Where It Came From: Attribution 2.0

Deep fakes and the like are a growing problem:

Of course it will get worse, and new angles will emerge that are unheard of. Regulation could be the solution, although nobody will be a fan. If you want to have a platform where you are immune from having wrong content on it (as long as you police the content to a reasonable level), then you must also follow this one simple rule. All content has to have an origin, and that origin is posted with the content.

  • Music comes from the artist’s home page
  • Memes have an origin
  • Photos come from the page of who took the photo

Any authorisations, all types of rights, are stored at the source.

So, if I want to share a meme I found online, I have to go to the source, and maybe agree to something, and maybe get a link back to the source with my auth ID in it… and so on. We are talking Creative Commons for everything.

To post something from a particular source, the platform must have registered it. So to post a picture of King Charles, it must come from a news source, or his own website, or a registered source that will take the fall if they have acquired it or used it wrongly or illegally.

There are some downsides to this approach, obviously!

Posting content in social media will take longer, sometimes. Sharing a link from a registered source won’t take any longer. Reposting something that already cites a source, won’t take longer. Banging out a funny meme using content that is not yours, will take longer, and can only improve things for everyone – it will be a good opportunity to be a bit more serious, especially for topics that warrant it, like politics and anti-woke.

It is anti-freedom of speech. Er, no, it isn’t, but it will be seen that way. People misunderstand what those freedoms actually entail. Never mind though, because attribution regulations will only apply to social networks of a certain large size. Your anarcho-mischief collective will fly under the radar, although they will need to have a prominent message stating that they are non-regulated.

The No ID Option in a Digital ID Nation

Here in Australia we have a general fear of a “one ID to rule them all”, and instead we have a hodge podge of pseudo national IDs – Medicare card, passport, driver’s license, which combined get us the 100 points of ID we need. Kinda painful to achieve the same thing, with all the same drawbacks.

When a One ID comes along, there will be backlash from many, especially the sovereign citizen / anti-vax types. So perhaps we could appease them with the option of opting-out?

If we go way back to where being identified was first needed, it was for taxation. And it still revolves around that. Without taxation, nations fail.

We can look at how backpackers are treated, and come up with a similar option for residents who want to be without an ID.

Reduced pay – you can be employed, without ID, but the pay rate will be discounted to what the after-tax amount would be for anyone with ID.

Can’t get married officially – most of us don’t now anyway…

Can’t travel overseas – no passport

They do get the same public schooling and healthcare – because they are effectively paying tax, and they are still living in our country

No driver’s license – but when self-driving cars arrive, it won’t be needed

Cannot be a company director, or operate a tax-paying business – but that leaves plenty of self-employment possibilities

And guess what – aside from taxes (all you need is a birth certificate to get a TaxFile number), all of the above can already be achieved with just a birth certificate.

We still need to provide a path to ID, for when they come to their senses. So people will still have birth certificates. And their babies will as well, that is non-negotiable, they can’t assign their anarchy to their children as well.

So, unless the anti-people want to fight for no birth certificate, this is currently not an issue.

Posted in Gov

Global Census with QR Roofs

We have satellites which can see all corners of the globe, at quite high resolution. Enough to discern a QR Code that takes up all of each roof.

The QR can be fixed, or change with something like ePaper.

Each building can use smart home devices to store data around its contents:

  • People who live there
  • Visitors
  • Food items
  • Pets
  • Energy usage
  • Vitals like temperature

Each building can provide as much or as little data as they wish, however more gets rewarded, and regular updates get rewarded, and minimums are required if people are wanting to fully participate in society.

Data around people is non-identifiable. Age and gender, basically. But anything is possible.

Data is stored on local secure servers, the address of which come from the QR Code on the roof.

Satellites keep track of all the latest QR Codes and their geolocation.

Which means that we have a continuous census of Planet Earth. And the data is used in the same way as manual censuses every 5 or 10 years.

Limit the Size of Social Networks

Wearing my other hat I am a big advocate of customer-owned businesses over at Unism

Facebook has done studies asking users if they would pay for an ad free service.

