- Wake up call (2): either the way of to do opposition is changed, or one is destined to succumb
- Considerations on the need to innovate the strategies of the Dissidents
- ∙I.c.1 – Towards a Democracy Reboot (synopsis)
- The need to start from a dimension of an effective democratic “power by the people”
- “Extinction of democracy”: the extinction of modern Democracy and the rebirth of real Democracy
- Why is Democracy vanishing?
- How to set up Democracy reboot
- ∙re-thinking – The elections are now irrelevant: it is necessary to act on the foundations of the institutions
- Reform of specific sectors of Democracy
As Einstein warned, if after years of trying, substantial results are not obtained, it is necessary to take a step back before continuing to proceed: reselling the foundations of one’s strategies.
The problem is that today – on honest analysis –
it appears objectively evident that
the opposition Movements and dissident Media
in their activity of the last decades
HAVE NOT ONLY ACHIEVED PRACTICALLY NOTHING,
BUT HAVE EVEN
ALLOWED THE INSTITUTIONAL POWER TO STRENGTHEN.
(it was not possible to obtain changes such as: greater Democracy of the government, public understanding of the responsibilities of the Government, etc.),
The basic problem is that those who make “opposition”, or “dissident” information, have lost sight of the essence of the system they want to heal: Democracy.
And of course, no matter how busy you get,
it is impossible to improve a system
if you do not have a thorough understanding
of what it is.
The fact is that a conditio sine qua non of Democracy is the effective participation of Citizens in Government activities. Where this condition is not respected, vicious processes are generated which lead to a degeneration of the system.
That is the only way
TO RESTORE DEMOCRACY
(to have a government that is able
to restore a good quality of life for citizens)
IT IS NECESSARY
TO USE PRINCIPLES AND METHODS OF DEMOCRACY.
Today, essentially, in the activity of opposition and dissemination of dissident information, an attempt is made to solve a problem in the same way that produced the problem.
<see my text “The meta-principles to be restored in the first place“>
That is, it is necessary to realize that
today the Oppositions and dissident Media
have the big (fatal) limit
of operating on the same level
as governments and mainstream media:
THE NARRATION OF INFORMATION
Which leads them to lose the advantage of being the ones offering truthful information. And it sees them defeated in the face of an “ideological propaganda wall” developed by the incumbents.
Basically today the Incumbents have reached a level of sophistication of their “Orwellian” methods which – as seen in the case of lockdowns – are able to develop a circumvention action on the mass level.
The inability of dissident Media to make the general public understand truthful information
Today the opposition movements and the dissident media must have the clarity to take stock of the situation, and understand how
despite their deep commitment
in recent years
they have not produced important results
(indeed, they have somehow allowed the incumbents to accumulate further power).
The opposition movements have achieved nothing but a greatly worsened political situation, in which global finance has directly taken over the levers of the government (where previously it was content to govern behind the scenes).
And the dissident Media have not been able to make their truths – objectively truthful – understood if not to those who already somehow understood how things were (if the dissident Media had had in minimum success today people with masks around the world would be much less).
Opposition Movements and Dissident Media
MUST NECESSARILY TAKE A STEP BACK
(reflection and redefinition of strategies and tools)
BEFORE CONTINUING IN THEIR ACTION
To understand what the solution could be, it is first of all necessary to understand how the current situation has come about.
That is, it is first of all necessary to understand the essence of the (wrong) strategies that are the basis of dissident information: and the essence of the winning quality of Mainstream.
Today, winning information (that of Mainstream) is developed at a level of “non-rationality”:
the great majority of people in fact live in a “mental bubble” in which they are unable to reason, so they stick to dogmatic truths
given by people who are considered to be more reliable (on the basis of subliminal factors which, in fact, have little to do with rationality, with scientific truths).
Basically it is an “emotional bubble” in a deep underground state of panic (which people are not aware of, but it affects every aspect of their life). A condition in they are only waiting to be “saved in hope” “The armor of the minds (bigotry)“>
See a more detailed discussion on how the manipulation – implemented by the Establishment – that exploits this psychic condition of the public works in the text <“Handling the masses: the strategies of manipulation of consciences”>. And on how it is possible to go beyond these mental barriers ““How to define a new approach to dissident information”.
To define a new way of providing information that can effectively counter Mainstream Media, it is therefore necessary to take into account that in the current situation
it is not possible to try to “explain” things to the public
– even if they are clearly documented and irrefutable truths.
Such an approach not only does not bring about any change, but produces a worsening of things (for example, the incumbent power uses such dissident information to legitimize further measures of censorship and repression).
If you want to be effective in providing information today it is therefore necessary to go beyond the current dimension of “telling information”, since in this way, although truthful information is proposed, at the level of “telling” people prefer to believe the false information of the Mainstream.
More specifically, as we will see, today we are based solely on a verbal explanation (which can only be defined as a narrative) in which words lack a support that makes them “tangible” (lacks truths viewable in the mind of the listener – in a subsequent chapter the question of the need to make information more “tangible” is illustrated).
That is, using the current form of disclosure, the dissident Media:
1) they will never be able to convince the majority of the public: their information will never have the status of sufficient trust to be taken seriously (people always remain in the condition of “our truth versus theirs”).
2) hearing truth out of the chorus becomes “disturbing” for the majority of the public: this information is therefore scrupulously avoided by the large public (the mental condition in which most people are today creates in them not only reactions of terror, but heats of violent rage).
At best, such information remains in people’s minds as a background noise that disturbs their vision of the scenario of hope inculcated in them by the mainstream media. For this reason, such people become dangerously reactive in contact with the bearers of such information.
The underlying problem is that
the Information conveyed today by the dissident Media
does not turn into knowledge
And therefore that the Leaders can continue to impose programs that lead to a worsening of the situation. With the result that
sooner or later the dissident Media
will be definitively neutralized.
The problem (and the solution) from an operational point of view
<see series of my articles Redefine information modalities”>
One of the basic problems is, in fact, that the current way of doing dissident information is a failure: in the current approach, in fact, the current psychic condition of the public is not taken into account, and therefore since dissident information continues to remain on the traditional level of ” tell the information “- level on which the fake news of the” authoritative “sources have absolute supremacy – it is not possible to go beyond the mental barrier created by the indoctrination of the cultural system.
In other words, dissident information can hardly survive: it is unable to obtain a following from an audience that is not in the current small niche – it has no real support from “public opinion” – and can therefore be easily hindered by government institutions (with fines, expulsion from professional orders, etc …); and by the private “Institutions” which today act in the role previously held. by government institutions (Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, PayPal, etc …).
From an operational point of view, it is necessary to move to a modality in which information becomes more “tangible” to the mind of the public.
The problem is that, from the “technical” point of view, today the dissident Media (and the opposition Movements) operate in a childish way, criticizing and protesting:
1) demanding that government institutions listen to them, where currently these institutions have created a condition of “absolute power” in which they have no intention of taking into consideration non-aligned voices (see the case of the dissident media which for months reported how institutional cures for Covid were responsible for tens of thousands of deaths).
2) demanding that citizens understand how their truths are incontrovertible: this is not possible because, in fact, most people live in a “mental bubble” in which they are unable to accept “narratives” that do not have the ‘imprimatur of the Institutions.
It is therefore necessary to stop practicing a traditional modality of journalism, developed on the ground “my word is better than theirs”, and
begin to offer more tangible information for the conscience of the public.
Some qualities of a new way of providing information
In order to be more effective it is therefore necessary to create a new form of communication and not limit oneself to spreading news day by day, which are erased from the minds of the spectators by the much more powerful information of the Mainstream media.
It is, as we see in greater detail in the next chapter, a new form of communication with the following qualities:
● meaningful information that goes beyond the current dimension of “telling information”: a dimension in which words are integrated with supports that make the information more “tangible” for the user (for example, they are more “visual”). <see>
● organized information (and interfaces on a human scale) in which the information conveyed day by day is integrated and structured in an organic whole (a “knowledge base”). <see>
● complements of information: information in itself is not sufficient to create knowledge: the knowledge process is always an experiential process, and it is therefore necessary, from an operational point of view, to develop initiatives in which citizens are brought to participate directly to the management of matters of public interest. <see>
in order to achieve real improvements in the Society
it is necessary
to develop new forms of opposition
to Governments (and the Mainstream).
