Facebook: How should it be

Democratic cluster facebook

Democratic cluster social network - the diversity and security of humankind 

Actually I'm not saying that every country must necessarily have its own social network (technically). It's too convenient to have in one "window" friends and customers from all the world. This may be one network, the same facebook, but necessarily divided into clusters with their own control centers.

During the transition period, until the information age become, a struggle for "democracy in the social networks" is going to happen. Now in a single global social network reigns totalitarian dictatorship with secret laws. Ordinary users are completely powerless. They can neither influence the government and its policies, nor challenge its actions. This fact is almost no one realizes yet, at least I don’t know anything about whether even one has such thoughts. First people have to realize the necessity of democracy also in the social networks - the main place of the life of a future civilization. Then start struggle for it. Whether will it be difficult or easy, who knows. But clearly some smart alecks have already understood the importance of this issue and will strongly oppose, deceiving and fooling head, allegedly this does not matter and impossible, and everything is well.

"This is a private company and their private affair". "Well, the company is socially important, but they also consult with  elites, somewhere in secret cabinets". "No, any autonomy to regions - we are smart and do everything in the right way". "Disclosure of secret algorithms is impossible - this is a private property!" "Well, there you have an opportunity to complain, but we need to hire a large staff of workers, and we are a commercial organization, who will pay for this?" "What? You want to choose moderators by universal secret ballot? Yeah, you're crazy!" Ironically, but roughly the steps may actually occur.

Social network of democratic cluster society should have the following attributes:

Openness and transparency of Law. Of rules of communication and algorithms of showings.

The ability to influence on legislation. By the public discussion at least, and even voting.

The ability to choose their own authorities. Let not ordinary moderators, but decision makers of local branches of facebook. Of course, the right to know who are they.

Ability to sue. That is to appeal, and be able to hold a public discussion of the case, rather than get a closed secret answer "your complaint was considered, violations were not found."

Well, the usual basic principles of democracy. Why only no one seems that they have to act also in social networks - in the focal point of social life of the future. Yes, this will increase the costs of "private company". But societies of previous periods had to spend on courts, police and elections.

Decentralization. Each community-cluster should itself define its "information policy" of their network segment. From words, forbidden to use, up to algorithms of promotion and showings. Diversity, as we have noted, is the main principle of evolution and survival. Competition of systems will identify the best rules on practice. Autonomity of systems will make it possible to carry out public-information experiments on separate clusters, rather than at all at once,minimizing the risk of going the wrong way all at once, and to forget where we were before.

Information danger

Демократичний кластерний фейсбукLet's remember where we started. With the possibility to deceive the masses, which depends not only on the reasonableness and education of people, but also on several factors.

1. The possibility of practical application of lies. In the information age, when the information itself is sold, selling a lie becomes as easy as the truth, and any real world could not prevent this. Every single person can check out some separate facts, if they are verifiable, if there are any facts at all. That is, if it is written that this pineapple can be planted in tundra, and you can gather the harvest, an individual could buy it, plant it, and see how it will freeze in the first winter, and realize that that was a lie. But scammers have already sold a lot of such seedlings and earned a lot of money on the testers themselves. In addition, they already have an account promoted, and you have only a hundred friends. The voice of scammers is stronger and people continue to believe them. Well, maybe you have done something not correctly. Who will prove that their product actually technically does not match the stated quality? It's not so easy concerning the material things, and concerning the abstract ideas heaven only knows how. Concerning the social, economic, political and similar theories and historical gossip, which are already set.

2. Constant repetition. As much as you want and very cheap. You can create a bot-system, and post one text at once in a hundred groups by touch of one button. Even rewrite your articles programs can. But it's better to have a few talented writers-bloggers to produce a new edition with the same ideas.

3. Network of permanent representatives-reminders. The network of permanent representatives-reminders as such is no longer necessary, because all already are in one information network. The only point is a preliminary promotion. When "people will believe you", then they shall repost your ideas themselves. It's only necessary to maintain their interest.

4. Feedback. No problem, you can browse and read comments and posts of people yourself. Can see, who and what writes. You may still need some hackers to get into personal correspondence of potential competitor or to eavesdrop on conversations in closed groups. But this is not the same, if sultan puts on rags and goes to the square to overhear what the poor say, or to send secret emissaries to distant provinces to explore the situation and mood.

So whether we are smarter than our ancestors? First, children are already very lazy to learn. Somehow somewhere they have lost incentives. Second, significantly increased the amount of information that you need to possess in the "information age" to be "successful", or at least adequate. Ancestors were enough to know when to sow and to milk. Now hard-working employees proudly declare, that "now we need lifelong learning only not to lose our qualification", and don't see any negativity in this. Yeah. And the common man in order to find out for whom to vote, which party or a team, have to give up work and children, and all day long surf the internet. Because there is already so much information, that people in ordinary daily life have time only to run through headers, and maybe expand some annotations. But conscious conscientious citizens have to fight with heaps of fakes, slander and distortion, trying to find the sources. Have to identify whether there was any fact, and what it was, and how they misrepresented it, and can we such a measure of distortion "to understand and forgive" or not. Then maybe you will be able to "make the right choice". But you'll lose your job, and mental health. Or the right to consider himself a "smart man who made the right choice".

That is, in absolute terms today people have more knowledge than their ancestors, of course. But in relative.. in terms of possession sufficient information to adequately perform their duties .. Yes, at least to be a useful member of society.. Previously, grandmothers and grandfathers were helpful up to their old age - looked after grandchildren, cooked the food and worked in the garden, till they have at least some power. And now, just to hold down a job, you need "lifelong learning only not to lose your qualification". And over his forties people descend and descend the distance, one after another. And qualitatively to choose a senator - the task for majority almost exorbitant due to objective reasons. So judge for yourself, who is smarter.

Afterword about the Google

To a great extent all the above about facebook applies to google. It's not a social network, but technically can determine which sites really exist, and which are not. Although now google seems doesn't do this yet. But it has the potential ability to "ban the site" - remove it from search results. And the site, that you created and placed somewhere on a server, available to people by a direct link, nobody will find, nobody will see. Other words, it will not exist in the information space.

But Google AdSense - the service of contextual advertising, with which site owner earns for a living, bans accounts for a long time and sharply. In the same manner as the facebook. You kind of may to make a complaint, but it's not even considered, at best you receive excuse "your complaint has been processed, violations not were found". And herewith the money earned by your site, which remained on your account at the moment of ban, the google takes itself. Simply confiscates. There are forums where people often complain on such piracy. From my friend google stole 450 euros in such a way. From someone took 1 000. And there were cases and 10,000 confiscated. For what - allegedly for pornography. But nothing like that wasn't there to speak of, and where did they get this - is unknown, and to appeal - is impossible. Is that to go to the USA and to sue, for mad money. So although from a search site (yet) does not disappear - but earn on it you already can not. And what else to earn in the information age?

Monopolist - it is scary.