged brown people who need our help. Why not give it to them? To exclude them from sharing in our prosperity is racist.
  • Indeed, the conservative position is easily dismissed as racist, which by contrast gives progressivism a brighter moral luster. (That isn't an argument progressives make, but it certainly seems to inspire them.)
  • We can expect greater support for socialist, globalist projects from immigrants, who are more left-leaning. We can do more for them, and they will be grateful to and supportive of our programs.
  • If the "Western" or "white" character of European and American civilization are in decline, let it decline. If there are people reproducing more, who can support social programs arriving from other places, that's a good thing, not a bad thing.

The elites. Closely overlapping with, but distinguishable from, the rank-and-file progressive viewpoint is what I will call the elite viewpoint. Their concerns are perhaps hidden and cynical but no less real and influential:

  • We need cheap laborers and "guest workers." These immigrants do jobs our own people are not willing to do. Few will actually admit to thinking so, but a view aptly described "elitist" is that society actually needs an underclass and European and American societies need to replenish theirs.
  • Immigration is shaping into a massive left-right fight, and that's a good thing—it justifies concentrating power in the hands of the more enlightened power centers of Brussels and Washington, D.C., as well as justifying the seizure of new powers that, formerly, liberals would never have agreed to (such as control of speech and mass surveillance).

This conflict has come to a head recently—why? It seems to be a combination of factors. There has been lax immigration enforcement for generations; this has led to a growing flow (and now a flood) of immigration, including illegal immigration especially recently; there is again especially recently widespread pro-immigrant sentiment on the left and among elites, which has given political cover and support for expanded bases of social support; in recent years, tolerance of illegal immigration has become de rigueur, with signals everywhere in mass media indicating that complaints about illegal immigration is politically incorrect; meanwhile, some of the ill effects of illegal immigration, especially crime in Europe and political chaos in the U.S., have made immigration in general an important hot-button issue; and, finally, the urgency of the issue has radicalized some, who are all but declaring that they are in favor of open borders.

In other words, things are coming to a head especially because our elites and progressives seem increasingly openly in favor of open borders, and the borders really have been opening up. This would seem to entail an enormous change in global civilization; and it makes an adjudication of all of the issues listed above (and below) incredibly important to settle.

In a blog post last March, I asked whether Western civilization is collapsing. In the end, I didn't find the question all that fruitful. Conservatives say yes, progressives say no or who cares, but it doesn't seem that anything is going to be settled by discussing that question. I think it might be more enlightening to ask another: What do we want the world to look like?

The main options of immigration policy seem to bear directly on this question: open borders (as many progressives and libertarians want); the status quo (which nobody seems to want, but which seems very difficult to escape); traditional regulated immigration (which we all say we want, except for the explicitly open border radicals, but which the Establishment resists tooth and nail); and very little or no immigration (a la Japan).

The question is what we want the world to look like. It is difficult to clarify exactly what this important question even means.

But perhaps "What immigration policy do we want?" is not the question I want to ask. I'm asking a philosophical question that is, perhaps, prior to or in any event seems logically bound up with questions about immigration policy. The question is what we want the world to look like. It is difficult to clarify exactly what this important question even means.

It is tempting to place before the reader a few choices:

  • Traditional pluralism. We want a smorgasbord of different nations, each having a different language and culture, a national religion, etc. In other words, more or less how the world was before the advent of globalism...and colonialism.
  • Monoculturalism. We want a single global monoculture, everyone speaking the same language, having the same secular beliefs, democratic socialist politics, a vibrant culture of entrepreneurship, globally regulated Internet, etc. Eventually, a single world government.
  • A midway position. Something in between these, more or less like what we have now. Maybe there will be a lingua franca like English and "best practices" for business and technology, and plenty of intermixing, but most countries (there will always be exceptions like the United States and Canada) will retain a national identity, even if they are members of superstates.

Then we might ask on what grounds we can adjudicate among these—and then proceed to the debate.