In the following chapters the following points are analyzed:
1) improvement of the quality of communication itself and organization of information in an organic whole.
2) activation of initiatives complementary to information, which allow citizens to develop an experiential process of knowledge.
3) the need to develop new media platforms.
1. [information] IMPROVEMENT OF THE QUALITY OF THE COMMUNICATION IN ITSELF AND ORGANIZE INFORMATION (HUMAN-SIZED INTERFACES)
Let’s take a closer look at some of the aspects that have been mentioned in the previous pages: it is necessary to develop
– meaningful information, which goes beyond the current dimension of “telling information”: a dimension in which words are integrated with supports that make the information more “tangible” for the user (for example, they are more “visual”).
– organic information: giving information a radically different type of organization, thanks to which it is possible to integrate day by day information with a broad knowledge base.
► THE INFORMATION MUST BE MORE “VISUAL”
Being successful in informing people means being able to make them understand the essence of what you want to communicate.
We remember that it is not a question of informing those who “already know” (or at least intuit). But it is a question of making a majority of people who live in a dimension of mental bubble understand how things really are, where it is very difficult to overcome the mental barriers induced by the strategies of the Establishment.
This means that in the current situation the information “out of the chorus” must be particularly “significant” if its meaning is to be at least understood by the public.
The fact is that if you want to be effective it is necessary to understand that the information to be understood must be “visualized” clearly in the mind of the user (see a little further on).
If you want to be effective in making information today it is therefore necessary to go beyond the current dimension of “telling information”, since in this way it does not reach the mind of the public. Or when it is possible to do so – on this level of “one word against the other” – the Mainstream (Media and Institutions) has an easy game in denigrating when said, and in bringing people’s minds back to its side (on this ground do not win in fact the truthfulness of the information, but only the moral authority of the source win).
Going beyond the narrative,
beyond “telling the information”,
means moving to a terrain
in which words are integrated with supports
that make the information more “tangible” for the user.
In the new format, information can reach the conscience of the latter.
Today words work only because they are accompanied by a “tone” that makes them reliable, for the conscience of the listener. But this process takes place on an emotional and not a rational level.
And on that level the Establishment cannot lose (furthermore, trying to win the confrontation on that level would mean putting a patch on the problem – people’s “ignorance” – and not actually solving the problem).
To develop an effective form of communication today it is necessary to take into account the following factors:
1) truthful information is necessarily fact driven
And to expose the facts you need data: the question is that data must be interpreted in order to be understood.
The effectiveness of truthful information therefore largely depends on the ability to interpret the data contained in it: in dissident communication too often the mistake is made of thinking that the data are self-evident, and therefore the information is not understood.
A typical case is that of data on states that have not adopted “anti-covid measures”.
These data are almost always exposed in a way that does not make them understandable for the majority of people: them are mostly graphs taken from government institutions websites that can be understood in their real meaning only by people used to reading this type of information.
The problem is that even those who offer dissident information base their arguments on these graphs, which therefore make the communication not very credible.
As we will see below, a significant case is that of the graphs that clearly show how in Sweden, where anti-covid measures have not been adopted, the situation is better than that of the rest of Europe: in this case you get the idea to the public that those who offer the information have confused ideas, and that they want to make it appear that these graphs show a reality that does not exist.
Another support is the “objective” documentation (photos, videos, images of official documents, etc. ..).
But even in the case of the documents attached to the main communication, there is a lack of clarity: these documents are not, as they should be, significant: they do not clearly show the problem that is exposed, they are not structured and appropriately commented.
A significant case is that of the videos from Sweden by RadioRadio (on YouTube), with which they want to make it clear that in that country people circulate freely without masks. In reality, in such videos you can see almost only the authors who constantly frame their face, and the reality that surrounds them is seen casually behind them.
The perception of the public in this case is that the video is made by people full of themselves, whose main purpose is to show themselves off, and that the few images of the Swedish population that they concede can easily be regarded as untrue (the authors are perceived as not very credible people, and the viewers obviously ask themselves “why do they continue to praise the living conditions of Sweden, and in five minutes they don’t show us the situation they say they are surrounded by?”).
In order for objective truths to be understood, it is necessary to follow some basic rules:
● explanations must always be presented in a simple way, in an “elementary” form.
Things have to be explained as if the listeners were middle school kids. Instead, the popularizers, who previously spoke with industry experts, when exposing the information maintain many aspects of the level of communication between people knowledgeable on the subject. That is, such popularizers take it for granted that people understand their exposition of the details of the facts, when instead the ways in which they present the data make the communication difficult to understand for the majority of the public. Please note that
if some points of information are not understood,
the entire information is not understood in its meaning.
<see the topic “information must present data on a purely human scale (and with “elementary” arguments)” in the article “An elementary (reassuring) approach of “dissident information > A different quality of information”>
● one must always start “from the beginning”, from the general explanations that frame the problem. While today almost always in presenting the information one starts from the complex picture.
In another part of this article it is explained how the insights can be integrated into the “initial text”. In any case, when presenting a video, it is always necessary to make a summary of the general picture of the information that is being disclosed (accompanied by special infographics).
These big picture summaries (short and simple) should be separate “clips” that, when needed, can be edited before the video (in any case, these clips must be able to be skipped by those who already know the subject well enough. ).
In other words, it is a question of building an organic system of information – illustrated in the next chapter – in which information can be integrated each time into the content that is prepared.
We also remember that to be truly fact driven, it is necessary to show the source of each piece of information: both while speaking and on the “page” of the video.
2) to understand the truthfulness of the information it is necessary to view – and therefore internalize – the data
(if you do not understand the meaning of the data, you do not understand the essence of the message)
In summary, to make communication more effective, it is necessary to help the user visualize the essence of the information. That is, the information must be more “visual” than it is today.
Technically speaking. today dissident information must begin to use – correctly – the Infographic.
Infographic is an evolution of the traditional form of communication that uses the integration of texts with “illustrations” (“a picture is worth a thousand words”). In this mode of communication, the “illustrations of the text” take on a complete meaning in themselves, since they are annotated and highlighted to highlight the most significant parts.
See some interesting examples > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6_7zC0mB9w
One of the examples of effective communication based on infographics is that of the PragerU channel: see https://www.prageru.com/playlist/best-of-5-min-videos/
Note that it’s extremely cheap, and simple, today to create infographic media – there are great tools and guidelines on the web.
Today the infographic is able to make the message more understandable thanks to gimmicks such as the animation of the graphic parts that take place in sync with the narration.
The problem is that today the supports of real inforgraphics are very rare in dissident information. And the “illustrations” accompanying the verbal narrative are made with an obsolete approach making them more of an obstacle to understanding than an advantage.
See, for example, the disaster of the graphs that report the evolution of the “cases” of Covid).
A particularly significant example is that of the attempt to compare the charts of Sweden with that of another nation that has adopted anti-covid measures.
In this case we often see the comparison of two graphs that appear in successive moments, when it becomes practically impossible for the user to record the two separate graphs in his mind to make the appropriate “visual” comparisons. What is worse is that we have seen graphs with different absolute data, for which Sweden seemed to have more cases than Italy (for Sweden cases were reported for a number of inhabitants much lower than that indicated for the Italy, for which to those who were not able to see these measures on the fly, it seemed that, practically matching the curves, the number of cases was practically coincident ).
The problem represented by these episodes is that they occurred in some of the best services (for example on RadioRadio on YuTube, with one of the most intelligent and prepared people, Fabio Duranti): video that, while offering very effective verbal explanations, fell into ridicule when them try to prove with the graphs the truthfulness of what was being said (the graphs seemed to contradict the journalist).
In such cases, in fact, the graphs should have been recreated in order to make them more understandable.
► IT IS NECESSARY TO ORGANIZE THE INFORMATION IN AN ORGANIC SYSTEM
It is therefore a question of substantially rethinking the way information is disseminated.
The fact is that informations, to be transformed into knowledge, must not only be more meaningful but them must also be organized in an organic way, so that them can be integrated to create new content.
This organization must facilitate access for both authors and users of the information.
