😎
Conversation
If I understand correctly, E2E takes out the group of idiots in the middle, which is the leverage used by demagogues to control the tide of public discourse.
Without idiots in the middle, worldviews are shaped by private convo, and thus only organic support for ideas can arise?
1
Well you’re conflating the technical man-in-middle of a p2p channel and the middle of the crowd in an open pool medium, but in a way that’s kinda right for both. In the former, idiot-in-middle might archive cleartext insecurely for hackers to steal.
1
1
Do you have a particular interest in promoting charisma neutrality?
Because it sounds sort of like what I call cultural viscosity (or lack thereof)
1
Yeah does sound similar. I think my position is viscosity is here for good and at least we can try to not let one party monopolize the capability to drive viscous dynamics.
1
1
Do you think this power can/should be totally “democratized”?
1
There have always been ways of increasing the costs of surveillance. They're never perfect tools, but they serve a useful function - providing the choice of privacy for any message worth less to the attacker than the cost of circumvention. Anything worth more ~will be broken
1
As points out, the endpoints aren't unhackable. But they're also not trivially hackable by just anyone
1
In practice, I'm not sure when we'll get to a point where Sybil attacks will be necessary broadly - we've got a ways to go before the "internal network" can be not only secured, but virtually impossible for an average user to accidentally unsecure. But I hope we get there 🙂
1
1
WhatsApp in India is a good example of the dumpster fire that get created when mostly non tech-savvy people flood a basic e2ee networ
I'd heard about some of those incidents, but didn't realize there had been so many 😣
Charisma neutrality may very well open the door to manipulation at lower thresholds of charisma/brow-beating as every "warren" may not have the same level of BS antibodies as a wider whole
1
However, the BS resistance built up by a smaller, higher-trust group may be more durable than that found in a giant commons?