Globally Facebook makes less that $10 per user annually. So I expect they would charge the same or less as streaming services like Spotify. I think a large percentage of users are so hooked they would happily pay…

…So when we say no social network can have more than 30% of the population as users, the only way they (FB) can limit the numbers is by increasing the cost of participating.

Such a rule will decrease the power the social networks have over free speech, increase competition, make people feel more proud of how they made a choice, and increase the chances of customer-owned services.

NEGATIVE: It will become unlikely that everyone you wish to socialise with online are on the same platform.

BUT: There is nothing stopping a service existing that can control all of your social networks and contacts and aggregate everything. And then we become more service agnostic.

The Best Solution to Pandemics (in hindsight)

After decades of planning for the next pandemic, it appears it was just the maths of it we worked out, not the practical response. In hindsight here’s my opinion of how to plan for the next virus:

  • National authority – having cities and states with their own rules does not help. One national body should have overarching control over every aspect of the response
  • Trained and monitored people in crucial situations – where infection is more likely – travellers, quarantine, hospitals, care homes & industries like abattoirs – providing leaflets is not enough. Repeated on the spot training and 24/7 monitoring is essential. Dollars spent here can save thousands for the economy
  • Close borders early – every country would have, if they could turn back time, closed borders sooner. The #1 best response is to not let the virus in. That means accepting that sometimes jumping the gun hurts the economy for no reason.
  • Fewer lockdown stages – from day one, make masks, social distancing, and no crowds, mandatory. Stage two is the most extreme, where you stay at home except for when it is essential. Harsher lock downs, sooner
  • Dedicated quarantine centres – we have them in Australia for pets and racehorses, we can make them for people. Remove the ability for the virus to escape quarantine
  • Enforced isolation – in Australia, 50% of people who were told to self-isolate still left their homes. All self-isolation must be strictly monitored, ideally with ankle bracelets or a phone app that uses location
  • Concierge – people in self-isolation need zero excuses to break the rules. So give them a hotline to a concierge who will coordinate all their heath and supplies, for free. Even give people a free Uber Eats account. Make them feel like they are treated well for the inconvenience.
  • Reward, not punish – if someone tests positive, there are things they need to do, like self-isolate and not have visitors. They will often not be able to work. Reward them – like giving everyone who tests positive $500, on top of any other welfare payments. Obviously it can’t be high enough that people choose to catch it!
  • No limits on testing – if the system can’t cope, improve the system. In an ideal world, everyone gets tested in the first week. Like the entire city or country.
  • Natural boundaries – when one location has an outbreak and locks down, make the location a natural one, not an administrative one.
  • Money matters not – federal governments can print more money. Not a single decision should be based on money.
  • Prison for people who spread misinformation – no bail. Lock them up. Be harsh.
  • All interest, repayments and rent on hold – for anybody who has to close their business or cannot work.

Conspiracies and Protests will be Controlled

It should be obvious to anyone that misinformation, and civil disobedience are on the rise. We have store employees being murdered for asking someone to wear a mask, and 5G towers set on fire, for example. We also have had some large public protests and rebellious gatherings during a pandemic when people should be social distancing.

We also have an epidemic of falsehoods and half-truths on social media, even from world leaders (well, mostly Trump).

I think the reason for this is reasonably easy to explain… Never before have we had a combination of people with meaningless existences, media highlighting the “successes” of others, and platforms where anybody can be seen and heard globally. Given the opportunity to have a contrary viewpoint, on topics that could affect personal freedoms and/or health, makes these people feel empowered and special. So blame society, generally, for having members who need that.

There is nothing to suggest that this trend will go any way except for worse. More misinformation, spread more widely, believed by more people, and leading to greater levels of rebellion.

For the social media side, the answer is already happening – greater moderation. However another response will also happen before long – no more anonymity on certain channels. Expect Facebook to require account verification, so they know who you are. Maybe requiring an ID check.

For public rebellion in real life, unfortunately I think that on some issues, governments are going to outlaw any actions derived from misinformation. For example, the government will declare that 5G is safe, and anybody committing a crime in reaction to untruths about 5G will be penalised harshly.