One of the main problems that must be overcome today is that of the so-called Big data paradox: today the enormous flow of data that is used daily instead of improving knowledge weakens it.
This problem seems not to be understood by dissident media, which continue to use the “journalistic” way of providing information typical of the world of Big data, in which, in fact, the information proposed does not remain in people’s minds.
The problem can be expressed in these terms: today the information of dissident Media is not transformed into knowledge in people’s minds (but it helps to create the typical informative chaos of our Society).
Some of the effects of this overflow of information:
– it takes away from objective data the power to clarify the actual truth.
– the possibility of manipulation increases since the Mainstream media can more easily manage this overabundant flow to its own advantage (this happens, for example, with the bombardment of “distracting” information when scandals are to be forgotten).
In order to make the public understand the important truths that, even if them are irrefutable, people do not understand
it is therefore necessary, among other things,
TO DEVELOP AN ORGANIC FORM OF COMMUNICATION.
In other words, it is about creating a knowledge system that allows people to move easily through meaningful information:
a sort of memory aid,
indispensable in a situation in which
the bombardment of information
weakens this memory
In other words, it is a question of creating a new culture eco-system that allows you to make a qualitative leap: in this way you are not limited to “providing information”, but you begin to “make culture”.
We speak of
a “knowledge base” in which
the information produced day by day
is organized in an organic whole
thanks to which specific information can be integrated
into more general information levels.
Note that we are talking about a system that is developed on several levels:
● the system is developed by the specific media channel for use by its authors. But it becomes, in the part accessible from the outside, an important reference for other authors who can, thanks to it, complement their information with important contributions.
● the system can be used by the user to create personalized knowledge paths (it can easily consult complementary information that allows him to better understand the topic he is interested in)
In order to develop communication methods in step with the times, it is necessary to take into account some of the qualities of Information Technologies:
● the Web is hypertext
In other words, the Web consists of a single large text in which one can move freely with “links” (hyperlinks).
That is, the inventors of the Web conceived the latter as a hypertext, a sort of universal Wikipedia (a “knowledge base” of which the current Wikipedia is only an extremely simplified version).
The HTML language, on which the Web is based, was created to allow the public to navigate the knowledge accumulated by humanity from one “page” to another according to their needs, creating a personal path of use of knowledge available. In this way surfers can develop a knowledge that is impossible with traditional media.
But today people are not at all able to improve their knowledge, since the Communication Technologies used on the Web are in fact used in an inappropriate way (this happens due to the fact that these Technologies were developed by the Incumbents who, enjoying a monopoly position, they are not at all stimulated to develop ways of truthful information, but are “content” with continuing to make “pseudo-information” based on forms of communication that develop on an emotional level).
The problem for the dissemination of truthful information is that dissident Media use precisely that type of methods and tools, and are therefore unable to undermine the current credibility of the fake news of the Mainstream media.
<about the need to develop a new method of innovation that allows for a qualitative leap in information, see my article on the TrendInsights website ““Why current Design (and hi-tech) and disruptive innovation are incompatible (the “Human factor”)>
Indeed, as mentioned above,
this timeless use of technologies
not only does not favor the evolution of knowledge,
but paradoxically leads to a loss of knowledge
(This way of disseminating information is one of the main factors in the success of the current “cancel culture” strategies that the global Reset is implementing.
The problem is, at the base of everything, that dissident media do not understand what are the qualities of the Web that allow truthful information to be understood by most.
Dissident media must take a leap forward
by radically innovating their ways providing informationr
must begin to develop
A WEB INFORMATION CULTURE,
which today has not yet been developed
(at least at an operational level).
The first theorization on the potential of hypertext dates back to the 1960s, and in the 1980s HTML was created in order to develop the Web as a hypertext. But the “superficiality” of the Incumbents led to use the Web as if it were a traditional media. Dissident media must be able to move beyond this obsolete mode.
Today it is necessary to brush up on this culture of the Web as Hypertext, and to create new methods and tools that are functional to a hypertextual use of contents (there are already many niche applications of this type, which only need to be developed in a more widespread way).
This means, in a nutshell – as we see in the next chapter – knowing how
to propose MODULAR CONTENTS linked together
so that they can be easily integrated
with in-depth content
or with collateral information.
A method that makes the creation of content much simpler and more flexible, and it is very easy for Users to develop a personalized path for using information.
● synopsis and in-depth analysis: a “random” fruition path
The structuring of the contents in hypertext mode allows the peculiar mode of use for synopsis and in-depth analysis.
It is precisely the possibility of having information concatenated in a hierarchical system in which
the topics are first presented in a synthetic way,
and can gradually be deepened
thanks to links to other parts of the Web.
(the non-rigidly structured system is not developed in a linear way: but it is developed in a “random” way, so the user can easily choose personalized paths).
One of the notable advantages of this modality is that it allows to minimize the problem of the Big Data paradox (of the overabundance of information that make it difficult to know specific facts). In fact, in this mode the users do not waste time, as they currently do, in viewing entire content (video, audio or text), but they can possibly skip the introductions (in case they are already sufficiently informed), deepen specific aspects of the problem, etc …
Please note that the development of a correct hypertext, in addition to allowing you to fully investigate the topic, must also allow you to attribute the truthfulness to what is stated, by inserting links to the sources.
● the need to have an interface for interacting with content on a human scale
Therefore, in order to disseminate “alternative” information that can be understood by the majority of the public, it is necessary to make the most of the characteristics of the Web such as hypertextuality. But it is also necessary to develop a quality that is almost absent today: a way of interrelating the user with content that is actually on a human scale.
Basically today it is not taken into account
● the difference between on-demand and scheduled broadcasting:
– scheduled broadcasting, the traditional TV mode with which, not having interactivity, the user must see the entire content of a video (there is a serial access).
In this case there is the problem of the overabundance of information which at the very least becomes a waste of time (but in reality this overabundance somehow creates chaos, and makes it impossible to effectively know how things are)
– on demand: this mode, guaranteeing “random” access to the various information parts, allows the User to see only what is essential for him to better understand the topic.
The importance of the this modality, which offers enormously greater potential than that typical of traditional media, is not at all understood by dissident media.
The fact is that in order to be effective, on-demand use must provide for an organization of the parts that are functional to it. But the current attempts to create an on-demand fruition are rather naive.
An example: the contents (such as online news) must be split into parts, to which the User must have direct access: today only in very rare cases are there any functions that allow you to do this.
The problem is that on-demand technology – see, for example, YouTube – is developed in a rudimentary way: the functionalities linked to the on-demand use of content on the Web should therefore be radically improved (this is one of the reasons why dissident media could have a significant advantage over Big Tech).
● the need to have an interface for interacting with content on a human scale
The fact is that today there are user interfaces that constitute a “technological barrier” for the majority of Users (the interfaces should instead be “grandmother-proof”, ie more “common” than the current ones).
Better interfaces already exist today than those used by news sites (and YouTube), but they are still niche applications.
The interfaces of SmarPhone or Tablet represent an example (which must be further improved) of how a “simplified” interface can be).
The problem is therefore substantially that, despite the potential for organizing content offered by the Internet,
the interface for interacting with content
on the Web is of lower quality
than that offered by traditional media
such as TV, Magazine and Newspaper
In fact, remember that the TV has a very simple “interface”, and the printed paper can be annotated, cut out, etc …
In other words, communication experts today seem to have forgotten that the medium plays an important role in understanding the substance of the message.
An example of using an effective interactive information channel:
– the User scrolls through the available content and quickly understands which chunks he wants to see; he selects them and then with them creates his “schedule” of the day (ordering the chunks, and integrating them with complementary information such as Wiki).
– the User then views his schedule with a very simple interface (like that of a TV remote control).
It must be understood that in order for the information produced in the new mode to reach the majority of the public, it is necessary to focus attention on the possibility of allowing Users to view interactive contents on a normal TV set (most of these devices have inputs that allow you to do this).
Only in this way, in fact, many people enjoy the “news” (sitting on the sofa, while cooking, etc ….).
Ultimately, therefore, to improve the quality of dissident information making sure that even those who are dominated by mainstream information today can understand the actual truths about what is happening in the world, it is necessary:
● to improve the quality of communication itself, which makes the information more meaningful, (the information must be, among other things, more “visual”, for example with the use of infographics)
● to develop organic information, giving information a radically different type of organization, thanks to which it is possible to integrate day by day information with a broad knowledge base.
