@ eac63075:b4988b48

Since its creation in 2009, Bitcoin has symbolized innovation and resilience. However, from time to time, alarmist narratives arise about emerging technologies that could "break" its security. Among these, quantum computing stands out as one of the most recurrent. But does quantum computing truly threaten Bitcoin? And more importantly, what is the community doing to ensure the protocol remains invulnerable?

The answer, contrary to sensationalist headlines, is reassuring: Bitcoin is secure, and the community is already preparing for a future where quantum computing becomes a practical reality. Let’s dive into this topic to understand why the concerns are exaggerated and how the development of BIP-360 demonstrates that Bitcoin is one step ahead.

---

What Is Quantum Computing, and Why Is Bitcoin Not Threatened?

Quantum computing leverages principles of quantum mechanics to perform calculations that, in theory, could exponentially surpass classical computers—and it has nothing to do with what so-called “quantum coaches” teach to scam the uninformed. One of the concerns is that this technology could compromise two key aspects of Bitcoin’s security:

1. Wallets: These use elliptic curve algorithms (ECDSA) to protect private keys. A sufficiently powerful quantum computer could deduce a private key from its public key.
2. Mining: This is based on the SHA-256 algorithm, which secures the consensus process. A quantum attack could, in theory, compromise the proof-of-work mechanism.

---

Understanding Quantum Computing’s Attack Priorities

While quantum computing is often presented as a threat to Bitcoin, not all parts of the network are equally vulnerable. Theoretical attacks would be prioritized based on two main factors: ease of execution and potential reward. This creates two categories of attacks:

1. Attacks on Wallets

Bitcoin wallets, secured by elliptic curve algorithms, would be the initial targets due to the relative vulnerability of their public keys, especially those already exposed on the blockchain. Two attack scenarios stand out:

• Short-term attacks: These occur during the interval between sending a transaction and its inclusion in a block (approximately 10 minutes). A quantum computer could intercept the exposed public key and derive the corresponding private key to redirect funds by creating a transaction with higher fees.

• Long-term attacks: These focus on old wallets whose public keys are permanently exposed. Wallets associated with Satoshi Nakamoto, for example, are especially vulnerable because they were created before the practice of using hashes to mask public keys.

We can infer a priority order for how such attacks might occur based on urgency and importance.

Bitcoin Quantum Attack: Prioritization Matrix (Urgency vs. Importance)

2. Attacks on Mining

Targeting the SHA-256 algorithm, which secures the mining process, would be the next objective. However, this is far more complex and requires a level of quantum computational power that is currently non-existent and far from realization. A successful attack would allow for the recalculation of all possible hashes to dominate the consensus process and potentially "mine" it instantly.

---

Satoshi Nakamoto in 2010 on Quantum Computing and Bitcoin Attacks

Recently, Narcelio asked me about a statement I made on Tubacast:

https://x.com/eddieoz/status/1868371296683511969

If an attack became a reality before Bitcoin was prepared, it would be necessary to define the last block prior to the attack and proceed from there using a new hashing algorithm. The solution would resemble the response to the infamous 2013 bug. It’s a fact that this would cause market panic, and Bitcoin's price would drop significantly, creating a potential opportunity for the well-informed.

Preferably, if developers could anticipate the threat and had time to work on a solution and build consensus before an attack, they would simply decide on a future block for the fork, which would then adopt the new algorithm. It might even rehash previous blocks (reaching consensus on them) to avoid potential reorganization through the re-mining of blocks using the old hash. (I often use the term "shielding" old transactions).

---

How Can Users Protect Themselves?

While quantum computing is still far from being a practical threat, some simple measures can already protect users against hypothetical scenarios:

• Avoid using exposed public keys: Ensure funds sent to old wallets are transferred to new ones that use public key hashes. This reduces the risk of long-term attacks.
• Use modern wallets: Opt for wallets compatible with SegWit or Taproot, which implement better security practices.
• Monitor security updates: Stay informed about updates from the Bitcoin community, such as the implementation of BIP-360, which will introduce quantum-resistant addresses.
• Do not reuse addresses: Every transaction should be associated with a new address to minimize the risk of repeated exposure of the same public key.
• Adopt secure backup practices: Create offline backups of private keys and seeds in secure locations, protected from unauthorized access.

---

BIP-360 and Bitcoin’s Preparation for the Future

Even though quantum computing is still beyond practical reach, the Bitcoin community is not standing still. A concrete example is BIP-360, a proposal that establishes the technical framework to make wallets resistant to quantum attacks.

BIP-360 addresses three main pillars:

1. Introduction of quantum-resistant addresses: A new address format starting with "BC1R" will be used. These addresses will be compatible with post-quantum algorithms, ensuring that stored funds are protected from future attacks.
2. Compatibility with the current ecosystem: The proposal allows users to transfer funds from old addresses to new ones without requiring drastic changes to the network infrastructure.
3. Flexibility for future updates: BIP-360 does not limit the choice of specific algorithms. Instead, it serves as a foundation for implementing new post-quantum algorithms as technology evolves.

This proposal demonstrates how Bitcoin can adapt to emerging threats without compromising its decentralized structure.