That means vandalising, unlawful assembly, being arrested at a protest, selling products – anything besides simple freedom of speech – will be punished more heavily than normal if associated with a banned topic.

For own good, I think the governments will choose to be more authoritarian, or else face anarchy from sectors of the public.

Farewell Economic Growth. Farewell Population Growth.

Economic Growth is bad in many ways – this excellent, concise 2015 article sums it up:

  • Growth is efficiency, which means less jobs
  • Growth makes the rich richer – trickle down has never happened
  • Growth means more harm to the environment

And Economic Growth good in only one way – modern economies do not work without growth. If you take away growth:

  • Share prices plunge
  • A highly leveraged society falls apart
  • Investment based on diminishing returns is impossible
  • Less growth means greater unemployment
  • Less growth means less taxes to support the unemployed

It is virtually a death spiral based on how things currently work. So if we stop growth, we have to change the system.

Well, the death spiral might not be so bad. Nobody will starve, we will just be forced to adjust to a new way of being. But it will be a terrible shock to the system, and many people won’t cope. So we need to predict those adjustments, and work out a plan to change things.

PROSPERITY ISN’T BETTER FOR MOST

Australia has had continued economic growth for decades. At the latest federal election  (2019), the LNP got back in because people preferred economic stability over social reform. Detractors would say that the LNP achieved the growth on the back of high immigration rates (more people equals economic growth in western countries), an on-going resource boom (which they have no control over) and a growing national debt.

It is easy for a political party to persuade voters that the economy is in good shape by using figures like GDP and increased tax receipts that help balance the budget.

But are things improving in tangible ways for regular citizens? No, things are actually getting worse. What we are seeing throughout the richer nations are:

  • Increased unemployment & under-employment
  • The rich are getting richer
  • Longer working hours
  • Higher rates of obesity, addiction and suicide
  • Reluctance to fix environmental issues, especially climate change

But if the numbers are good, there is a national feel food factor, perhaps divorced from personal experience.

THE END OF POPULATION GROWTH

Global population is predicted to peak around 2040-2050. For the first time since capitalism began. Economic growth will become more difficult to achieve with less people, and even harder with a greater percentage of people in retirement.

The decrease in population will obvious occur in the richest countries first, as the predicted decline is based on wealth. Richer people have less need for multiple kids, and those kids cost more to raise in advanced economies.

If the capitalist system that we know and love is to be under threat, it will be seen first in Europe, USA, Canada and Australasia.

This is not being addressed or discussed at present. It certainly isn’t something that governments that have 3-5 year terms are interested in. It is looking likely that the end of economic growth will occur before anything is done about it.

A country that is proactive about this could avoid major societal upheavals.

A NEW MODEL

Capitalism cannot survive in its current form without “growth”. Jobs and businesses won’t change, but how they are funded and how results are measured will need to change.

Sharemarket – people buy shares for only two reasons: dividends from profits, and capital gains. If, in general, neither of these is normal, investors will have no interest in owning shares.

Scaling Down – when a business is doing well and needs to expand by investing in more staff and capital items, that is an easy and enviable situation to be in. Managing less staff, less capital items and less revenue/profit doesn’t work at all.

It seems impossible to change…

THE HISTORY OF GROWTH

  1. Everyone hunted/cooked/made shelter. It took the energy we had to just survive
  2. Agriculture / permanent settlements. Not everybody was needed for survival. We had the freedom to make little figurines, or clothing. So some people tended to crops, some cooked, some made things. No ownership, everybody shared the fruits of their labour
  3. Ownership. Some people spent time on things that were mostly valuable to them. Their own homes, primarily. They built it, for themselves, they owned it.
  4. Value. Trading with other towns, they soon realised that they had things others did not, and vice versa. Relative values were determined.
  5. Debt. People wanted something they couldn’t afford, so they owed for it.
  6. Kingdoms. Instead of being a local leader for the good of others, a few people gained power for their own benefit.
  7. Corporations. The same as kingdoms, still elitist, but for the good of many rich people.
  8. Share markets and modern nation states. Because currency and shares have variable values, the notion of growth was introduced as one way of valuing them

But here’s the thing. The vast majority of us, throughout history and now, are stuck at 2. We essentially all help each other out to get the things we want. We do have 3 (ownership), but it isn’t the same as the when it first came into being, And it is saddled with 4 and 5, which are unfair and detrimental respectively.