● to develop an interaction with information on a human scale: since the medium has a fundamental importance for understanding the message, it is necessary to exploit the potential offered by the technologies of the interaction, and go beyond the mode of the TV production mode, to move on to the real “on demand” modes of interaction, currently used in a rough way.
And stop using interfaces that are a barrier to use for a large part of the public.
2. [politics] ACTIVATION OF INITIATIVES COMPLEMENTARY TO INFORMATION, WHICH ALLOW CITIZENS TO DEVELOP AN EXPERIENTIAL KNOWLEDGE PROCESS
As illustrated in the previous chapters, today it is necessary to radically change the methods of production and use of information.
But this is not all, since the knowledge process is always an experiential process.
(as Plato already warned 2,000 years ago, (as Plato already warned 2,000 years ago, knowledge cannot be acquired by the media – at that time there was talk of “texts”).
That is, the information that reaches the mind of man must have a “tangible” meaning to be transformed into something that has been understood, and therefore that “is known”.
to make the information more tangible,
it must be directly linked to an experience of the real situation:
that is, the user must practice an experiential path connected to information.
In Pedagogy there is in fact the idea that for students it is necessary to “practice” the information they receive “via text” (book, teacher’s explanation, etc ..).
This modality is practiced on several levels.
For example, in the case of arithmetic, calculations there are “practice” connected to real cases, such as those of the mother who goes to the market to buy eggs.
Even more significant is the experience of the practitioner who learns the trade in the field after he has studied at school in “textual” mode: only in daily practice does he understand the information he had previously received.
Without these experiences there would be at least two problems:
– things “learned” in verbal explanation mode would not be fixed in the memory of the person (them would not become true knowledge).
– the person would be at the mercy of “false gurus” who began to criticize what he learned in school: and in this case he, not having a real experience of what the other argued, would end up believing in the latter (in absence of a direct experience of reality, we are in the current situation of dissident media: “my word against his”, and in this case the winner is the one with the dominant thought that is indicated to be the most reliable).
So, basically, if the dissident media want even “people who have not yet understood” to understand the essence of problems such as those of the global economy and Covid, they must not limit themselves to disseminating “information”, but must also involve the people in some practical experience that allows them to touch the issues handled (to see for themselves how things stand).
The need to specify the purpose of one’s communication
Today the dissident Media, taken in their polemical ardor, seem to have forgotten that
the ultimate goal of disseminating dissident information
is to change things for the better
The real purpose of the initiatives introduced here is therefore not of a pedagogical type, but is to actually change things in Society (the pedagogical aspect is very important, but it is secondary).
The problem is that if it does not focus on the true objective of its action, dissident communication ends up becoming an end in itself; and therefore – not being able to change things – ends up not being able to survive.
We must remember that until now, as has been repeatedly highlighted, the Media and dissident Movements not only have not been able to change something, but have even favored a growth in the “absolute power” of the institutions.
What we want to start defining here is therefore not just a step towards a radical innovation of information (or, we can say, the recovery of the development of human knowledge in individuals).
But the purpose is, more generally,
begin to define a way that allows real change to be implemented.
The errors of the current dissident approach (of the “critical opposition”)
In other words, the problem is that currently the “dissidents” (Media and Movements) naively
try to solve the problem with the same approach,
with the same methods and tools
that created the problem
<see my article “Towards a Democracy Reboot (synopsis)”>
That is, as illustrated in the article “Reboot of Democracy (synopsis): How and why to change the contrast strategies of Left politics“, above all, it is necessary to define a process of recovery of real Democracy:
● stop opposing pseudo-democratic authoritarian regimes on the level of “Politics” – polemics and protests, attempts to be heard, etc …
● that it operates, bottom-up, in a “constructive mode” in which one gets out of the dimension of “opposition”, and begins to rebuild real democracy without waiting for the permission and support of the institutions.
The basic problem is in fact that today we act on the same ground as the institutions, which is:
– the level of modern “communication”, in which we rely on the ability to convince others on the verbal level, with the idea that one’s word is more convincing than that of the other. But since this is a terrain on which actual truths are not valid, Institutions and Mainstream are unbeatable.
Or, alternatively (for the dissident Movements), we act
– in terms of strength testing. But with “hard ways”, such as protest. however we are the losers, both in the confrontation with the institutions (in street demonstrations), and in relation to public opinion (which, not being able to understand what is really happening, takes the side of the institutions).
– with the attempt to dialogue with the institutions, that is, trying to be “listened to” by the institutions is just a waste of time, since the institutions will never have any intention of “listening” to ideas that are not in line with their lines of action.
In this way, one takes the deception of the institutions that try to distract dissidents from initiatives of real change: one returns to the naive, childish dimension of when one tried to make the teacher listen to our reasons. Trying to somehow come to terms with the institutions, they play the game of institutions: the institutions exploit these efforts to bring the initiatives to a dead end; or they exploit them to (successfully) instigate people against dissidents.
It is therefore a question of radically changing the ways of providing information. <see m text “How to define a new approach to dissident information“>
The need to change approach: beyond controversy and protest
<follows an excerpt from article “How is it possible to restore Democracy – The rules of change from an operational point of view” >
In summary it is necessary to define a process of recovery of real Democracy:
● in which we stop opposing pseudo-democratic authoritarian regimes on the level of “Politics” – polemics and protests, attempts to be heard, etc …
● that operates, bottom-up, in a “constructive mode” in which
get out of the “opposition” dimension,
and start rebuilding real Democracy
without waiting for the permission and support
of the institutions.
This can easily be done directly with a direct action of the Citizens, restoring a dimension of real Democracy even only from the small, from the local. This allows:
• to improve things immediately with the “Popular Initiatives” (Crowd-sourcing) described in this chapter.
• to develop a “de facto power”: arriving at Government successes in a local dimension, an effective power is obtained which is automatically placed in contrast with the institutional one. <see my text “The acquisition of a new ‘de facto power’”>
• to ensure that “dissident” Citizens increase their awareness of how things have to change.
• to obtain the support of an increasing number of fellow citizens (among the planned Initiatives there are also forms of free information ”developed by the Crowd).
In other words, in order to actually improve things, it is therefore necessary, from an operational point of view,
develop an effective action
to restore real democracy
in which citizens
are brought to participate directly
in the management of issues of public interest.
An intervention in which Citizens act in the first person to make up for the inefficiency of the services of public institutions (inefficiency which often appears to be desired).
We remind you that the satisfaction of Citizens’ needs (or the solution of “social problems”) can only take place effectively when Citizens can somehow participate in the process <see The problems of the current Market strategies: toward a crowd participated Marketing – Why does innovation fail today? The inability to understand in new Customer Needs>
In summary, therefore, to obtain a real improvement in things it is first of all necessary to remember that the process of knowledge is always an experiential process. And therefore we need to radically change the methods of production and use of information.
But this is not enough: if you want to actually change things – restore forms of government really aimed at improving the lives of Citizens –
Dissident media (and movements)
must transform their current action,
developed mostly “in negative”
(criticism and protest),
into “positive action”:
become incubators of pro-active initiatives
in the local area
More specifically, real general change can only be achieved by starting
1) to change things directly (instead of protesting, of rebelling).
2) to operate without waiting for the permission and/ or support of the Institutions.
In fact, from an operational point of view, it is a question of engaging citizens to participate in
constructive initiatives with which we begin to reconstruct the essence of man’s traditional society in which he was primarily concerned with the social issues that concerned him.
This change, although it starts “from the small” (or from “the local”), is precisely the beginning of a more general change in the reconstruction of Democracy. See the section of the website dedicated to the Reboot of Democracy project: ● Democracy reboot – Intro ● Reboot of Democracy: operational considerations.
These are initiatives that probably should not be managed directly by the media channel, but there may be help on their part that can be identified as external to the design, creation and management (obviously these initiatives must involve several entities from the beginning of the conception phase: Media, Movements, individuals, etc ..).
An overview of the various types of initiatives
The initiatives we are talking about consist of real public utility activities developed directly by citizens (it is most likely remembered that some experts will join each initiative – in volunteer mode).