But this is also not quite an honest sort of debate to have. It is not unlike imagining what your ideal state would be like, and then telling an elaborate story about Utopia. This is fairly useless because unless Utopia is possible, then you're simply telling a story. If you can't rationally expect to be able to bring about your Utopia—if there is no clear way to get from here to there—then taking half-steps in that direction might well prove to be disastrous. For example, you might say you want a global secular monoculture, but if you expect to get one by advocating for open borders in the E.U. and the U.S., don't expect to usher one in anytime soon. How are you going to get the rest of the world on board? And wait a moment—do you want the rest of the world on board? Or is it only the Western world that you want to lose any cultural distinctiveness? Would you prefer to have that (or to tolerate that) in Japan, Indonesia, Somalia, and Argentina?

So I don't want to invite speculation on what your Globutopia would look like. It seems to me that the question really is "Do we want open borders—and if not, what sort of immigration policy?" after all. This is the relevant question in the sense that it is essentially the question we disagree on.

That is not to say there are not more fundamental questions than that. For example:

  1. Is it preferable that all or the vast majority of people in a country share the same culture—language, religion, traditions, mores, broad political culture (in the U.S., our "civic religion"), etc.?
  2. Is it preferable—if it is possible—that all the world share the same culture?
  3. Is it preferable—if it is possible—that all the world have roughly the same amounts and types of cultural difference among different countries? So it's not a global monoculture, but global multiculturalism spread out everywhere.
  4. Is it possible for human beings with radically different cultures to get along very well in the same country? If it's a problem, how much of a problem is it? What is the best solution to that problem?

These are essential, fundamental questions. If we don't know our answers to these questions, it seems unlikely we will be able to defend our answers to "Do we want open borders?"

I would love to make advance tentative answers to those questions, but they are very difficult and I don't want to go on for much longer. Probably many of you would be uncomfortable if I were to put these questions to you; that is probably why we don't talk about these essential questions very much. They are deeply uncomfortable questions. They are politically fraught. But they are still important.

Here are a few notes on the four questions above:

  1. Suppose I say, thinking of a country like Ireland or Japan with a fairly distinctive culture that seems charming in various ways—that seems to benefit in various ways from being homogeneous—that it is a grand thing for everyone to share the same culture. Well, what does that say about the United States or India, countries with large minorities or various distinctive cultures? "Diversity is our strength," we are told. Is it sometimes a strength and sometimes a weakness? Or what?
  2. Suppose I say, thinking of various dystopias and the morass that is global entertainment culture as interpreted by Hollywood (and its imitators elsewhere), that a global monoculture would be a massive mistake? On the other hand, I've observed many college educated people around the world going to similar hotels, restaurants, conferences, entertainment venues, riding in similar cars and trams, using similar tech, starting similar startups, etc., in New York, Paris, Dubai, Hong Kong, and Tokyo. They seem to like it. Everybody is nice and speaks English at their conferences. Is that so bad?
  3. The idea of global multiculturalism (like, Christians and Buddhists in equal numbers everywhere) strikes me as interesting but deeply implausible. Only educated cynics, mostly but not only Westerners, view religion as a smorgasbord that you can pick and choose from. That approach seems insincere and glib. Most of us think there are differences here that really matter. Surely the idea of "global multiculturalism" is not really possible. Is it?
  4. Then there's the big question: Can people with radically different cultures be expected to get along in the same countries? Well, they certainly have to, that's for sure. I don't support religious wars, for example, or race riots, or (as in the U.S. lately) political skirmishes that resemble nothing so much as brawls between fans of opposing sports teams. But if it's a problem, what's really the solution? In the U.S., political differences have gotten so bad that some suggest we split the country in two—because we can't get along. Terrible idea, I'm inclined to think.

I haven't even mentioned another essential question to our current problem: Do we in the West have any special obligations to the people of the global south, either because their countries were formerly colonized, or because the West is more privileged? That's a question we might want to answer separately even if we think we have the other ones figured out.

There are, in fact, other crucial and fundamental questions. Here's another one: Are all cultures of equal value? Should some religions, for example, be stamped out? Don't act all shocked, now. Some atheists think Christianity should be stamped out. Some conservative Christians want Islam in Europe and America stamped out. Muslims seem to want all other religions stamped out (but maybe especially Judaism). We're probably all glad that human-sacrificing religions are gone.

