Preventing the hijacking and privatization of short phrases and language in general is actually an excellent thing. I applaud this decision, and wish for the rules to become even tighter.

What we need is a public service constellation, not more billonaire ones.

You could say that about electricity, water supply, healthcare, AI, etc. These should all be public services, not run by for-profit corporations. But we decided against that approach long ago.

I price the externalities at infinite price. They cannot be paid.

You're saying if someone offered you a billion dollars to launch a satellite no different from most other satellites already in space, you would say, "No, thank you, madam!" I'm skeptical, but if you insist, I'll take you at your word.

Have you considered other people, the majority?

No one will do anything to stop it, nor ChatControl 2.0 in the future. No one will revolt, or seize the government in response to anything that happens.

The world that Liberal Democracy has built has escape valves (tv/streaming/videogames/entertainment, the illusion of democratic choice, mass media and information overload, public demonstrations) for the anger of the massed which despite in older times caused a government to fall or a revolution to start, today cause nothing and are comfortably absorbed or even assimilated for profit by the system itself.

In your doomed reality maybe, but in this reality it was already stopped a couple of times and chances are good, that it will be stopped again - unless people believe all is doomed.

Exactly. And don't forget complaining on the internet. But algorithms will ensure few will see it.

If this is true, then the system will eventually collapse upon itself, as its governance feedback loops have been broken. No defeat is permanent.

Universal basic income is dystopic. It's a way of finally making everyone completely dependent on the government. It's a Brave New World kind of dystopy.

Are you independent of your government yet?

I am dependend on government not giving subsidies to my competition. I am dependend on them not to raise taxes. I even depend on them for keeping the infrastrukture alive. If I cant trust the state I life in, it is time to move to a different state.

Interesting perspective.

To me it makes you more dependent on the other people in your society - only if you don't earn more than the BI of course.

That is true under Western Capitalism too, you're already dependent on your society, unless you filter and pump your own water; grow your own food; generate your own power; make your own devices; school your own children; do your own healthcare, etc.

For those reliant on BI, instead of greed being the moderator through which your income is determined, it is determined through the democratic processes of state.

Now, if your have an oligarchic dictatorship like USA and Russia, sure you'd need to be particularly worried if you were relying on BI. If you've got a strong democracy (probably true of any country with state-run services that are competitively priced) then BI should work if there's enough total income that it can be redistributed.

I think there are problems with BI though.

The lifes of powerful people must be transparent.

Having their business transparent makes sense but by restricting people's personal lives like this would disincentivize good people from rising to power, which is not what we want.

Good, I don't want people rising to unlimited, uncheckable power and creating oppressive hierarchies in general.

People that want to be powerful for personal gain will be filtered. People that legimitely want to give their all for their country will be encouraged.

The most powerful people are those who are billionaires

The fatalist philosophers and authors have been mostly proven right as time marched on. And this time will be no different, the existence of "AI" ensures the future will be as dark or worse as the predictions expect. Why? Because humans are flawed and corrupt, too prone to excesses (specially conformism and convenience) and the exploitation of the natural world.

Depends which philosopher but on the whole things have continued fairly similar as time marched on but with some tech improvements. Human nature is the same as Roman times - we still have wars, arguments and inequality. Tech has produced longer life expectancy, literacy, communications and the like. Which fatal thing has happened beyond that?

I am not sure how this is downvoted, as it contains sharply two main principles:

-- a growth in power requires a growth in human qualities (wisdom, maturity, responsibility) for sustainability; and technology-enabled possibilities are increases in power;

-- conformism and convenience are /exactly/ - congratulations sucrosesucrose, we had noticed and analyzed and every day increasingly come to the same assessment - the two core active faces of ignorance that are destroying current western societies. We came to the same conclusions, we identified the same two dark cancers.

This said, some of the current technological advances are enablers, if well used, in greatly curing the underlying ignorance, and consequently the phenomenons of "conformism" and "convenience".

> The fatalist philosophers and authors have been mostly proven right as time marched on.

In what sense? Most people today would not choose to go an live at any other point in history, except for window between about 1960 and 2008.

Life was much harder for the average person outside of this window at any other point.

Um, I expected a fair probability of being in a post-nuclear world by now. Global cooling wasn't real. Y2K didn't end the world. The population explosion didn't result in mass starvation. Peak oil didn't end civilization.

So no, I don't agree that "the fatalist philosophers and authors have been mostly proven right as time marched on." No, they haven't. There have been far more fatalistic predictions than there have been actual catastrophes.

That is because your idea of what is catastrophic does not align with ours. To us, this is full unthinkable dystopia. An uncivilized world weighs much more, is much worse to us, than the world of disasters you depict. Survival is a crude, lower ideal to us, when compared to that of living decently.

> with no ability to censor it Except, of course, policemen knocking on your door. Wouldn't be necessary anyways, most people would not even try broadcasting on the mere threat of arrest.

Seems like we have all the key technologies to edit anonymously and distribute info P2P-style with no known central control mechanism.