---

Post-Quantum Algorithms: The Future of Bitcoin Cryptography

The community is exploring various algorithms to protect Bitcoin from quantum attacks. Among the most discussed are:

• Falcon: A solution combining smaller public keys with compact digital signatures. Although it has been tested in limited scenarios, it still faces scalability and performance challenges.
• Sphincs: Hash-based, this algorithm is renowned for its resilience, but its signatures can be extremely large, making it less efficient for networks like Bitcoin’s blockchain.
• Lamport: Created in 1977, it’s considered one of the earliest post-quantum security solutions. Despite its reliability, its gigantic public keys (16,000 bytes) make it impractical and costly for Bitcoin.

Two technologies show great promise and are well-regarded by the community:

1. Lattice-Based Cryptography: Considered one of the most promising, it uses complex mathematical structures to create systems nearly immune to quantum computing. Its implementation is still in its early stages, but the community is optimistic.
2. Supersingular Elliptic Curve Isogeny: These are very recent digital signature algorithms and require extensive study and testing before being ready for practical market use.

The final choice of algorithm will depend on factors such as efficiency, cost, and integration capability with the current system. Additionally, it is preferable that these algorithms are standardized before implementation, a process that may take up to 10 years.

---

Why Quantum Computing Is Far from Being a Threat

The alarmist narrative about quantum computing overlooks the technical and practical challenges that still need to be overcome. Among them:

• Insufficient number of qubits: Current quantum computers have only a few hundred qubits, whereas successful attacks would require millions.
• High error rate: Quantum stability remains a barrier to reliable large-scale operations.
• High costs: Building and operating large-scale quantum computers requires massive investments, limiting their use to scientific or specific applications.

Moreover, even if quantum computers make significant advancements, Bitcoin is already adapting to ensure its infrastructure is prepared to respond.

---

Conclusion: Bitcoin’s Secure Future

Despite advancements in quantum computing, the reality is that Bitcoin is far from being threatened. Its security is ensured not only by its robust architecture but also by the community’s constant efforts to anticipate and mitigate challenges.

The implementation of BIP-360 and the pursuit of post-quantum algorithms demonstrate that Bitcoin is not only resilient but also proactive. By adopting practical measures, such as using modern wallets and migrating to quantum-resistant addresses, users can further protect themselves against potential threats.

Bitcoin’s future is not at risk—it is being carefully shaped to withstand any emerging technology, including quantum computing.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Was nützt die schönste Schuldenbremse, wenn der Russe vor der Tür steht? \ Wir können uns verteidigen lernen oder alle Russisch lernen. \ Jens Spahn

In der Politik ist buchstäblich keine Idee zu riskant, kein Mittel zu schäbig und keine Lüge zu dreist, als dass sie nicht benutzt würden. Aber der Clou ist, dass diese Masche immer noch funktioniert, wenn nicht sogar immer besser. Ist das alles wirklich so schwer zu durchschauen? Mir fehlen langsam die Worte.

Aktuell werden sowohl in der Europäischen Union als auch in Deutschland riesige Milliardenpakete für die Aufrüstung – also für die Rüstungsindustrie – geschnürt. Die EU will 800 Milliarden Euro locker machen, in Deutschland sollen es 500 Milliarden «Sondervermögen» sein. Verteidigung nennen das unsere «Führer», innerhalb der Union und auch an «unserer Ostflanke», der Ukraine.

Das nötige Feindbild konnte inzwischen signifikant erweitert werden. Schuld an allem und zudem gefährlich ist nicht mehr nur Putin, sondern jetzt auch Trump. Europa müsse sich sowohl gegen Russland als auch gegen die USA schützen und rüsten, wird uns eingetrichtert.

Und während durch Diplomatie genau dieser beiden Staaten gerade endlich mal Bewegung in die Bemühungen um einen Frieden oder wenigstens einen Waffenstillstand in der Ukraine kommt, rasselt man im moralisch überlegenen Zeigefinger-Europa so richtig mit dem Säbel.

Begleitet und gestützt wird der ganze Prozess – wie sollte es anders sein – von den «Qualitätsmedien». Dass Russland einen Angriff auf «Europa» plant, weiß nicht nur der deutsche Verteidigungsminister (und mit Abstand beliebteste Politiker) Pistorius, sondern dank ihnen auch jedes Kind. Uns bleiben nur noch wenige Jahre. Zum Glück bereitet sich die Bundeswehr schon sehr konkret auf einen Krieg vor.

Die FAZ und Corona-Gesundheitsminister Spahn markieren einen traurigen Höhepunkt. Hier haben sich «politische und publizistische Verantwortungslosigkeit propagandistisch gegenseitig befruchtet», wie es bei den NachDenkSeiten heißt. Die Aussage Spahns in dem Interview, «der Russe steht vor der Tür», ist das eine. Die Zeitung verschärfte die Sache jedoch, indem sie das Zitat explizit in den Titel übernahm, der in einer ersten Version scheinbar zu harmlos war.

Eine große Mehrheit der deutschen Bevölkerung findet Aufrüstung und mehr Schulden toll, wie ARD und ZDF sehr passend ermittelt haben wollen. Ähnliches gelte für eine noch stärkere militärische Unterstützung der Ukraine. Etwas skeptischer seien die Befragten bezüglich der Entsendung von Bundeswehrsoldaten dorthin, aber immerhin etwa fifty-fifty.