Though we are stuck at 2, things have changed since 10,000 years ago (some say 5,000). Because we have witnessed 6,7 and 8, we now have greed, desire and envy. We want the riches and the success. We think that striving for them is all we need to do, but unfortunately that is almost always never enough. Fame and fortune comes from luck, circumstance and inheritance (and a bit of being attractive).

In early civilisation we all helped each other out. Some provided food, some cooked, some made things. And that is still what half of us do today. We have cooks, builders, farmers, as well as new, beneficial jobs like doctors and teachers.

The other half of us have jobs that have mostly risen due to greed – police, military, accountants, lawyers, banks, marketing, sales people…

And we are working more than ever. While we could all work less and collectively get by, we want more, so we strive to achieve even though it is almost always futile.

IN REVERSE

If growth unravels 7 and 8, and 95% of us are still basically at 2, then it looks like things will unravel in reverse order for the rich. But it a long, twisted, unpredictable way.

If we remove greed from the equation (impossible?), and factor in technology that pretty much provides all the basics we need for survival for free, then we could return to a better version of 2.

Historically 2 was quite clearly defined – you worked all your life and merely survived. We have nicer survival these days, but the poor are getting relatively poorer. We are getting less of the collective achievements than the rich. Much less. For example, we still work a lot.

We have an opportunity to return to 2, but a far better version. And at the roots of 2 has been socialism. We just need a version of socialism that works for everyone – good luck with that!

THE START OF A SOLUTION

Giving everyone a modern version of 2 is easy, most idealised versions of socialism provide it. The Scandinavian models clearly work best, and authoritarian communism works worst.

The modern version means that we all keep doing what we do, with a bit more of the pie, and work a bit less.

The cost of that is what happens to the wealthy, and to corporations.

Social Growth

Negative growth might be too hard. So perhaps we can shift growth from economic to social. That will mean putting a value on social growth, that replaces economic growth.

Example:

  • A company makes disposable shopping bags that sell for 5 cents each
  • Society demands a more environmentally-friendly solution
  • They make multi-use bags that sell for 50 cents each
  • Because this is a solution, they end up using less resources, needing less staff, and the new bags last much longer than 10 old bags = less income

So they are left with less income, and too many staff. They use the staff to create a social outcome, and they receive income from society.

If those staff remain, their social benefits become profit for the employer. Or alternatively, they could work directly for society instead.

Job losses averted.

Quality Products

Less waste means better quality products. Shirts that last 10 years instead of 10 months. Toasters with replaceable elements.

Because such products are more efficient, we can offer an incentive for their manufacture. A rebate from the government. But that is hard to do with declining tax revenue. So the incentive cannot be monetary.

A Social Currency

The future economic model is a combination of fiscal and social currencies. Fiscal will decline as social rises until a natural mix is arrived at. They will be labelled differently, but will hold a relative tradable value, like cryptocurrencies of today.

A social currency can be combined with Universal Basic Income. Each person can receive $1,000 fiscal dollars per month, and $1,000 social dollars.

An idea that never really took off is that if we pay tax, we should be able to decide how it is spent. We do that indirectly by voting for governments. But what if we could directly say here is my tax, please spend it more on health and less on war? An article on this is here

Social dollars will need to be spent. There could be some kind of mechanism for deferral, but ultimately it has no other use but public good. Deferred dollars might lose value with time.

Social dollars can only be spent on certain things. For sure, things that are primarily good for society.

There will arise some situations where social and fiscal dollars need to be traded. That will establish a relative value, that will be useful for comparing how the different systems are performing.

Consumers Choose

I get $1,000 in social dollars every month. I pretty much have to spend it. It has a relative value to fiscal dollars, but ultimately can only be redeemed by benefiting society. Once used to benefit all, it can be converted into fiscal dollars.

i can give it directly to charity, easy.

