Are indivduals in any part of the world, Free

     The world celebrated an anniversary of the end of fight for freedom, which happened in one of the largest country, not valuing, you guessed it, Freedom. Has it got to be celebrated, Yes. Period. Is it alright to just celebrate it and then go ahead with our daily routine, no? So, what are we supposed to? Well, dont ask me. I am out of answer as much as you are. 

     The human race has reached a situation where some portion of the people fight for the majority portion of the freedom of people. This fight for freedom is not what was warranted when, humans developed their brains and formed societies. The problem started brewing once societies started being formed. Along the formation, of societies morals were being framed. Rights and wrongs were being hardwired. Some societies thought they were better than the others...Ah, what was I talking about... What am I talking about now? Are they related?

    The thing is should we remember only major ones. Should we not find out and celebrate smaller struggles by individuals across the globe. The news agencies and the entire societies have started to incorporate a very bad idea that one person talking anything about issues believed right by a majority is wrong. This is the most deemed to be free countries, which again is confused with democracies. Democracy is not freedom. Freedom is not the same as democracy. 

    Freedom is not given by anybody to anybody. It is just there. If it has to be given and it has to be taken, then both sides are flawed. So, if a democratic setup tells that you a free to do that and this and then that and then IFTTT.... it is not freedom. It is bondage. Wherein your are given a certain degrees of freedom. 

    There are democracies with varying number of degrees of freedom. So, the country with the highest degrees of freedom is the ultimate? No. Freedom is and should be a given. Isn't it wrong then, that a free(er) parts of the world are not doing anything to improve the degrees of freedom of countries with a lesser number of freedoms. Yes, it is. But, are you allowed to express the same and are you capable of doing something on this issue. Are you given this freedom. Can a theoretically free individual free the group of people who are not having the same? It is impossible.

    Let us take the next scenario. Let us assume that the entire world of people are really free. Now let us assume a certain group of people want to create a society with lesser degree of freedom. Now, the world can act against it and make sure that they are again free. Good. Now, do these people really want to be free. Many people dont know the meaning of freedom. 

    The rich countries have sowed seeds in the minds of the people that Democracy is freedom. So, instead of fighting for freedom, people are fighting for democracy. So, what is freedom? How do people feel freedom? Is the lack of knowledge of freedom, freedom? Isn't the same be applicable to people who are slaves upto their last cell? Is anarchy the best form of freedom. Does anarchy give the individual that theoretical freedom? But, then again, you are branding individuals to a set of rules and conditions which fist spells out anarchy and then the individual has to figure out freedom.

Are you, the individual, Free?

The same post on the federated web  https://qua.name/wrrfhlepep

There is only that much that can be done........

"There is only that much that can be done by them". How many times have we not heard this statement regarding the helplessness of giant establishments when it comes to grass-root controls. The reason for this is obvious in their sheer size. As the size of corporations increase and as the organization spreads across the globe increasing the customers and the people employed with varied customs, languages, preferences and what not are employed, it is very very difficult to know exactly what one person is doing in the establishment. Now, that is business and we will have this talk some other time. It is like having a dinosaur's body with its pea sized brain.

What I would like to talk about in context is that of facebook, twitter, youtube and the like. With customers varied as is the world, it is a herculean task with a centralized team controlling data into and out of centralized servers. Yes, there are servers in many countries and you would like to call it de-centralized. We will come back to this. If this is the model they still would like to continue then I would suggest these companies to take a leaf out of traditional manufacturing companies. The D&D is made in the parent country. The manufacturing of various parts are made worldwide and assembly takes place in a country which did not participate in any of the other operations. What is happening here is a new variation of scientific management. Wherein specialization is localized and the best locality for a specific job is targeted and optimized. The first step of optimization is the job of zeroing on the place itself. Now, once the manufacturing is done, these traditional companies have a presence in all the states of a specific country at major cities and if possible towns also. This gives the big organization a taste of the local thinking. Now, it is all about targeting in the most optimal way with the differing tastes and cultures in mind.

It is high time these big social media companies learn to localize. Localize normally associated with computers is only language. But, localization is much more than a language. The same language is spoken and written in various ways in a matter of a few 100 kilometers. Now, this knowledge comes if there are teams managing specific local geographical locations. With the amount of ad revenue these companies are reaping, it is a responsibility of giving a bit to the community which makes these websites possible. One of the first steps would be to recruit local talent with a varied specializations so that a majority of the local population is represented. The algorithms can be tweaked to reflect more towards the local taste and reduce the global shit which people dont care. This easily separates the global team with the local team and the local team can curate the ones affecting the local areas more and then move out less affecting issues.