What the hell do we want?

We should be talking about all of these issues and not letting them be settled by default by our elites.

Maybe I'll hazard some answers later, but I'll give you the floor now, if you're brave enough.


Toward a social contract for social media

Last week, I led a "strike," or boycott, associated with the hashtag #SocialMediaStrike, directed at the giant, centralized social media services. Though throttled by Twitter and no doubt by others, the brief campaign led to massive use of the hashtag, many people carrying out the strike, as well as dozens of news stories from around the world.

Here I will tell the story of what happened, make some observations about what we might do next, and then make a rather specific proposal, what we might call a "social contract" for social media companies.

What happened

Let me tell the story briefly, from the beginning.

I joined Facebook around 2006 and Twitter in 2008; I never felt quite right about them, and my objections piled up over the years. After I decided to lock down my cyber-life, I abandoned as much of social media as possible. Facebook was a challenge, but I permanently deleted my account, and haven't looked back. It wasn't hard to leave Quora, Medium, and Instagram. But I was still on Twitter for career reasons, and it bothered me that I had abandoned my Facebook friends. I thought, "There's got to be a way to get my friends to join me on some alternative social media network." But how? Then it occurred to me that if somebody made a browser plugin for my friends, that would insert my posts on Minds (for example) into their feeds on Facebook, and which would enable them to reply to me, that would go some way to making different social media networks interoperable. This idea got a lot of play on Twitter.

The more I thought about it, the more I decided that the lessons I had learned as part of a blockchain company since September 2017 (Everipedia) were applicable to social media as a whole: the whole social media system needs to be decentralized. What does that mean, exactly, though? There are several ways to think about it:

  • We should own (ultimately control the distribution of) our own data. Nobody should be able to shut us down, just as nobody can shut down our blogs.
  • We should have total control over our own feeds, i.e., our user experience as we use social media apps. This includes the sorting algorithms
  • Social media apps should not be "silos." They should share data; they should be interoperable; if you post on one, your data should be available on all the others (that do not specifically block you or your post).
  • More than just sharing data, the data they use should be entirely independent of the apps that contain them. That means social media apps become, essentially, social media readers analogous to blog/news readers.
  • To continue the analogy, just as blogs and blog readers exchange data via the common (practically universal) RSS standard, so social media readers should exchange data via a common social media standard.

My employer (Everipedia) kindly supported me as I spent some time developing this idea in speeches and a Wired article. In writing the latter article I hit upon the idea of using social media to organize—ironically, sure, why not?—a social media strike, and to write the Declaration. Whoever I talked to about it loved it. It resonated for people with both left politics and right. That's interesting and perhaps unexpected, because it is an idea that ultimate concerns Internet politics itself. It turns out that when it comes to Internet politics, almost everyone is still essentially "liberal": we all want to be free to publish and to be in control of our own experience. (Matters, of course, are different when we consider whether we want other people to be free to publish and to be in control of their experience. But when it comes to our own, we want to be in control.)

That was last March. I had several months to organize something bigger and more formally, by reaching out to a lot of influencers and get them on board as early signatories of a Declaration of Digital Independence, but whenever I started to make cursory movements in that direction, I frankly lost heart. The reason, as I eventually realized, was that the only way I was going to do this is by reaching out to regular people through normal channels, out in the open—you know, real grassroots organizing. Everything else felt (and might actually have been) philosophically inconsistent. So a little over a week before July 4, I got to work.

I cleaned up the various documents and started pushing them out on various channels, but especially on Twitter.