Or, if I have the opinion that a company, say Amazon, is abusing their powers or the environment, I can choose to fund some/all my of purchase from them with social dollars. They can get real dollars back only if they spend it for the good of all.

The ratios of who gets what can be adjusted to make the model work best for all. It can start slow and grow as we learn how things work out.

We already do this, essentially, when giving to charities. We are simply broadening the scope and forcing it upon people. For their own good.

Control

Because this is brand new, results will be unexpected. For all we know, everybody might flood a particular business with social dollars and cause them to fail (although people should realise they actually like that business existing, because they like the product or service).

The beauty of it being social currency is the government can make adjustments, like interest rates:

  • The amount of social dollars each person receives
  • The redemption value of social dollars
  • The limits of how many social dollars any business can receive if they don’t want them

We can literally make it up as we go along.

SUMMARY

Instead of user pays, we have user gives
Economic growth slowly transitions in the direction of social growth
Employment is maintained, but with less hours, as we shift from fiscal work to social work
Wealth distribution improves

 

Universal Basic Income and Reparation for Slavery in the USA

There has been a lot of talk about Universal Basic Income recently, the pros and cons of it. Some of the good aspects are:

  • Replaces welfare payments without the costs of bureaucracy
  • Typically inspires people to do more with their life, not less
  • In the USA especially, will save people from working 2 full-time jobs
  • Helps address the growing divide between poor and rich

And if the USA wants to keep selling us the idea that they are the greatest and richest democracy of all time, giving a UBI to help their poorest seems like the least they can do.

Negatives include failed experiments that weren’t as well run or run long enough to be meaningful. And the obvious cost, which must be met by increased taxation.

But here is an additional benefit – reparation for slavery. This is a hugely complicated argument, and one of the hardest parts is actually identifying who gets paid, and of course how much.

Given that actual reparation will never occur, and black people in the USA are worse off in general – regardless of the reasons – then a UBI is a way of effectively providing reparation without specifically doing so.

It is a fuzzy solution, and that is OK. Because fuzzy, with all of its faults, is better than nothing.

  • All disadvantaged people will see an improvement in their lives
  • Including black people as a form of reparation
  • Some people will choose to be lazy. They probably would anyway
  • Most people will use the cash to improve their life
  • The economy will get a boost. Politicians who believe in “trickle down” will struggle to disagree with “trickle up”
  • It won’t be available to people outside of the tax system – illegal immigrants

 

Compulsory Charitable Donations

The majority of charities do work that should be directly supported by the government. But governments, rightly or wrongly, make sure that donations from citizens are also required to support charities.

Any compulsory giving to charities benefits all of society, as well as the emotional well-being of those who give.

Profits – it has been suggested that a way for some businesses (for example, insurance companies) to operate would be to cap their profits at a certain amount – say 5% of capital, and that any excess be given to charity. That would let businesses be successful, but at the same time limit the motivation of profit.

Fines – governments fining businesses who do wrong could also be seen to have a more genuine motivation if those fines were donated to charity.

Taxes – meanwhile, one of the world’s richest people, Michael Dell, says the super-rich shouldn’t be taxed at higher rates because they tend to very philanthropic people, and money is better going to the causes they support, than to the government. Perhaps their charitable donations could be 100% tax deductible, and their income taxes rate rise at the same time.

For this to occur, the regulation and oversight of charities would need to increase significantly, as well as laws requiring complete separation from the charities you give to – perhaps even two or three degrees of separation. Any organisation that receives funding or support from a charity would need to publicly disclose this. 

Baja California Entrepreneur Economic Zone

011

Baja California is close to California, and easily defined geographically. It is popular with Americans.

Concept: attract internet companies to bring their money to Mexico.

  • no business or personal income tax for qualifying businesses
  • special temporary resident visas
  • minimum staff numbers and revenue requirements
  • 2% of corporate revenue and 15% of personal income must be invested in new Mexican businesses, with exclusions like real estate
  • Outside of the top 20 employees, 50% of salaries in value must be paid to Mexican citizens

Long-term goal, like one or two generations away, USA/Canada/Mexico will be like the EU. Better for everyone.