These activities are of various types: from the simplest forms, such as those
● of working groups that operate on data by developing searches of raw data and their processing that allow a better understanding of the situation; or initiatives of real “Scientific research by Citizens”, such as surveys of environmental pollution data (today devices with professional performances cost a few tens of euros; and by developing simple data collection and processing applications it is possible to get a picture of the situation of pollution that official sources do not want to reveal), or investigations on the situation of Public Health. <see my text “Bottom-up Initiatives to strengthen the position of ”dissidents“”>
But there can also be
● forms of “activism” such as those that are still developing in an embryonic form: Merchants who organize themselves to reopen their shops, Class actions against government institutions and pharmaceutical companies, etc. ..
These initiatives can also directly lead to an improvement in the quality of life when, for example, with them the Citizens organize themselves to bring ways of treating Covid to the general public.
● “para-government by Citizen” initiatives
From such forms of activism to a management system of a truly participatory Democracy, the step is short, since some of these initiatives can easily be evolved in this direction (the next chapter is dedicated to an introductory description of these initiatives).
These initiatives make it possible to create a virtuous process by which citizens can develop a higher level of civic awareness: a better understanding of current problems, and of the effective possibilities of solving them (and learn to organize themselves to deal directly with the social issues that concern them) .
The initiatives in question can be easily activated with a few modifications of the applications developed for the activities described above (working groups that analyze data relating to some social issues, and forms of “activism”).
These initiatives are described in the next chapter.
A WAY TO RESTORE DEMOCRACY, GOVERNMENT “IN PARALLEL” BY CITIZEN
The legitimacy and effectiveness of a government developed by Citizen “in parallel”
Here we see a little more in detail how by using online platforms – of simple creation – it is possible to trigger a virtuous process that can lead to the creation of forms of government in which citizens are somehow protagonists.
This is an initial phase of a process capable of eventually leading to a regime of truly participatory democracy (Democracy 2.0).
It is important to consider that there is no form of democratic government that is not in some way participated by Citizens.
<see my article “The Direct Democracy (Participatory Democracy)“>
<see my text “The Citizen as Sovereign (the Government has no real Power)“>
it is a type of government
developed “in parallel” with the institutions,
in a way that, as we shall see,
allows citizens to develop a “de facto power”
that cannot be ignored by government institutions.
The participatory (“in parallel”) mode of government by Citizens set out in this article (and other documents):
– It does not need the permission or the support of the current government institutions, since Citizens move independently from them (with “private” initiatives, which are however able to confront the power of the institutions).
These are – as we see below – management systems for local initiatives that allow, for example, to monitor the situation of pollution, or the work of institutions. But also allow to create “private” public utility services and infrastructures that improve the results obtained today by the increasingly inefficient institutional services (we are talking, for example, of schools, creation of play areas for children, maintenance of greenery, etc …).
– it is perfectly legal since the few freedoms still permitted by the Laws are exploited in an optimal way.
– provides a de facto power of the Citizens.
In fact, the will of the Citizens expressed through such popular initiatives must be taken into consideration by politicians since it is not just a “public opinion”: those who express themselves are in fact the voters of the politicians who manage the government institutions, and in the case in which they do not listen to that will, they are not confirmed in subsequent elections (the current suspension of the regular elections can hardly be postponed indefinitely). <see my text “The acquisition of a new ‘de facto power’”>
Some of the initiatives illustrated in the previous chapters can therefore be used (sometimes with minor modifications) to obtain an expression of the “Citizen’s Will” which is the basis of this form of government “in parallel” (the legitimacy of this form of government lies, among other things, in methods that allow the certification of the expression of the Citizen’s Will – certification of the signature, of the vote, etc …).
“∙A key point: demonstrably have the support of Citizens (the question of the “certification” of the expression of the Citizen’s will)
To fully understand the potential effectiveness of the initiatives described here, it is necessary to first understand the fundamental quality on which they are based: the certification of the expression of the Citizen’s Will (signatures, votes, etc …).
One of the basic problems
that make the actions of “dissidents” hopelessly losers
is their inability
to understand the essence of the problem
they are trying to combat:
today problems such as deaths from wrong treatments, poverty exist because the government institutions say they act on behalf of the Citizens when instead they do not represent at all the will of the Citizens.
In other words, one of the problems for dissidents is that, when they try to develop “popular” initiatives, they claim to be the expression of the will of the citizens while they are not at all. In this way, dissident movements and media put themselves in the same position as the institutions: they boast support from citizens which in fact is not there.
It should be noted that this is not a formal question, but a substantial one:
without the real support of the Citizens,
dissidents today “are nobody”.
And as such they are soon “overcome” (censored, hindered by the Institutions, and forced to fail in their action).
See cases such as that of the “Committee of Experts” for Covid created as an alternative to the official one, which has never produced any effect. Or the case of the “shadow government” of the #ioApro Movement (which is one of the best initiatives) which it supports with respect to the birth of this initiative “Italian citizens decided it”.
Therefore dissidents must understand that if they want to achieve the success of their actions, they must first establish a position of power vis-à-vis the institutions. <see my text “The acquisition of a new ‘de facto power’”>
That is, today Dissidents must stop operating on the level of Demagogy in which one is convinced that being in the right means winning the confrontation with the Institutions:
in a society where Culture has been “revolutionized”,
and the Media are a monopoly of the establishment,
does not give any advantage.
today it is useless to move without
the demonstrable support
of a significant part of the population).
It is therefore necessary, at the basis of everything
1) obtain real support from citizens (have actual numbers of such support that can be found).
2) “certify” at an institutional level the expression of the will expressed by citizens in their support work.
the key point
is the recognition by the institutions
of the expression of the will of the Citizen
outside the official elections.
For the previous point – obtaining an actually verifiable support – the thing is quite simple: it is sufficient to develop a platform for the expression of the opinion of the people not very different from Rousseau of Italian M5S (there are already many, and Rousseau is one of the examples – although this platform has been manipulated from the beginning, it demonstrates how this is feasible without large investments).
Even in the case of the “certification” of the expression of the Citizen’s Will, things are not particularly complex. Indeed, technologies and legal tools already available can be used in this direction.
With the possibility
of demonstrating the legal value of Citizens’ support,
a radical change in the ability to interact
with institutions is achieved.
In this case, in fact, government institutions are forced to take note of the citizens’ will in any of their expressions (which is particularly important at a time like the present one in which the only means of expression available to citizens, the Elections has been suppressed).
The question of the certification of the Citizen’s Will
It is therefore essentially a question of “certifying” this expression of the Citizen with strictly legal methods.
This can be done in many ways, for example by relying largely on the methodology of “collections of signatures” – today used for requests to institutions, petitions, etc … Or on the new methods of “electronic signature” (also recognized in many cases by Institutions, and already used by many companies).
With current technologies,
what today are the “polls”
CAN BE TRANSFORMED INTO “REFERENDUMS”
(even if these referendums are not called by the State, they are in any case the result of the citizens’ “vote”, and if the results of this vote are important, the institutions cannot ignore them – we always remember that the politicians must then be confirmed in subsequent elections).
The “virtual” tools of identity certification and signatures have developed in a particular way since the emergence of Covid.
With certified forms of expression of the Citizen’s Will, we enter a dimension that is a sort of “permanent referendum“, in which it is possible to carry out popular consultations at any time through an “instant voting” which provides the results in real time. And with respect to which there are no time limits (at least, as for the collection of signatures for petitions, the consultation does not end in a few days, so citizens can join gradually).
Some possible methods
There are many methods that can be used to develop certification systems for the Will of Citizens (these methods can be integrated with each other in the solutions: even the traditional paper-based collection of signatures must continue to be used as an option, in order not to create a divide – but this mode is probably destined not to be required anymore).
Some considerations on the methods that can be used.
– Methodologies already approved by the State can be exploited, such as Certified Electronic Mail (which is a certification also accepted as evidence by the courts).
– digital signature systems used today by many companies.
– any “private” database systems with legal value, which function as a private register of citizens (such as electoral lists, or the USA vote.org database).
Such a system can bring some substantial advantages for Voters, such as those in the US where Voters can check how the votes they cast have been recorded (this is a further element for verifying that there is no fraud).