At first it looked like it was all going to be a dud. Then, slowly but surely, different "blue check marks" and then news outlets started showing interest. When the BBC and Fox News' Tucker Carlson took an early interest last Monday (July 1), that really opened the floodgates. Here's a list of coverage a colleague collected:

  1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nK6BHGu9SD4 (Tucker Carlson interview)
  2. https://twitter.com/questCNN/status/1147240877892481031 (CNN interview)
  3. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/05/wikipedia-co-founder-larry-sanger-slams-facebook-twitter-social-media.html (widely distributed and discussed)
  4. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/wikipedia-founder-calls-for-social-media-strike-to-protest-power-of-giants-like-facebook-184501284.html
  5. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-48825410 (ditto; first major coverage)
  6. https://www.newsweek.com/reddit-technology-social-media-strike-larry-sanger-facebook-twitter-1447549 (ditto)
  7. https://nypost.com/2019/07/02/wikipedia-co-founder-calls-for-social-media-strike-over-privacy-issues (ditto)
  8. https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-06-29/wikipedia-co-founder-unveils-declaration-digital-independence (first coverage by anyone, I believe)
  9. https://thenextweb.com/tech/2019/07/04/reddits-r-technology-goes-dark-as-part-of-socialmediastrike (/r/technology's blackout in support was widely reported)
  10. https://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/web/larry-sanger-wikipedia-mitgruender-ruft-zu-social-media-streik-auf-a-1275236.html
  11. https://www.elpais.com.uy/vida-actual/motivos-cofundador-wikipedia-llama-huelga-redes-sociales.html
  12. https://www.repubblica.it/tecnologia/social-network/2019/07/01/news/wikipedia_lancia_sciopero_social_stop_il_4-5_luglio_per_un_sistema_piu_libero_-230074747
  13. https://thehill.com/homenews/451471-wikipedia-co-founder-wants-two-day-social-media-strike-to-highlight-privacy-issues
  14. https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/07/01/wikipedia_founder_calls_for_social_media_strike
  15. https://observer.com/2019/07/wikipedia-founder-larry-sanger-july-4-social-media-strike
  16. https://www.salon.com/2019/07/03/wikepedia-co-founder-plans-social-media-strike-will-it-work
  17. https://www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/guid/D29FC838-9D0E-11E9-956A-E9AF1A718551
  18. https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2019/july/wikipedia-co-founder-calls-for-social-media-strike-july-4-5
  19. https://siecledigital.fr/2019/07/01/le-cofondateur-de-wikipedia-invite-a-la-greve-des-reseaux-sociaux
  20. https://www.rp.pl/Spoleczenstwo/190709913-Tworca-Wikipedii-wzywa-do-strajku-w-mediach-spolecznosciowych.html
  21. https://fossbytes.com/wikipedia-co-founder-social-media-strike
  22. https://twitter.com/BBCTech/status/1145654230558134274
  23. https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/1205730/greve-facebook-twitter-larry-sanger
  24. https://twitter.com/JeanneCBC/status/1145723863210352641
  25. https://twitter.com/GarethM/status/1145712804118351874
  26. https://pawoo.net/@masterq/102365444906120134
  27. https://gizmodo.com/wikipedia-co-founder-picks-a-nice-day-to-log-off-1836017140
  28. https://www.presse-citron.net/quand-le-cofondateur-de-wikipedia-appelle-a-la-greve-des-reseaux-sociaux
  29. https://libertysentinel.org/wikipedia-co-founder-boycott-social-media
  30. https://themerkle.com/can-a-social-media-strike-be-pulled-off-in-2019
  31. https://samnytt.se/social-media-strejk-utropat-den-den-4-och-5-juli
  32. https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/c7g36c/social_media_strike_proposed_for_july_45_by
  33. http://mugayir.com/wikipedia-ceosundan-sosyal-medya-boykotu-icin-cagri
  34. https://actualidad.rt.com/actualidad/320005-cofundador-wikipedia-convocar-huelga-redes-sociales
  35. https://elpais.com/tecnologia/2019/07/03/actualidad/1562153010_528990.html
  36. https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/07/01/demanding-users-fight-data-and-privacy-protections-wikipedia-co-founder-calls
  37. https://www.observalgerie.com/style-de-vie-et-loisirs/hitech/cofondateur-wikipedia-appelle-greve-reseaux-sociaux-4-5-juillet
  38. https://www.reddit.com/r/tech/comments/c7ipl7/social_media_strike_proposed_for_july_45_by
  39. https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1146384654578196481
  40. https://wnd.com/2019/07/wikipedia-co-founder-urges-social-media-strike
  41. https://www.numerama.com/politique/530423-le-cofondateur-de-wikipedia-vous-invite-a-faire-greve-avec-lui-contre-facebook-twitter-et-youtube.html
  42. https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/c8s87d/im_larry_sanger_wikipedia_cofounder_everipedia/
  43. https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/wikipedia-social-media-data-privacy/2019/07/03/id/923114/
  44. https://www.verdict.co.uk/decentralised-social-media
  45. https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/status/1147122675917185024
  46. https://summit.news/2019/07/05/wikipedia-co-founder-slams-zuckerberg-big-tech-for-appalling-internet
  47. https://twitter.com/bitchute/status/1147336649883283456
  48. https://reclaimthenet.org/larry-sanger-twitter-facebook
  49. https://reclaimthenet.org/larry-sanger-declaration-of-digital-independence
  50. https://twitter.com/svbizjournal/status/1147558662950592519
  51. https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2019/07/05/larry-sanger-wikipedia-social-media-strike-fb-twtr.html
  52. https://www.standard.co.uk/tech/social-media-strike-larry-snager-internet-dark-a4183046.html
  53. https://www.cnet.com/news/reddits-rtechnology-goes-offline-for-july-4-social-media-strike
  54. https://www.curvearro.com/blog/why-social-media-is-ready-to-go-on-strike
  55. https://tribetica.com/can-a-social-media-strike-be-pulled-off-in-2019
  56. https://uk.news.yahoo.com/social-media-strike-why-favourite-083241784.html
  57. https://world.einnews.com/article/489949068/7umkU6G_w9ukLXsk
  58. https://inside.com/campaigns/inside-social-2019-07-05-1568KII3/sections/wikipedia-co-founder-calls-for-social-media-strike-121855