Eigentlich ist jedoch die Meinung der Menschen in «unseren Demokratien» irrelevant. Sowohl in der Europäischen Union als auch in Deutschland sind die «Eliten» offenbar der Ansicht, der Souverän habe in Fragen von Krieg und Frieden sowie von aberwitzigen astronomischen Schulden kein Wörtchen mitzureden. Frau von der Leyen möchte über 150 Milliarden aus dem Gesamtpaket unter Verwendung von Artikel 122 des EU-Vertrags ohne das Europäische Parlament entscheiden – wenn auch nicht völlig kritiklos.

In Deutschland wollen CDU/CSU und SPD zur Aufweichung der «Schuldenbremse» mehrere Änderungen des Grundgesetzes durch das abgewählte Parlament peitschen. Dieser Versuch, mit dem alten Bundestag eine Zweidrittelmehrheit zu erzielen, die im neuen nicht mehr gegeben wäre, ist mindestens verfassungsrechtlich umstritten.

Das Manöver scheint aber zu funktionieren. Heute haben die Grünen zugestimmt, nachdem Kanzlerkandidat Merz läppische 100 Milliarden für «irgendwas mit Klima» zugesichert hatte. Die Abstimmung im Plenum soll am kommenden Dienstag erfolgen – nur eine Woche, bevor sich der neu gewählte Bundestag konstituieren wird.

Interessant sind die Argumente, die BlackRocker Merz für seine Attacke auf Grundgesetz und Demokratie ins Feld führt. Abgesehen von der angeblichen Eile, «unsere Verteidigungsfähigkeit deutlich zu erhöhen» (ausgelöst unter anderem durch «die Münchner Sicherheitskonferenz und die Ereignisse im Weißen Haus»), ließ uns der CDU-Chef wissen, dass Deutschland einfach auf die internationale Bühne zurück müsse. Merz schwadronierte gefährlich mehrdeutig:

«Die ganze Welt schaut in diesen Tagen und Wochen auf Deutschland. Wir haben in der Europäischen Union und auf der Welt eine Aufgabe, die weit über die Grenzen unseres eigenen Landes hinausgeht.»

[Titelbild: Tag des Sieges]

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ a93be9fb:6d3fdc0c

Publishing new article

@ a95c6243:d345522c

«Wir brauchen eine digitale Brandmauer gegen den Faschismus», schreibt der Chaos Computer Club (CCC) auf seiner Website. Unter diesem Motto präsentierte er letzte Woche einen Forderungskatalog, mit dem sich 24 Organisationen an die kommende Bundesregierung wenden. Der Koalitionsvertrag müsse sich daran messen lassen, verlangen sie.

In den drei Kategorien «Bekenntnis gegen Überwachung», «Schutz und Sicherheit für alle» sowie «Demokratie im digitalen Raum» stellen die Unterzeichner, zu denen auch Amnesty International und Das NETTZ gehören, unter anderem die folgenden «Mindestanforderungen»:

• Verbot biometrischer Massenüberwachung des öffentlichen Raums sowie der ungezielten biometrischen Auswertung des Internets.
• Anlasslose und massenhafte Vorratsdatenspeicherung wird abgelehnt.
• Automatisierte Datenanalysen der Informationsbestände der Strafverfolgungsbehörden sowie jede Form von Predictive Policing oder automatisiertes Profiling von Menschen werden abgelehnt.
• Einführung eines Rechts auf Verschlüsselung. Die Bundesregierung soll sich dafür einsetzen, die Chatkontrolle auf europäischer Ebene zu verhindern.
• Anonyme und pseudonyme Nutzung des Internets soll geschützt und ermöglicht werden.
• Bekämpfung «privaten Machtmissbrauchs von Big-Tech-Unternehmen» durch durchsetzungsstarke, unabhängige und grundsätzlich föderale Aufsichtsstrukturen.
• Einführung eines digitalen Gewaltschutzgesetzes, unter Berücksichtigung «gruppenbezogener digitaler Gewalt» und die Förderung von Beratungsangeboten.
• Ein umfassendes Förderprogramm für digitale öffentliche Räume, die dezentral organisiert und quelloffen programmiert sind, soll aufgelegt werden.

Es sei ein Irrglaube, dass zunehmende Überwachung einen Zugewinn an Sicherheit darstelle, ist eines der Argumente der Initiatoren. Sicherheit erfordere auch, dass Menschen anonym und vertraulich kommunizieren können und ihre Privatsphäre geschützt wird.

Gesunde digitale Räume lebten auch von einem demokratischen Diskurs, lesen wir in dem Papier. Es sei Aufgabe des Staates, Grundrechte zu schützen. Dazu gehöre auch, Menschenrechte und demokratische Werte, insbesondere Freiheit, Gleichheit und Solidarität zu fördern sowie den Missbrauch von Maßnahmen, Befugnissen und Infrastrukturen durch «die Feinde der Demokratie» zu verhindern.

Man ist geneigt zu fragen, wo denn die Autoren «den Faschismus» sehen, den es zu bekämpfen gelte. Die meisten der vorgetragenen Forderungen und Argumente finden sicher breite Unterstützung, denn sie beschreiben offenkundig gängige, kritikwürdige Praxis. Die Aushebelung der Privatsphäre, der Redefreiheit und anderer Grundrechte im Namen der Sicherheit wird bereits jetzt massiv durch die aktuellen «demokratischen Institutionen» und ihre «durchsetzungsstarken Aufsichtsstrukturen» betrieben.