This method can be combined with the Certified Electronic Mail tool.
Some aspects of “parallel” government by Citizen
A new mode of para-government developed in parallel with that of institutional government therefore becomes effective with the support of a certification of the expression of the Citizen’s Will.
A positive aspect of the virtuous circle developed by this method is that already in the first phase of development of the Popular Investigation Initiatives illustrated above (such as those of the analysis of institutional data on epidemics and the detection on the territory of treatment failures and hospital protocols) we obtain authoritative information that the mainstream Media can no longer ignore. In this way, more and more people are made aware of what is really happening.
This awareness developed on the level of information, together with the new awareness of citizens of being able to obtain an improvement in the quality of life developed with forms of active participation in the social organization of the territory, translates into an aggregation to government operations “in parallel” by Citizen of an increasing number of people.
In this “parallel” mode of government, citizens elect para-government institutions which, thanks to the certification of the votes, have a significant authority for the purposes of what happens in the territory.
These institutions operate on several levels:
● Mirroring and Monitoring of government institutions, such as:
– National and local government
– Inspection and investigation commissions ..
– Companies managed by the Public Administration
● Creation of private services (and infrastructures) of public utility alternative to those of the P.A.
∙● Mirroring and Monitoring initiatives (shadow government)
This type of popular institutions therefore operate, among other things, in a way in which citizens have the opportunity to interact with government policies (see further details in the documents “Bottom Up Reform Initiative (Open Government Platform) – A Project for the realization of a bottom-up Reform of Democracy“> )
This interaction takes place in two different areas:
● MONITORING of vital issues for the population: issues relating to the territory (and monitoring of the activities of the institutions).
It is a sort of alternative governmental investigation committees to the institutional ones, or alternative scientific committees (keep in mind that many “Citizens” are actually real experts in the various sectors in which the “investigations” take place).
The parliamentary committees dealt with, among others, topics on: labor conditions, actions of public administration bodies, health facilities, the market, banks, political scandals, pollution, terrorism, <see Wikipedia>
Some examples of monitoring: analysis of the expenditure of public administration interventions (the laws on “transparency” allow the development of initiatives such as that of the participated spending review <see in my ext “Some “participated solutions“>); investigation on the results of the public health (including the actual situation of hospitals during the “Covid epidemic), monitoring of environmental pollution.
These initiatives, being able to spread incontrovertible truths, are able to greatly influence public opinion, and therefore significantly influence institutional policies.
● MIRRORING of the institutional bodies, replicas of the Institutions are created which, on the various issues addressed, collect the “Popular Will” and exert pressure on the Institutions so that this will is respected (these are shadow Institutions that highlight the errors or defects of the institutional actions, and design alternative solutions).
The Project proposes a more proactive form of government by Citizen defined as Representation 2.0, or “Direct Representation”. It is a system in which, for example, in the case of a municipal council, a movement can elect its own councilor bound by a contract with the electors, in which it, among other things, undertakes to vote, during councils. municipal, based on the information received in “real time” – through a special platform – from the Electors (who follow the debate of the City Council online). Obviously the platform allows other forms of voter-Representative interaction. <see my document “Representation Initiative 2.0 (Direct Representation): a new real democratic Representation model“>
In other words, the project illustrated here constitutes a sort of “shadow government” (Shadow Cabinet) – made up of several institutions – which has the function of highlighting the defects in the choices of the institutions, and proposes alternative projects.
The effectiveness of this “in parallel” mode of government derives from the fact that it integrates with the innovative initiatives of dissident communication illustrated in the first part of the article, and that therefore it is able to significantly improve the awareness of citizens both with respect to what are the problems created by institutional government, and the fact that there are ways to solve them. In this way, a strong bi-partisan adhesion to initiatives such as those of a parallel government by citizens is obtained.
Note the qualitative leap that in this case takes place in Politics, which returns to being the original Politics of Democracy: the Polis-tics in which the Demos directly participates in the management of its own community (Polis). <see my text “The recovery of the only form of legitimate politics in Democracy (Polis-tics)“>
This change in modern politics is radical: it essentially becomes a bi-partisan mode of administration, in which results count, and no longer membership of a party.
These results are obtained thanks to the functionality of the platform that allow to develop effective forms of co-design of solutions.
A not insignificant advantage of this new way of operating is that in this case we move to a “policy mode based on skills”: and on this level the current politicians are totally incapable (they are defeated from the start).
In summary, the winning aspect is that
with New Politics
we move from the current form of opposition
based on polemics,
to constructive action capable
of immediately improving the lives of citizens.
Note a couple of key aspects in the question of skills:
1) the best solutions for satisfying needs are obtained when the holders of needs participate in the design of these solutions. <see my text “The users of the Services are essential co-designers of the solutions to satisfy their needs“>
2) the experts who support the institutions can also be used by the institutions of the shadow government (already today many qualified experts operate in voluntary mode, or with accessible fees for dissident media).
See some of my texts on the subject:
Another aspect of New Politics (Polis-tics) is its ability to not only propose improvements to the current system of Public Administration Services, but also – thanks to the methods and tools offered by the platform –
to directly implement new service
useful to the community. social.
We talk about
a way of managing the “Polis”
(the local territory)
in which Citizens create “private”
services of public utility.
These are services that range from the simplest, such as accompanying children to school with parental shifts, to more complex services and infrastructures, such as the maintenance of public parks or the creation of playgrounds for children.
These services always develop in the “private” mode indicated above. If in the previous case the Citizens create private government institutions that operate in parallel with the official government ones; in this case the Citizens develop directly (autonomously – but obviously in agreement with the Institutions) “private” services for the social community in which they live. (which compensate for the inefficiency of services and infrastructures of the Public Administration).
In this way, a
Welfare 2.0 is defined
that overcomes the current Welfare of Mass Services
which, among other things, has the limit of being unable to effectively satisfy niche needs (in this way other limits are also overcome such as inefficiencies due to the detachment of managers from the real needs of citizens, uncontrollable expenses, corruption, etc …).
In other words, it is possible, with forms of Government (and Public Administration) “in parallel” by the Citizens, it is possible to re-establish Welfare according to criteria of real sustainability. Or in this case:
– services are developed only where they are needed.
– there is the possibility of option-out, or not to pay for services that are not used.
– it is possible to return to an effective evaluation of the expenses with respect to costs/benefits.
– Social qualities such as voluntarism and a sense of solidarity are developing again (which were once among the fundamental virtuous factors of the Society – and many small Towns in the world still are today).
These qualities are actually already developing spontaneously with the new “best practices”.
Some examples of such private services and infrastructures can be:
● social welfare and public safety services.
● consultancy “counters” (also in sectors such as those of Health, Justice, Public Safety, School, Tax).
Think of the usefulness of such services that help Covid sufferers to find the correct treatments.
● various voluntary activities (as it is today with the “time banks”, in which volunteers make their skills available).
● Schools (an excellent example is that of Parental Schools) or services complementary to them.
● Public utility transport, ranging from organizing parents (and friends) to take the children to school), to services such as Uber, but managed by local communities (with some evolutions of services such as Uber and BlaBla Car it is possible for a Citizen, who displays a real time map of the situation on the SmartPhone, offer a ride to a person who is waiting for the bus at a stop).
Private Bus services organized by the citizens themselves can be created in the manner described above.
● exploitation of local resources: parks, roads closed to traffic, etc. <see my text “Redefine the concept of the city (Urban Urban governance – Placemaking)”>
See also the text “Some possible bottom-up initiatives“.
3. [media infrastructure] THE NEED TO DEVELOP NEW MEDIA PLATFORMS
The fatal mistake committed by the dissident Media
is to use
the tools made available by the Establishment itself
that they are trying to counter.
This makes them hopelessly losers, or leads them to be destined for ever greater censorship, and a lack of funds. which will lead them to closure.
in the first place,
the dissident media should do their utmost
to create alternative structures and tools
to those of the Establishment.
This is the basic error: without creating an alternative structure, their fate will always be in the hands of their enemy. And it certainly cannot be a promising fate.
This article introduces the first level of a project aimed at creating an alternative system of Social Networks to that offered today by Big Tech (Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp, Slack, Disqus, etc….).