Yes, it is not easy, but that is the way these companies can survive in the future. We now have real federation with the activity pub protocol. Mastodon, pleroma, pixelfed and many more are already on the train. They are working perfectly. You now have people running instances which collect like minded people and share ideas. These instances are at the same time free to expand their vistas by connecting to other like minded ones or related ones. There is a bit of anarchy here and I like it. As one of my friends point out, anarchy as a religion is not acceptable. Anarchy in its pristine form is always preferred. With these small groups, it is very easy for administrators to maintain their instances. The rules are laid out in the beginning itself. In fact you know the rules when you join and instance. You know what you are not supposed to do on that instance. If you want to talk about something else then you should search for such an instance and put your views there.

The proprietary ones cannot be as free spirited as these, but, they should try. Because right now, they are struggling. Administration depends more on algorithms. It is an utter failure. There will always be means wherein content can be put back in other ways. And, these algorithms look for content which is gaining more eyeballs. The easy, digestible, shocking, breaking issues get the eyeballs and the algorithm definitely will support it and brings it into the forefront for other users thereby converting them also. If this is what they want, then it is the job of the government to not allow this. If the government wants exactly this, then stopping this rests on the general public and they should act.

Money, money, money

        What is it about money? How much of it is necessary. How much is enough. How much is bad. How much is good. Does it depend on the individual and his place in the society. Does it depend on the money an individual is already having. Is money the means of consumerism. Is money the mother of all evils. Is the burning man which rejects money and brings back the barter system the answer to all the evils of money. Does barter bring about equality among people. Does barter reduce the rich and the super rich. Will people start honoring relations and human emotions if money is taken out of the equation. Will the removal of money bring in Anarchism which is supposed to mimic the "ultimate order" in chaos. Is money the first aspect of blinding of logic of humans resulting from emotions.

        Actually what does money bring to the table of human society. At the last mile of human society, majority of human emotions are expressed w.r.t money. It can be giving voluntarily, taking by force, taking without the knowledge of the present owner. Happiness, boredom, anger, love, time for love, condition for love, maintaining relations all change at the drop of a hat with change in the money holding power of the individual. Are human relations still strong enough to transcend the issues arising out of the effects of money on the same relations. Is money akin to God. If somebody has all the money in the world, would he have seen god. Since God is supposed to be everything. Is money greater than all the dark energy in the universe since money is what is required to research and find out about dark energy. 

         You are telling me that a genius might be born who would start spurting out all the details regarding the dark energy in the universe. But you forgot that he has to be born and he has to be bought up to this level. At least up to the time he can talk. There can be another option wherein god himself surfaces and shows us the dark matter of the universe Is money and Economics the greatest science of all time. Since this is what allows us to carry out science. If the journey is more valuable than the destination then money and its study is the most valuable study of all time. Should we commit more resources to concentrate more on this path than the destination. But there is a catch. If science is the destination of all the money based activities the path we have been discussing about is limited by the state of science. If this path has to extend then we have to extend the state of science. 

         Majority of investment from the biggest investors is towards this only. The extension of this path again re-iterates the importance of money. It is a chicken egg situation and cannot be solved that easily. Normally both have gone hand in hand and continue to do so. The rate at which the path is lengthening is greater in the modern times and so are the complications of money based issues. The human race is submerged in this path and its destination. Well I have asked enough questions. Are they related. In fact what is this post about. Is it about the human race, the human relationships, Is it about science or economics. Is it about behavioral theory which has found its way into economics as well as science. 

         How will humans battle the science and economics and maintain sanity in relationships and feelings. So humans changing their relations and their feelings according to the economic models and advancement of science a given. Does it remain same even in and anarchic setup. Why is there no study regarding anarchy. There have been many writings regarding this topic but never practiced in reality. The burning man which tries to do it is a capital intensive arrangement carried out by capitalists. Will humans start valuing relations/feelings more in an anarchic setup. If every man has a purpose will the it change in a capital setup or remains the same in anarchic setup. Money, the end of older relationships, beginning of newer ones, starting bitter ones, starting sweeter ones all in the name of increasing the amount of money. This is the present model of the human setup. Can this model be changed. Are there better models negating the use of money. Are there better models wherein an individual does not think that increasing what he has is the only way to be happy.