Ist «der Faschismus» also die EU und ihre Mitgliedsstaaten? Nein, die «faschistische Gefahr», gegen die man eine digitale Brandmauer will, kommt nach Ansicht des CCC und seiner Partner aus den Vereinigten Staaten. Private Überwachung und Machtkonzentration sind dabei weltweit schon lange Realität, jetzt endlich müssen sie jedoch bekämpft werden. In dem Papier heißt es:

«Die willkürliche und antidemokratische Machtausübung der Tech-Oligarchen um Präsident Trump erfordert einen Paradigmenwechsel in der deutschen Digitalpolitik. (...) Die aktuellen Geschehnisse in den USA zeigen auf, wie Datensammlungen und -analyse genutzt werden können, um einen Staat handstreichartig zu übernehmen, seine Strukturen nachhaltig zu beschädigen, Widerstand zu unterbinden und marginalisierte Gruppen zu verfolgen.»

Wer auf der anderen Seite dieser Brandmauer stehen soll, ist also klar. Es sind die gleichen «Feinde unserer Demokratie», die seit Jahren in diese Ecke gedrängt werden. Es sind die gleichen Andersdenkenden, Regierungskritiker und Friedensforderer, die unter dem großzügigen Dach des Bundesprogramms «Demokratie leben» einem «kontinuierlichen Echt- und Langzeitmonitoring» wegen der Etikettierung «digitaler Hass» unterzogen werden.

Dass die 24 Organisationen praktisch auch die Bekämpfung von Google, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon und anderen fordern, entbehrt nicht der Komik. Diese fallen aber sicher unter das Stichwort «Machtmissbrauch von Big-Tech-Unternehmen». Gleichzeitig verlangen die Lobbyisten implizit zum Beispiel die Förderung des Nostr-Netzwerks, denn hier finden wir dezentral organisierte und quelloffen programmierte digitale Räume par excellence, obendrein zensurresistent. Das wiederum dürfte in der Politik weniger gut ankommen.

[Titelbild: Pixabay]

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Die «Eliten» führen bereits groß angelegte Pilotprojekte für eine Zukunft durch, die sie wollen und wir nicht. Das schreibt der OffGuardian in einem Update zum Thema «EU-Brieftasche für die digitale Identität». Das Portal weist darauf hin, dass die Akteure dabei nicht gerade zimperlich vorgehen und auch keinen Hehl aus ihren Absichten machen. Transition News hat mehrfach darüber berichtet, zuletzt hier und hier.

Mit der EU Digital Identity Wallet (EUDI-Brieftasche) sei eine einzige von der Regierung herausgegebene App geplant, die Ihre medizinischen Daten, Beschäftigungsdaten, Reisedaten, Bildungsdaten, Impfdaten, Steuerdaten, Finanzdaten sowie (potenziell) Kopien Ihrer Unterschrift, Fingerabdrücke, Gesichtsscans, Stimmproben und DNA enthält. So fasst der OffGuardian die eindrucksvolle Liste möglicher Einsatzbereiche zusammen.

Auch Dokumente wie der Personalausweis oder der Führerschein können dort in elektronischer Form gespeichert werden. Bis 2026 sind alle EU-Mitgliedstaaten dazu verpflichtet, Ihren Bürgern funktionierende und frei verfügbare digitale «Brieftaschen» bereitzustellen.

Die Menschen würden diese App nutzen, so das Portal, um Zahlungen vorzunehmen, Kredite zu beantragen, ihre Steuern zu zahlen, ihre Rezepte abzuholen, internationale Grenzen zu überschreiten, Unternehmen zu gründen, Arzttermine zu buchen, sich um Stellen zu bewerben und sogar digitale Verträge online zu unterzeichnen.

All diese Daten würden auf ihrem Mobiltelefon gespeichert und mit den Regierungen von neunzehn Ländern (plus der Ukraine) sowie über 140 anderen öffentlichen und privaten Partnern ausgetauscht. Von der Deutschen Bank über das ukrainische Ministerium für digitalen Fortschritt bis hin zu Samsung Europe. Unternehmen und Behörden würden auf diese Daten im Backend zugreifen, um «automatisierte Hintergrundprüfungen» durchzuführen.

Der Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände (VZBV) habe Bedenken geäußert, dass eine solche App «Risiken für den Schutz der Privatsphäre und der Daten» berge, berichtet das Portal. Die einzige Antwort darauf laute: «Richtig, genau dafür ist sie ja da!»

Das alles sei keine Hypothese, betont der OffGuardian. Es sei vielmehr «Potential». Damit ist ein EU-Projekt gemeint, in dessen Rahmen Dutzende öffentliche und private Einrichtungen zusammenarbeiten, «um eine einheitliche Vision der digitalen Identität für die Bürger der europäischen Länder zu definieren». Dies ist nur eines der groß angelegten Pilotprojekte, mit denen Prototypen und Anwendungsfälle für die EUDI-Wallet getestet werden. Es gibt noch mindestens drei weitere.

Den Ball der digitalen ID-Systeme habe die Covid-«Pandemie» über die «Impfpässe» ins Rollen gebracht. Seitdem habe das Thema an Schwung verloren. Je näher wir aber der vollständigen Einführung der EUid kämen, desto mehr Propaganda der Art «Warum wir eine digitale Brieftasche brauchen» könnten wir in den Mainstream-Medien erwarten, prognostiziert der OffGuardian. Vielleicht müssten wir schon nach dem nächsten großen «Grund», dem nächsten «katastrophalen katalytischen Ereignis» Ausschau halten. Vermutlich gebe es bereits Pläne, warum die Menschen plötzlich eine digitale ID-Brieftasche brauchen würden.