There was probably more. Despite this amount of coverage, I don't think the story ever trended on Twitter or Google News.

That the effort was throttled by Twitter is obvious. Tweets were placed behind "sensitive content" warnings—never with any explanation, but often with high irony—even when I merely shared one of Twitter's own memes with the #SocialMediaStrike hashtag. There also seemed to be games going on with the hashtag itself.

What inroads did the effort make? There were a few notable "blue checkmark" supporters, but on the whole the result was a creature of grassroots efforts and direct reporting on those efforts. No major politician supported it; no A-list conservative or libertarian YouTube star or pundits supported it; no high-ranking lefty, rightly complaining about "surveillance capitalism," joined; none of the leading Silicon Valley darlings, often critical of social media, joined; etc. In short, the Establishment pretty much uniformly took a pass—except, oddly, for the massive amount of news reporting as I said, and despite that reporting.

The lack of Establishment up-take I chalk up to the fact that it was started as a grass-roots effort and thus was beneath their notice; presumably, their support would need to be courted in advance. But as I said, I specifically decided not to court their support in advance. I'm not particularly sorry I didn't, even though clearly it would have been a bigger deal if I had. It would have been bigger, yes, but the rank and file would be wondering much less about the genuineness of the movement. Besides, I'd have to worry about movement politics and personalities. What we've demonstrated is that this movement has legs without any A-list endorsements. And I don't count myself in that group. I'm a B-lister at best. Heck, I've only got 6,000 followers and Twitter gave me my own blue checkmark only a couple months ago. My interest will continue to be that of a disgruntled social media user who also happens to be a casual Internet theorist.

Next steps: some notes

After announcing that they were back from the strike, many people asked what the next steps were. Some suggested we do another, longer strike; I'm not opposed to that. Many suggested that we start new social media networks; I think some of these people really didn't realize that there were plenty under development. Representatives of several alternative social media networks reached out to me, including CEOs of two or three well-known ones. It's all been quite confusing and so you'll have to give me time to get it sorted out, especially since I'd like to be doing other work too, of course. Helping to organize this effort is at best a temporary sideline for me.