It is a simple and inexpensive system to implement, capable not only of making dissident media independent of the power of the Establishment (read censorship, closure); but also able to provide more advanced performance than those of the current “Social”. This allows for a qualitative leap in dissident information.
To understand the importance of such a step it is appropriate to understand that:
– today such alternative Social networks can be created in a simple and cheap way thanks to the availability of Open source elements available for free, and thanks to the spread of the online free volunteering mode (very important and complex software such as LibreOffice/OpenOffice are developed by communities of online volunteers ).
– these new tools constitute a significant innovation of functionality compared to the world of the current social network, which by choice or by inability to use the new powerful technologies in an obsolete way (Facebook, Youtube, etc …).
In other words, the creation of the new social networks indicated in this project would be for the dissidents
a significant competitive advantage
over the current Big Tech Social networks,
not only from the point of view of content,
but also of the quality of the functionalities
This advantage obviously translates into a greater ability to make the general public understand the truths that today remain misunderstood.
The creation of the social network system proposed here is, in practice, quite simple.
In fact, to develop this system, huge resources are not required: it is sufficient to develop a good project from the beginning, and then put together some “Open Source” working groups – which operate mostly on a voluntary basis (and, of course, put together a consortium of financing partners and activate a fundraiser on the Web – but remember that the cost required to carry out the project is quite low).
The defining part of the initial project is undoubtedly the most delicate and complex: the current absolute lack of a design culture – understood as the ability to develop the project starting from the actual needs of the User – is the main problem for the start up. of the project.
This problem must be circumvented by using the approach of real innovation, such as that of Disruptive innovation (an approach that has allowed Silicon Valley companies to become what they are today), today totally abandoned in favor of monopoly strategies and “synergies with Politics”.
<see my article “The concept of Innovation (introduction to the Disruptive Innovation) “>
Neither YouTube nor Facebook rely on actual feature design.
A significant example is that of Facebook which, as denounced by top managers who have resigned – was created solely to manipulate people’s minds.
That is, the Facebook features have been designed “in reverse” with respect to the concept of real innovation.
The question today is therefore to resume developing solutions managing to take into consideration the interests of the User.
See in this regard how C. Chistensen, the gurus who led the Silicon Valley companies, indicates the need to innovate following the real needs of Users – my article “C. Christensen and Purpose business (Job to be done)”
This is not a moral issue: Facebook’s model is inherently a failure. Its success derives solely from its monopoly position, with which it can regulate the Market as it pleases.
The other Big Tech that has no idea what real innovation is is Google, which has seen 100% of its products fail (YouTube was bought by Google after Google Video failed). <see my article “Most successful companies are not real innovators (disruptive innovators)“>
This low quality level of social networks like Facebook and YouTube makes them easily attackable from the point of view of functionality by any small StartUp with truly innovative ideas.
Among the most recent Social networks, Parler represents one of the most significant examples of how things should not be done.
In fact, Parler was born by transgressing all the rules of the design of online services, and its failure is not due to external causes, but, precisely, to its intrinsic ruinousness.
The factors of Parler’s failure are precisely those mentioned in this article: in short, the inability to focus on the need to be satisfied, and the ability to define functions capable of making dissident communication a qualitative leap.
Upstream of everything, it is necessary to clarify the methodology to be adopted. That is, it is necessary to point out that:
● when you are unable, after repeated attempts, to solve a problem, you must review your principles before continuing (Einstein insisted on this point).
● until you are aware of the cause of a problem, it cannot be solved.
The problem, as stated in previous chapters, is that today dissidents information is disseminated with the same modalities used by the mainsterm media. And that on this ground the actual truths have no value.
The solution is therefore
a redefinition from the root
of the methods of disseminating dissidents information.
It is not a question of creating alternatives to current social media as youtube, namely:
1) It is a matter of not producing clones of current Social media (it is not a question of technological improvements), but
It is a question of creating Social networks
with radically new features,
which allow to do
dissident information the quality leap
indicated in the previous chapters
2) but upstream of everything,
It is a matter of creating a “system”
that integrates all the current features of the “social media”,
in which those who produce information
and those who fruise
is able to easily manage content.
Attention: we do not talk about a single “social” that incorporates these features in itself: but of a system in which new generation “social” can be integrated.
We talk about radically new Social networks that go to cover the areas of information channels (Type Twitter, Facebook), multimedia channels “(Type YouTube), Messaging (and Email)
which can be managed
(both in production and in the fruition of content)
in a single interface.
With this integrated management the “producers” have an overview of what they are producing; and above all (this also applies to users) they can manage interactions with other user in one place.
One of the problems that prevent dissent information diffusion is precisely that of a basic interaction between producers and user, and between user and user, so this information remains throughout and for all a top-down form of communication.
The points to be addressed from the operational point of view
As mentioned above, to develop the project illustrated here are not necessary huge resources. It is about making the following points:
1) Define a project that is truly functional to the needs of dissident information.
2) Organize a “Open Source” community (volunteer) – and use code for programming already available on the web.
3) Creating a ” consortium” of media dissidents and entrepreneurs (and online fundraising).
1) Define a project that is truly functional to the needs of dissident information
The definition part of the initial project is the most complex and delicate.
It is necessary to apply an approach of real innovation, which means not only improving things from the point of certainty of not being censored or banned, but it is also and above all to obtain a new way to make information that allows to develop a new culture of dissident information, and consequently that it offers more chances to improve things.
To achieve this result it is necessary to start from the identification of the true problem, of the true cause that today is at the origin of the difficulties to contribute more effectively to actually change things.
Today those who intend to produce alternative social tools seems to not be at all this goal, and limits themselves to copy (badly) the existing products (see Parler, Gab, Mastodon, etc …).
It is therefore, upstream of everything, to clarify which are the principles of a real innovation: those principles that have allowed the most important Startups of Silicon Valley to achieve the current success, but that today they were almost completely forgotten <see my aforementioned article “The concept of Innovation (introduction to the Disruptive Innovation) “>
Substantially it is a matter of having clear in mind that it is not just a matter of creating a system that
● Allow dissidents channels to stop being censored or banned.
Parler is a significant example of the current situation, in which Channel dissidents attribute the responsibility of their failures to external causes when they are the cause of this, unable to understand how it is necessary to adopt a different approach from that of the Big Tech adopted by them.
It is therefore
● Develop a radical innovation – a Disruptive Innovation – which allows dissident information to obtain:
– Improvement of communication quality – more pregnant information – and organization of information in an organic set <see previous chapter>.
– An integration of information channels with complementary initiatives that make Citizens pro-active with the problems encountered on their territory <see previous chapter>.
2) organize communities (volunteers) “open source” – and use code for programming already available on the Web
One of the strengths of the eco-system of Social networks envisaged here is in the fact that it is based on the support of a community of Open source developers (volunteers). This allows you to have, in addition to undoubted economies, also a very high quality of the product (very important and complex software such as LibreOffice/OpenOffice are developed by online volunteer communities).
You take into account that in this way:
– You can use standards already widely used.
– Most of the code for programming system functions has already been developed in Open Source mode (ie available for free).
3) Creation of a “strategy” of media dissidents and entrepreneurs (and online fundraising)
The platform of social applications envisaged here, thanks to the use of open source developer communities (and using many parts of code already available on the Web), therefore has a relatively low cost.
But in any case a “consortium” of media dissidents, entrepreneurs and a fundraising campaign from Citizens must be organized.
Today many are the possible lenders of a initiative of this type, as many are entrepreneurs and companies wishing to change institutional policies (which, as it is clear, are destined to become increasingly repressive) to create free information channels from Institutional censorship.
Also today the online fundraising modes – crowdfunding – are widespread.
Synthetic description of the platform
The dissident information, if it wants to be truly effective, must therefore abandon the obsolete models that uses today, and change their strategies – and its instruments – to the root.
That is, as far as goals are concerned, it is a question of creating a new generation of social networking radically different from the current one.
The platform illustrated here offers a twofold advantage: (1) It has Social Networks that improve the qualities of current ones (YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp, Slack, Disqus, etc …); And also it (2) offers an integration between the various social media that allows a leap in quality both to the production of content and their use.