Die Entwicklung geht jedenfalls stetig weiter in genau diese Richtung. Beispielsweise hat Jordanien angekündigt, die digitale biometrische ID bei den nächsten Wahlen zur Verifizierung der Wähler einzuführen. Man wolle «den Papierkrieg beenden und sicherstellen, dass die gesamte Kette bis zu den nächsten Parlamentswahlen digitalisiert wird», heißt es. Absehbar ist, dass dabei einige Wahlberechtigte «auf der Strecke bleiben» werden, wie im Fall von Albanien geschehen.

Derweil würden die Briten gerne ihre Privatsphäre gegen Effizienz eintauschen, behauptet Tony Blair. Der Ex-Premier drängte kürzlich erneut auf digitale Identitäten und Gesichtserkennung. Blair ist Gründer einer Denkfabrik für globalen Wandel, Anhänger globalistischer Technokratie und «moderner Infrastruktur».

Abschließend warnt der OffGuardian vor der Illusion, Trump und Musk würden den US-Bürgern «diesen Schlamassel ersparen». Das Department of Government Efficiency werde sich auf die digitale Identität stürzen. Was könne schließlich «effizienter» sein als eine einzige App, die für alles verwendet wird? Der Unterschied bestehe nur darin, dass die US-Version vielleicht eher privat als öffentlich sei – sofern es da überhaupt noch einen wirklichen Unterschied gebe.

[Titelbild: Screenshot OffGuardian]

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 8d34bd24:414be32b

This post was inspired by my Pastor’s sermon this morning. I’ve read this passage a bunch of times. I’ve always seen Jesus’s divinity. I’ve also seen the disciples’ lack of faith, but there is so much more to get out of this passage. It shocks me that I never saw it before and just had to share.

Now on one of those days Jesus and His disciples got into a boat, and He said to them, “Let us go over to the other side of the lake.” So they launched out. But as they were sailing along He fell asleep; and a fierce gale of wind descended on the lake, and they began to be swamped and to be in danger. They came to Jesus and woke Him up, saying, “Master, Master, we are perishing!” And He got up and rebuked the wind and the surging waves, and they stopped, and it became calm. And He said to them, “Where is your faith?” They were fearful and amazed, saying to one another, “Who then is this, that He commands even the winds and the water, and they obey Him?” (Luke 8:22-25)

It is obvious from this passage, that Jesus is divine. It reminds us of Genesis 1 when God speaks the waters into existence. It reminds me of Job:

“Or who enclosed the sea with doors\ When, bursting forth, it went out from the womb;\ When I made a cloud its garment\ And thick darkness its swaddling band,\ And I placed boundaries on it\ And set a bolt and doors,\ And I said, ‘Thus far you shall come, but no farther;\ And here shall your proud waves stop’? (Job 38:8-11) {emphasis mine}

Jesus spoke and the wind and waves instantly complied. All was instantly calm. Jesus’s actions scream His divinity, but there is so much more to get out of this passage in Luke 8.

Why?

My pastor asked everyone a key question, “When Jesus told His disciples to get in the boat and to cross to the other side, did He know there would be a big, life threatening storm?” The kids at church wisely shouted, “Yes!”

Several of Jesus’s disciples were fishermen. They worked their entire lives fishing in boats in the Sea of Galilee. The were familiar with boats, wind, waves, and storms, and yet they were terrified by this storm. This was not a little storm. This storm was tossing around the boat and splashing waves of water into the boat threatening to capsize it in the middle of this large body of water.

I can somewhat relate (but not fully). I grew up in Florida and we would occasionally take a boat a couple of hours across the ocean to and from the Bahamas (Abaccos). One time we had to make the crossing on a particular day to get me back to head off to college. At this time, there was a Hurricane in the gulf (other side of Florida) that were making really big waves. If my memory is correct, we were in a 34 foot long boat and the waves were taller than the boat was long. My Dad would give full throttle to ease up one side of wave and then pull back as we shot down the far side of the wave and then again and again for hours. If the engine had failed, we would have turned sideways and been capsized. If my Dad had not kept the boat straight into the waves, we would likely have capsized, but my Father knew what to do and we made it safely to shore.

Jesus knew this giant storm was going to blow up, but He told His disciples to head right into what would soon be a giant storm. One key thought that I had previously missed is that He did not send them into the storm alone. He went with His disciples.

Initially the disciples tried to battle the storm themselves, but it was a losing proposition. They were losing the battle with the storm and losing it badly. Finally, they went to Jesus. I like how the NIV says it, “The disciples went and woke him, saying, ‘Master, Master, we’re going to drown!’” Mark 4:38 says, “Jesus was in the stern, sleeping on a cushion. The disciples woke him and said to him, ‘Teacher, don’t you care if we drown?’” The disciples didn’t just ask for help; they accused Jesus of not caring. They called Him “Master” and “Teacher,” instead of “God” or “Lord.”

