I share deep concerns about anything seemingly scammy.
Modeling ways in which societies can prevent more people from being exploited is one of my 'hobbies.' There are many paths that can help. The path that's most wise and ethical, I'd argue, is a route that respects more free choice and builds more groundwork for cultural conditions that are more conducive to skepticism and information-based awareness. Many of the current methods of interference, licensing, and monopolistic-fueling procedures -- often under a sheep's clothing of a supposed collective trust -- have countless damaging effects in the long run. It will overwhelm society in other negative ways to gain temporary positives in protection. It erodes progress. It often shifts access to the powerful. I won't get into it here but it's all part and parcel of fueling corporatism in general.
Distrust is critical.
Distrust should pervade consciousness. The opposite happens as a result of many current policies. People start to mindlessly believe in claims more than they already do. I believe there's a large vacuum that waits to be filled where third-party cooperatives fill the thirst that people would otherwise have for vetting trust (e.g. NGO regulatory bodies, quality/certification programs, voluntary submissions to transparency) -- given a remarkably underutilized internet -- except a great push won't happen until a tipping point occurs. The public will have to say enough is enough and reject the double-edged sword of policy. Deferring more solutions to an entity comprised of people willing and eager to wage violence and torture as a method of order: this ultimately grows insidious laws and insidious forms of reasoning as a whole.
There's a good argument that a state can have greater legitimacy when it's relegated to a role as a more supportive backbone of arbitrating claims and disputes, while vastly decreasing corporate control/protection. This would render most executives more vulnerable to loss of assets. This would naturally decrease a person's willingness to be deceptive. A bridge to this model could be as simple as first requiring disclaimers by any independent service that wishes to oppose a status quo. It would allow choice/consent. "This [entity] has not been regulated or verified by [authority]."
Grandmas, grandpas, and the like are naturally more vulnerable. No one wants people to lose their life savings due to natural mental circumstances that beget trust. I'm all for any effort that perpetuates exposure and awareness of scams and lends power to grievances.
Modeling ways in which societies can prevent more people from being exploited is one of my 'hobbies.' There are many paths that can help. The path that's most wise and ethical, I'd argue, is a route that respects more free choice and builds more groundwork for cultural conditions that are more conducive to skepticism and information-based awareness. Many of the current methods of interference, licensing, and monopolistic-fueling procedures -- often under a sheep's clothing of a supposed collective trust -- have countless damaging effects in the long run. It will overwhelm society in other negative ways to gain temporary positives in protection. It erodes progress. It often shifts access to the powerful. I won't get into it here but it's all part and parcel of fueling corporatism in general.
Distrust is critical.
Distrust should pervade consciousness. The opposite happens as a result of many current policies. People start to mindlessly believe in claims more than they already do. I believe there's a large vacuum that waits to be filled where third-party cooperatives fill the thirst that people would otherwise have for vetting trust (e.g. NGO regulatory bodies, quality/certification programs, voluntary submissions to transparency) -- given a remarkably underutilized internet -- except a great push won't happen until a tipping point occurs. The public will have to say enough is enough and reject the double-edged sword of policy. Deferring more solutions to an entity comprised of people willing and eager to wage violence and torture as a method of order: this ultimately grows insidious laws and insidious forms of reasoning as a whole.
There's a good argument that a state can have greater legitimacy when it's relegated to a role as a more supportive backbone of arbitrating claims and disputes, while vastly decreasing corporate control/protection. This would render most executives more vulnerable to loss of assets. This would naturally decrease a person's willingness to be deceptive. A bridge to this model could be as simple as first requiring disclaimers by any independent service that wishes to oppose a status quo. It would allow choice/consent. "This [entity] has not been regulated or verified by [authority]."
Grandmas, grandpas, and the like are naturally more vulnerable. No one wants people to lose their life savings due to natural mental circumstances that beget trust. I'm all for any effort that perpetuates exposure and awareness of scams and lends power to grievances.