@CustomDesigned @dtluna this is why it is important to define terms when you are trying to have an honest debate.

this thread is a lot better than the one @substack started because we are actually starting with a discussion rather than a huge list of quoted statements. so thanks @serapath.

"Power corrupts" is confirmed by brain scans of people in power - the creeping corruption is visible, the milder forms are called "empathy fatigue", as being responsible for so many people makes it increasingly harder to care personally (a similar condition is seen in "caring" professions).

this is probably the main reason why i think the decentralization is important. i really can't care about that many people at once. everyone has different limits, but i don't see them being very large in general. it isn't that i have a difficult time caring about people, quite the opposite in fact: i want to act on my feelings! however, my abilities and resources are limited. i can't realistically help everyone who needs help that i encounter.

tribalism is a big part of the human experience that a lot people view as negative, but, like any other broken part of our character, it isn't something that we can change or fix. at least not with the technology we have at hand. for that reason, i think it is important to embrace humans as they are: selfish, shortsighted, discriminatory, caring, thoughtful, empathic. we have strengths and weaknesses which all need to be accounted for.

the questions i ask are less like "what system has the best outcomes?" and more like "what sort of system will allow me an mine to provide ourselves with a safe a comfortable life?". there is an important line here separating my circle from the rest of the world. this circle has a limited size and i am unable to personally extend meaningful trust outside of it.

a community is a group of overlapping and intersecting circles of love, trust, and cooperation. these also have a limited size and tend to split after a certain point. at this scale, we can't expect trust to dominate our interactions. to simplify, lets treat a community as a singular entity. so we have a bunch of actors that don't trust each other, who may wish to engage in economic activity.

on a larger scale, some groups of actors may find reasons to be aligned with each other for cultural or ideological reasons. this alignment could cause them to act as a unit under certain circumstances as well. at this point things start looking a lot like nation states, right? this structure is not based on power or domination, but trust. so, to reiterate:

1. individual: personal relationships form a circle
2. community: overlapping individual circles
3. culture: loosely affiliated communities

here, trust becomes more diffuse as the scale increases. individuals are mostly self-determined and they have a community of trusted peers who have an interest in helping them succeed. the problems start when another system decides to sit on top and replace community and culture with Nation. trust is now placed in Nation, rather than in our community. normally, trust is a two way street, but Nation doesn't use those terms. The System speaks in terms of Loyalty and Obedience.

so i wonder, how to we strengthen community and culture to prevent Nation from destroying and dominating them? i think ssb is a good start. by scoping our systems to human scales, i think we will start seeing more positive interaction models on the internet.