So going back to my Pastor’s question, why did Jesus, who knew there was going to be a terrible storm, tell His disciples to cross the water at that time? Was He teaching His disciples to trust in Him? Was He teaching His disciples to ask Him for help when they had a need? Was He teaching them who He was in a way that they would never forget? I think the answer to all of these questions is clearly, “Yes!”

Application

Now we need to look at this passage and ask, “what do we need to take away and learn from this passage?” and “how can we apply this passage?”

I think there are several key points:

1. Jesus knew what was about to happen to them.

2. Jesus had a plan and a purpose for putting them in this fearful and life threatening situation.

3. This hardship had a good purpose.

4. Jesus was with them through it all.

So often I have people who want to deny that a loving God would intentionally put themselves or others in uncomfortable, scary, or dangerous situations. They say, “God wouldn’t do that.” or “Why would God do that?” Yes, God does cause us to go through hard times (I refuse to say bad), but not to cause us pain or hardship, but to grow us in our faith and witness.

It is a rare person who grows in faith during ease and pleasant circumstances. Most of us require hardship to force us to stop doing everything on our own and to trust Jesus and to lean on His power (Yes, I am speaking from personal experience). Nothing glorifies God more than resting in Him during the storm. Yes, God cares and loves you very much. Yes, God is with you through every hardship you will ever experience. Yes, God wants the best for you. We may not appreciate it in the moment, but God cares more about your eternal good than your momentary ease and happiness. He gives you what you need instead of what you want.

The amazing thing is that when you learn to trust in Him, when you learn to rely on His power, and when you learn to look for His good work in every situation, you will find a joy and peace like you never imagined. Instead of chasing everything looking for the perfect situation to make you happy, you will rest in the hand of the Father knowing a joy and peace that surpasses all human understanding.

In child labor, a woman’s body does what it is supposed to do to produce a baby. Sometimes, out of fear or desire for control, a woman will fight the labor. They will tense up and it causes more pain. If they relax and trust that the delivery will happen as it should, the delivery is usually much easier. Similarly, when we fight Jesus during the storm, when we don’t trust His omnipotence and omniscience, and when we try to do it our way instead of His, we actually make these hard times more uncomfortable and less effective. Instead of learning what God is teaching us, we end up harming ourselves. Instead of building an amazing witness, we give God a bad name.

No matter how bad the storm, look to Jesus and know that He is God. He is our good and loving God who works everything for our good.

Trust Jesus

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Ständige Lügen und Unterstellungen, permanent falsche Fürsorge \ können Bausteine von emotionaler Manipulation sein. Mit dem Zweck, \ Macht und Kontrolle über eine andere Person auszuüben. \ Apotheken Umschau

Irgendetwas muss passiert sein: «Gaslighting» ist gerade Thema in vielen Medien. Heute bin ich nach längerer Zeit mal wieder über dieses Stichwort gestolpert. Das war in einem Artikel von Norbert Häring über Manipulationen des Deutschen Wetterdienstes (DWD). In diesem Fall ging es um eine Pressemitteilung vom Donnerstag zum «viel zu warmen» Winter 2024/25.

Häring wirft der Behörde vor, dreist zu lügen und Dinge auszulassen, um die Klimaangst wach zu halten. Was der Leser beim DWD nicht erfahre, sei, dass dieser Winter kälter als die drei vorangegangenen und kälter als der Durchschnitt der letzten zehn Jahre gewesen sei. Stattdessen werde der falsche Eindruck vermittelt, es würde ungebremst immer wärmer.

Wem also der zu Ende gehende Winter eher kalt vorgekommen sein sollte, mit dessen Empfinden stimme wohl etwas nicht. Das jedenfalls wolle der DWD uns einreden, so der Wirtschaftsjournalist. Und damit sind wir beim Thema Gaslighting.

Als Gaslighting wird eine Form psychischer Manipulation bezeichnet, mit der die Opfer desorientiert und zutiefst verunsichert werden, indem ihre eigene Wahrnehmung als falsch bezeichnet wird. Der Prozess führt zu Angst und Realitätsverzerrung sowie zur Zerstörung des Selbstbewusstseins. Die Bezeichnung kommt von dem britischen Theaterstück «Gas Light» aus dem Jahr 1938, in dem ein Mann mit grausamen Psychotricks seine Frau in den Wahnsinn treibt.

Damit Gaslighting funktioniert, muss das Opfer dem Täter vertrauen. Oft wird solcher Psychoterror daher im privaten oder familiären Umfeld beschrieben, ebenso wie am Arbeitsplatz. Jedoch eignen sich die Prinzipien auch perfekt zur Manipulation der Massen. Vermeintliche Autoritäten wie Ärzte und Wissenschaftler, oder «der fürsorgliche Staat» und Institutionen wie die UNO oder die WHO wollen uns doch nichts Böses. Auch Staatsmedien, Faktenchecker und diverse NGOs wurden zu «vertrauenswürdigen Quellen» erklärt. Das hat seine Wirkung.

Warum das Thema Gaslighting derzeit scheinbar so populär ist, vermag ich nicht zu sagen. Es sind aber gerade in den letzten Tagen und Wochen auffällig viele Artikel dazu erschienen, und zwar nicht nur von Psychologen. Die Frankfurter Rundschau hat gleich mehrere publiziert, und Anwälte interessieren sich dafür offenbar genauso wie Apotheker.