First, then, let me make a few observations about future strikes:

  • We still haven't shown the whole world that there is a massive latent demand for decentralized social media and data self-ownership.
  • Simply doing another strike (perhaps a longer one) might be more effective than last week's strike.
  • But a similar strike anytime soon would almost certainly be ignored by the press and many potential participants. It would be better to plan any follow-up strike for some time months from now—even next year on the same days.
  • There doesn't have to be a centrally organized strike. You can declare yourself to be on strike on any social network you like, and maybe repeat the message daily or weekly, and then don't interact except to promote your strike.
  • Here's the thing. If there's going to be another big organized strike, I'm not going to be the one to organize it. I'm a reluctant organizer of this sort of thing, to be honest. As I said, I'm not a specialist or working full-time on this stuff. So someone else, or some other organization, would have to organize it. I might well participate, though, if someone else organizes it.
  • Another proposal I saw is to have regular planned strikes, like once a month. This strikes me as unlikely to make big inroads, but of course it all depends on execution.
  • There's a whole aspect of any such effort toward data ownership, privacy, and decentralization that might need special attention, I think: teaching the ignorant. A common reaction to the strike was, "Wait, why should we care about privacy again?" I explained that before, even why we should be hardcore about privacy, but much more needs to be done on this. Similarly with free speech. So many people, especially younger people, have never learned why free speech is so important.

But there are maybe more important issues aside from any strike:

  • I'm not aware of anything like an industry-wide agreement or commitment to interoperability and to settling on common standards. I'm interested in helping to broker that or to kick it off, although I probably wouldn't want to participate, as that is not my area.
  • I'm not interested in endorsing or joining any social media companies as an adviser. Though I am often asked, I am an adviser to almost no one. Thanks for asking.
  • In my Wired paper, I describe "mass try-outs," i.e., as many people as possible descends en masse on one particular social media alternative, then another one a week later (or whatever), for as long as necessary.
  • Here is a message for alternative social media CEOs: there is strength in numbers. If you fight each other for the giants' table scraps and leftovers, you'll get nowhere. If you join forces to make each other interoperable and to organize mass try-outs, you'll not only get a massive amount of publicity, you'll get a massive amount of new users. A rising tide lifts all boats. Please act on this observation.
  • I'm happy to try to bring you together for these purposes, if you're not already making satisfactory headway, but I don't want to be part of the organization. That's your business, not mine. I have no interest in being an interloper. This is not just because I don't like to be rude, it's because I don't know you or trust your organizations (yet), and I would like to stay independent of the fray.
  • I do have one piece of advice for such an organization: you can't include all alternative social media organizations in the biggest, most serious mass try-outs (I think), like every little Mastodon instance. Some will not make the cut, because they're not big enough.
  • That said, if you (social media companies wanting to organize mass try-outs) want massive grassroots support, the best way to organize which sites to follow is to use some objective and publicly-verifiable metrics of engagement, such as Alexa or Quantcast, number of social media mentions, or something else like that. Another option is to agree on a list of judges, and they democratically determine a list of n networks to do a "mass try-out" on.
  • Of course, the also-rans should also have their (perhaps briefer) day in the sun. But the main event will feature some of the unquestionably leading alternative social media networks and will have more days and more publicity, naturally.
  • That is, as long as they really are provably committed to decentralization, self-ownership of user data, and interoperability. But we would have to determine their bona fides.

So what should we do next?

Proposal: A social contract for social media

Here is a proposal that I would like your feedback on.

I'm thinking of trying to get the CEOs of alternative social media companies—and then, perhaps, the big ones—to agree to a set of principles.

Once agreed and signed, I would be happy to help broker an announcement that a deal, along these lines, had been reached.

And then we could do some "mass try-outs" of at least some signatories, in conjunction with a new social media strike. But I think the first step is to get the alternative networks on board.