Some advantages offered by the platform
There are considerable advantages, for example:
■ In creating radically new methods and tools
(not only in improving current methods and tools)
In fact, the platform solves the basic problem: the philosophy on which the current social media are based is that of the Establishemnt, which does not offer “constructive” opportunities (we mean, for example, the possibility of developing substantive arguments that, with the support of evidence and testimony, bring out the actual truths). A dimension that is based on the manipulation of consciences (Parler is a significant example of how things shouldn’t be done: this new social media, being set up with the project philosophy of social mainstreams, is unable to bring any advantage to dissident information – And it is therefore intended to fail).
It is therefore a matter of creating a “New Thing”, a new generation of social media most effective than existing ones
■ In creating a platform that
allows anyone to easily activate a new social
Tecno-Analfabete people too can create social networks of the type of facebook or youtube
■ In creating an eco-system
in which each social is integrated with others
In fact, each user has an interface from which he is able to have an overview of his own content (and feedback).
Some peculiar qualities:
● the platform offers those who want to activate an alternative Social network to that of the Big Tech, some options that facilitate the process.
In the most basic options
with almost zero investments and with a very low level of technical skills it is possible to create a new social network
Te Social can then be developed with sophisticated features with a form of facilitated programming.
● the Social networks that can be developed on the platform offer functions that represent a radical innovation compared to those of current social networks
For example, the Youtube model is clearly exceeded, allowing content producers to create real WebTVs. And for the public, to have an interface that offers the possibility to quickly create your own daily playlists.
And it goes beyond the Facebook “pages”, allowing the user to create real mini-sites.
● the platform offers Users who produce content the security of not being censored or expelled.
(see the next point “guarantee not to be censored or banned”)
The advantages, from a technical point of view, lie in the fact that it is a decentralized system (1) – which does not need a server – with the contents distributed on the network (Blockchain mode, today also used for BitCoin). And (2) federated: the various social networks are integrated with each other.
Some strategic advantages
► USER CONTROLLED CONTENT
In the system,
always has absolute control
over the contents he produces,
in the sense that
NO ONE CAN CENSOR OR DELETE THEM
Users have an overview and absolute control of the production flow (or use) of the contents.
That is, the Users (authors and users of the information) have a centralized interface from which they can manage the contents simultaneously on multiple social networks. And also manage the interrelationships with other Users in a centralized way (comments/debates, messages, etc….).
In other words, the Platform allows to achieve a ubiquity of publication (and debate): it is possible to subscribe to any Social of the platform, and to spread on them, at the same time, one’s own contents.
► A NEW PRINCIPLE VALUE OF INFORMATION
In the Social networks of the platform
the information takes on
a value that cannot be developed
in the social networks of the current generation:
this is possible thanks to new ways of creating the contents it makes.
Moreover, thanks to a new way of organizing the information related to knowledge base which facilitates the birth of a new non-aligned Culture <vedi “nuove qualità dell’informazione” >
One of the current problems of dissident information channels is that them are based on the same model of information as the establishment, typical of the demagogic culture in which the aim is to develop a purely top-down communication. In this model – since the objective is to maintain a condition of public unawareness – there is the impossibility of developing information that can effectively counteract false information disclosed by the Mainstream.
That is, the problem is that in the current context, dissident information, even if its veracity is indisputable, will never be able to assume a significant value for the general public. <see previous text>
The solution to this problem implemented by the platform lies in the development of a form of information that goes beyond the current dimension of “telling information”: a new dimension in which words are integrated with supports that make information more “tangible” for the user (for example more “visual”). <see>
Another quality of the Platform resides in the organization of information in a knowledge base in which the information conveyed day by day is integrated and structured in an organic whole (a “knowledge base”). <see>
Another quality: the Platform offers human-sized interfaces characterized by ease of use.
► GUARANTEE NOT TO BE CENSORED OR BANNED
The Platform offers the security
of not being censored or expelled.
(unless the judicial authorities consider the published content to be illegal)
This is true both at the Social level (see the case of Parler) and at the User level (see the case of Twitter).
As for the specific Social network, no one is able to “delete” it, since the platform is based on a Blockchain mode in which there is no centralized server (Bitcoin, which uses Blockchain technology, despite being a very complex and delicate system, has proven to be unassailable).
Even the email, which turned out to be censurable by Big Tech (who can close an account) is handled so that there can be no problems recently encountered.
As for the User, if it is true that the manager of the specific Social – with ad hoc programming – can get to censor some contents, in any case the ease with which the platform allows to create a new Social network allows some censored Users to agree to create a new Social: the advantage offered by the Platform is that in this case the contents of the Users who migrate to the new Social network transfer to it (if desired automatically): all the previous contents, the followers already acquired and any advertising agreements (on the platform there is a management of the advertising similar to that of Google Ads). And the public that goes to the old address, is automatically directed to the new one.
(the censorship applied by the Judicial System obviously remains: the platform offers tools that allow the reporting to the authorities of contents that could be in contrast with the laws in force)
► OPENING THE DEBATE: THE POSSIBILITY TO “NORMAL” USERS IS OFFERED TO SHINE AND ACCESS A MORE QUALIFIED DEBATE LEVEL
The Platform offers the possibility to the debate of “dissident thought” to make a qualitative leap.
the Platform is a solution to the current problem:
people who really have something new and interesting to communicate get lost in the sea of millions of comments on posts.
For this reason, the arguments of the dissident channels currently remain the same: the debate develops indefinitely in a closed circle (it remains an elite debate), and is essentially sterile.
The tools offered by the Platform allow to broaden the debate by including new significant items
(thanks to different methods of “promotion” of the User)
In other words, in the new system,
“unknown” users, thanks to a series of evaluation mechanisms,
can “make a career” and access higher levels of debate:
editorial offices, leaders, political groups, movements, etc …
These mechanisms are, among others, judgments of other Users, reporting by “Vip”, algorithms.
allows dissident thought to emerge from the current impasse
(due to the fact that today we insist on the same arguments – the same criticisms, the same proposals for solutions – even when these have not brought any results for some time). The possibility of acquiring new ideas offered by the Platform leads the dissident culture to make a qualitative leap, and to place itself in a new, more effective position in comparison with the Mainstream.
■ IT ALLOWS TO DEVELOP A NEW TYPE OF “CONSTRUCTIVE” INFORMATION – BE ABLE TO DEVELOP A REAL CHANGE IN SOCIETY
The social networks of the platfor
allow the development of information complements:
tools that allow the public
to better assimilate the information conveyed.
These tools solve one of the major current problems: dissidents (Media and Movements) produce information which in itself is not sufficient to “create knowledge” (that is, they are unable to make the public aware of what is really happening).
This happens because they use the typical form of “modern communication”, based on the idea of convincing others with “a story” (a narrative).
But the knowledge process is always an experiential process,
and it is therefore necessary, from an operational point of view, to develop initiatives in which Citizens are brought to participate directly in the management of matters of public interest.
In order to develop a process of real knowledge, the Platform therefore offers “constructive” functions: it is
complementary tools to the information disclosed,
which make the users pro-active towards the topics covered
(thus allowing Citizens to develop an experiential process of effective knowledge)
These complements of information are tools that allow citizens to operate directly on social issues that concern them: for example, they allow to analyze institutional data on epidemics, or to directly detect data on the territory that reveal the extent of failures of treatments and protocols. hospital. Or even to carry out environmental pollution monitoring (today it is possible to carry out in-depth investigations with very inexpensive detection tools with professional performance),
■ FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF “CONSTRUCTIVE INITIATIVES”: THE INTERACTION OF CITIZENS WITH GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS
In developing initiatives for Citizens’ participation in public utility initiatives, we push ourselves
to create forms of interaction with government institutions.
In this way the Politics returns to being the original one of Democracy: the Polis-tics in which the Demos directly participates in the management of its own community (Polis).
An example is the system defined in Progect is the “Direct participation”, in which Citizens interact with the elected representative
It is a question of activating a sort of new Citizens’ policy (Polis-tics) that is completely different from the current one.
A further step in the development of this mode of participation leads to a sort of “shadow government” (Shadow Cabinet) – made up of several institutions – which has the function of highlighting the defects of the choices of the institutions, and proposes alternative.