Die Apotheken Umschau machte sogar auf «Medical Gaslighting» aufmerksam. Davon spreche man, wenn Mediziner Symptome nicht ernst nähmen oder wenn ein gesundheitliches Problem vom behandelnden Arzt «schnöde heruntergespielt» oder abgetan würde. Kommt Ihnen das auch irgendwie bekannt vor? Der Begriff sei allerdings irreführend, da er eine manipulierende Absicht unterstellt, die «nicht gewährleistet» sei.

Apropos Gaslighting: Die noch amtierende deutsche Bundesregierung meldete heute, es gelte, «weiter [sic!] gemeinsam daran zu arbeiten, einen gerechten und dauerhaften Frieden für die Ukraine zu erreichen». Die Ukraine, wo sich am Montag «der völkerrechtswidrige Angriffskrieg zum dritten Mal jährte», verteidige ihr Land und «unsere gemeinsamen Werte».

Merken Sie etwas? Das Demokratieverständnis mag ja tatsächlich inzwischen in beiden Ländern ähnlich traurig sein. Bezüglich Friedensbemühungen ist meine Wahrnehmung jedoch eine andere. Das muss an meinem Gedächtnis liegen.

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Europa – das Ganze ist eine wunderbare Idee, \ aber das war der Kommunismus auch. \ Loriot

«Europa hat fertig», könnte man unken, und das wäre nicht einmal sehr verwegen. Mit solch einer Einschätzung stünden wir nicht alleine, denn die Stimmen in diese Richtung mehren sich. Der französische Präsident Emmanuel Macron warnte schon letztes Jahr davor, dass «unser Europa sterben könnte». Vermutlich hatte er dabei andere Gefahren im Kopf als jetzt der ungarische Ministerpräsident Viktor Orbán, der ein «baldiges Ende der EU» prognostizierte. Das Ergebnis könnte allerdings das gleiche sein.

Neben vordergründigen Themenbereichen wie Wirtschaft, Energie und Sicherheit ist das eigentliche Problem jedoch die obskure Mischung aus aufgegebener Souveränität und geschwollener Arroganz, mit der europäische Politiker:innende unterschiedlicher Couleur aufzutreten pflegen. Und das Tüpfelchen auf dem i ist die bröckelnde Legitimation politischer Institutionen dadurch, dass die Stimmen großer Teile der Bevölkerung seit Jahren auf vielfältige Weise ausgegrenzt werden.

Um «UnsereDemokratie» steht es schlecht. Dass seine Mandate immer schwächer werden, merkt natürlich auch unser «Führungspersonal». Entsprechend werden die Maßnahmen zur Gängelung, Überwachung und Manipulation der Bürger ständig verzweifelter. Parallel dazu plustern sich in Paris Macron, Scholz und einige andere noch einmal mächtig in Sachen Verteidigung und «Kriegstüchtigkeit» auf.

Momentan gilt es auch, das Überschwappen covidiotischer und verschwörungsideologischer Auswüchse aus den USA nach Europa zu vermeiden. So ein «MEGA» (Make Europe Great Again) können wir hier nicht gebrauchen. Aus den Vereinigten Staaten kommen nämlich furchtbare Nachrichten. Beispielsweise wurde einer der schärfsten Kritiker der Corona-Maßnahmen kürzlich zum Gesundheitsminister ernannt. Dieser setzt sich jetzt für eine Neubewertung der mRNA-«Impfstoffe» ein, was durchaus zu einem Entzug der Zulassungen führen könnte.

Der europäischen Version von «Verteidigung der Demokratie» setzte der US-Vizepräsident J. D. Vance auf der Münchner Sicherheitskonferenz sein Verständnis entgegen: «Demokratie stärken, indem wir unseren Bürgern erlauben, ihre Meinung zu sagen». Das Abschalten von Medien, das Annullieren von Wahlen oder das Ausschließen von Menschen vom politischen Prozess schütze gar nichts. Vielmehr sei dies der todsichere Weg, die Demokratie zu zerstören.

In der Schweiz kamen seine Worte deutlich besser an als in den meisten europäischen NATO-Ländern. Bundespräsidentin Karin Keller-Sutter lobte die Rede und interpretierte sie als «Plädoyer für die direkte Demokratie». Möglicherweise zeichne sich hier eine außenpolitische Kehrtwende in Richtung integraler Neutralität ab, meint mein Kollege Daniel Funk. Das wären doch endlich mal ein paar gute Nachrichten.

Von der einstigen Idee einer europäischen Union mit engeren Beziehungen zwischen den Staaten, um Konflikte zu vermeiden und das Wohlergehen der Bürger zu verbessern, sind wir meilenweit abgekommen. Der heutige korrupte Verbund unter technokratischer Leitung ähnelt mehr einem Selbstbedienungsladen mit sehr begrenztem Zugang. Die EU-Wahlen im letzten Sommer haben daran ebenso wenig geändert, wie die Bundestagswahl am kommenden Sonntag darauf einen Einfluss haben wird.

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 8fb140b4:f948000c

As many of you know, https://nostr.build has recently launched a new compatibility layer for the Blossom protocol blossom.band. You can find all the details about what it supports and its limitations by visiting the URL.

I wanted to cover some of the technical details about how it works here. One key difference you may notice is that the service acts as a linker, redirecting requests for the media hash to the actual source of the media—specifically, the nostr.build URL. This allows us to maintain a unified CDN cache and ensure that your media is served as quickly as possible.