What principles? I don't think the Principles of Decentralized Social Networks is specific enough. What we really need to do is to operationalize those very general principles. So, something like this:

  1. We, representatives of social media networks agree to work with each other to adopt, adapt, or create a single, commonly-used, commonly-developed, and mutually satisfactory set of standards and protocols for making our networks interoperable, regardless of what other and underlying technologies we may use.
  2. "Interoperable" networks are those in which, at a minimum, posts that appear on one network can appear on other networks of a similar kind. Thus if one network supports microposts only, then microposts that originate on other networks can appear there. Similarly with longer posts, images, videos, and so forth.
  3. We will make diligent efforts support what might be called personal social media accounts as soon as available, so that there is support for peer-to-peer social media that does not require any networks or instances at all. In other words, these would be user-owned social media accounts, made according to standards that enable a person to post a social media feed entirely independently of any social media network. We will work diligently toward offering full technical support for users to post directly from feeds they directly and individually control onto our networks.
  4. As we become more fully decentralized, we will make user data fully portable. In other words, when a fully decentralized and interoperable network comes online, we will enable users to export their data in a format that allows them to host the "ur-version" of their data elsewhere.
  5. There is no requirement that our networks must carry all types of social media content; we may restrict what we carry by medium. Some networks may focus on microposts, others on blogs, and still others on photos or video. The standards and protocols should cover all uses of all these media, sufficient to specify how they are used by the big social media networks. As distinct new kinds of social media are invented, these too should be specified as well.
  6. It is also to be expected that we will support all features supported by the standards and protocols. For example, while some networks might support a wide variety of "reaction" features, others might have just "like" or "dislike," and some might have none at all.
  7. We, the social media networks that are party to this public pledge, each retain the right to moderate all content that appears on our networks. Neither any central body nor any specially commissioned organization has the right to determine what may and may not appear on our networks. We may be as open, or as restricted, as we wish.
  8. We acknowledge that there are other serious problems associated with decentralized networks—such as, perhaps especially, spam and problems associated with real-world identities. We will work diligently to solve these problems in a way that does not create a potentially corruptible system, or an ideologically-driven system of viewpoint-based censorship.
  9. Whether or not our own projects will support a private messaging service, the standards and protocols we support will include end-to-end, strong encryption for individual private messaging as well as private group chats.
  10. The only requirements for a network to be join this decentralized system are neutral technical protocols; the only requirement for a person to create an account will be purely technical ones. There will be no application or vetting process, any more than there is for the registration of a new domain name, blog, or email provider or address.
  11. The standards and protocols we adopt will be open source, not proprietary.
  12. We will create or place our trust into, and continue to support, an open and democratic organization that manages these standards and protocols. We may and should be expected to object if we notice that biased or corrupt procedures, particularly those operating behind the scenes, are shaping the development of these standards and protocols.
  13. We will particularly resist incursions by governments and giant corporations that attempt to hijack the standards and protocols for purposes of censorship, surveillance, or profit-making opportunities not open equally to all.
  14. We are committed to ease of use—so that people can enjoy the full benefits of owning their own data and participating in a decentralized social media system without installing their own server or doing anything else that requires technical skill beyond that of the plain non-technical person.

Please read that over and let me know what you think.

I propose that social media CEOs negotiate with each other on some such set of principles, then all agree upon them. The benefits of doing so would be tremendous:

First, this should light a fire underneath all and create a mutual, shared understanding about the ultimate goals of the new social media architecture. It would constitute a "Manhattan Project" for redesigning the Internet (or, as one organization has it, "redecentralizing" the Internet).

Second, it should also give users enthusiasm about alternative social media, by giving them some assurance that networks they reward with their participation today will remain true to certain basic principles. This is, as Internet entrepreneurs can surely agree, very important.

Third and finally, this will also give journalists, commentators, and technical professionals commonly-agreed grounds for criticizing the big social media networks. Perhaps they will want to claim to be moving toward decentralization; but if they cannot satisfy the requirements of this agreement, we can deny that they actually are decentralized. If the public shows tremendous support for decentralization in the sense that is agreed to, this will make it ever harder for social media giants to resist moving toward a decentralized future.

I know I haven't come to grips with all the issues involved here, and I know there are real experts who have. So help me to edit (or completely rewrite) the above so that it is something that we should expect social media networks to accept—assuming they really do take decentralization seriously.

The above is a very rough first draft at best. How should these principles read? Please discuss below.


Thanks for striking

Let me express my extreme gratitude to everyone who signed the Declaration of Digital Independence and went on social media strike July 4 and/or 5. I'd also like to thank the many reporters who picked up this story.

I'm cognizant that this attention represented some trust of me, i.e., that I wouldn't hijack this movement for selfish and profit-making ends. I've been a heavy social media user since the late 2000s and I'm basically just a disgruntled customer. Since from my small platform I can help organize people online, I thought it was my duty to try to do so. Let me reiterate that I don't want to start or join an organization or represent any social media company, etc. My interests lie 100% with the users. It is now easy to see the massive latent user demand for decentralized social media, and I want to keep pushing into motion its mass adoption.

Tomorrow or the next day I'll have a couple new posts for you with a more detailed debriefing and suggestions for next steps. If you want to give me (and everyone reading) some advice, please feel free to use the discussion below for that purpose!


#SocialMediaStrike resources

Here I will try to maintain a complete page of links to the main #SocialMediaStrike resources. Includes media to share, below.


Social Media Strike! (larrysanger.org)
Basic info on the social media strike:

On July 4 and 5 (at least one day), people with serious grievances against social media—including you?—will go on strike. You could, but obviously don’t have to, announce that you are one of the signatories of the Declaration of Digital Independence. [more]


Declaration of Digital Independence (larrysanger.org)
Articulates our basic digital rights; explains how the social media giants have systematically violated them; proposes some Principles of Decentralized Social Networks, according to which social networks should be decentralized, with the data being owned by individual users rather than corporations:

Humanity has been contemptuously used by vast digital empires. Thus it is now necessary to replace these empires with decentralized networks of independent individuals, as in the first decades of the Internet. As our participation has been voluntary, no one doubts our right to take this step. But if we are to persuade as many people as possible to join together and make reformed networks possible, we should declare our reasons for wanting to replace the old. [more]


FAQ about the project to decentralize social media (larrysanger.org)
General background info in FAQ format; explains my motives among much else.

What is the Declaration of Digital Independence?

Here it is. It is not meant to be a general bill of digital rights. Rather, it has the very delimited purposes of (1) declaring that we have the digital rights to free speech, privacy, and security, (2) enumerating the ways in which Big Social Media has violated those rights, and (3) articulating some Principles of Decentralized Social Media Networks, which together define the requirements of a better system of social media.


Principles of Decentralized Social Networks (vuild.com)
A clever disappearing copy of just the above-mentioned Principles.

We free individuals should be able to publish our data freely, without having to answer to any corporation. [more]


Proposing a 'Declaration of Digital Independence' (wired.com, March 12, 2019)
Longer background document explaining the essential problem with social media—centralization—and how to achieve decentralization. This is where I first articulated the plan I'm pursuing now (the combination of the Declaration, a strike, and some later-planned mass try-outs of alternative social media networks that are more committed to decentralization).

THIS MESSAGE IS mainly for the leaders and enthusiasts of the broad-based movement toward decentralizing content, but especially social media. I’m not trying to start a new project or organization—after all, decentralization is what I am encouraging. I’m partly trying to start a conversation among individuals, to get them thinking and talking—but on a massive scale. But I’m also trying to inspire people to action, to come together and go the last mile to achieving robust and extremely widespread decentralization. [more]


How to decentralize social media, according to Wikipedia's co-founder (thenextweb.com, Feb. 20, 2019)
The first article I wrote on this idea is relatively short and to the point:

The problem about social media is that it is centralized. Centralization empowers massive corporations and governments to steal our privacy and restrict our speech and autonomy. [more]

Some of the first copies of the Declaration

Vuild.com (just the Principles) - ZeroHedge (complete) - ReclaimTheNet (summarized)

The Declaration is shareable under the CC-by-sa license. I'll make an effort to add your copy/version here if you'll let me know about it.

Media to share

I didn't make these...thanks to the awesome people who did.

Here's a fantastic short video to use on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/SEDart4/status/1146517273617850372

and elsewhere (Google Drive link).

See also this image that you can use for your profile pictures.

Essentials: Declaration of Digital Independence -- Social Media Strike! -- FAQ about the project to decentralize social media -- Resources