Another difference is that each uploaded media/blob is served under its own subdomain (e.g., npub1[...].blossom.band), ensuring that your association with the blob is controlled by you. If you decide to delete the media for any reason, we ensure that the link is broken, even if someone else has duplicated it using the same hash.

To comply with the Blossom protocol, we also link the same hash under the main (apex) domain (blossom.band) and collect all associations under it. This ensures that Blossom clients can fetch media based on users’ Blossom server settings. If you are the sole owner of the hash and there are no duplicates, deleting the media removes the link from the main domain as well.

Lastly, in line with our mission to protect users’ privacy, we reject any media that contains private metadata (such as GPS coordinates, user comments, or camera serial numbers) or strip it if you use the /media/ endpoint for upload.

As always, your feedback is welcome and appreciated. Thank you!

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Die «moralische Weltordnung» – eine Art Astrologie. Friedrich Nietzsche

Das Treffen der BRICS-Staaten beim Gipfel im russischen Kasan war sicher nicht irgendein politisches Event. Gastgeber Wladimir Putin habe «Hof gehalten», sagen die Einen, China und Russland hätten ihre Vorstellung einer multipolaren Weltordnung zelebriert, schreiben Andere.

In jedem Fall zeigt die Anwesenheit von über 30 Delegationen aus der ganzen Welt, dass von einer geostrategischen Isolation Russlands wohl keine Rede sein kann. Darüber hinaus haben sowohl die Anreise von UN-Generalsekretär António Guterres als auch die Meldungen und Dementis bezüglich der Beitrittsbemühungen des NATO-Staats Türkei für etwas Aufsehen gesorgt.

Im Spannungsfeld geopolitischer und wirtschaftlicher Umbrüche zeigt die neue Allianz zunehmendes Selbstbewusstsein. In Sachen gemeinsamer Finanzpolitik schmiedet man interessante Pläne. Größere Unabhängigkeit von der US-dominierten Finanzordnung ist dabei ein wichtiges Ziel.

Beim BRICS-Wirtschaftsforum in Moskau, wenige Tage vor dem Gipfel, zählte ein nachhaltiges System für Finanzabrechnungen und Zahlungsdienste zu den vorrangigen Themen. Während dieses Treffens ging der russische Staatsfonds eine Partnerschaft mit dem Rechenzentrumsbetreiber BitRiver ein, um Bitcoin-Mining-Anlagen für die BRICS-Länder zu errichten.

Die Initiative könnte ein Schritt sein, Bitcoin und andere Kryptowährungen als Alternativen zu traditionellen Finanzsystemen zu etablieren. Das Projekt könnte dazu führen, dass die BRICS-Staaten den globalen Handel in Bitcoin abwickeln. Vor dem Hintergrund der Diskussionen über eine «BRICS-Währung» wäre dies eine Alternative zu dem ursprünglich angedachten Korb lokaler Währungen und zu goldgedeckten Währungen sowie eine mögliche Ergänzung zum Zahlungssystem BRICS Pay.

Dient der Bitcoin also der Entdollarisierung? Oder droht er inzwischen, zum Gegenstand geopolitischer Machtspielchen zu werden? Angesichts der globalen Vernetzungen ist es oft schwer zu durchschauen, «was eine Show ist und was im Hintergrund von anderen Strippenziehern insgeheim gesteuert wird». Sicher können Strukturen wie Bitcoin auch so genutzt werden, dass sie den Herrschenden dienlich sind. Aber die Grundeigenschaft des dezentralisierten, unzensierbaren Peer-to-Peer Zahlungsnetzwerks ist ihm schließlich nicht zu nehmen.

Wenn es nach der EZB oder dem IWF geht, dann scheint statt Instrumentalisierung momentan eher der Kampf gegen Kryptowährungen angesagt. Jürgen Schaaf, Senior Manager bei der Europäischen Zentralbank, hat jedenfalls dazu aufgerufen, Bitcoin «zu eliminieren». Der Internationale Währungsfonds forderte El Salvador, das Bitcoin 2021 als gesetzliches Zahlungsmittel eingeführt hat, kürzlich zu begrenzenden Maßnahmen gegen das Kryptogeld auf.

Dass die BRICS-Staaten ein freiheitliches Ansinnen im Kopf haben, wenn sie Kryptowährungen ins Spiel bringen, darf indes auch bezweifelt werden. Im Abschlussdokument bekennen sich die Gipfel-Teilnehmer ausdrücklich zur UN, ihren Programmen und ihrer «Agenda 2030». Ernst Wolff nennt das «eine Bankrotterklärung korrupter Politiker, die sich dem digital-finanziellen Komplex zu 100 Prozent unterwerfen».

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ eac63075:b4988b48

Based on a recent paper that included collaboration from renowned experts such as Lynn Alden, Steve Lee, and Ren Crypto Fish, we discuss in depth how Bitcoin's consensus is built, the main risks, and the complex dynamics of protocol upgrades.

PT-BR version

Podcast https://www.fountain.fm/episode/wbjD6ntQuvX5u2G5BccC

Presentation https://gamma.app/docs/Analyzing-Bitcoin-Consensus-Risks-in-Protocol-Upgrades-p66axxjwaa37ksn

1. Introduction to Consensus in Bitcoin

Consensus in Bitcoin is the foundation that keeps the network secure and functional, allowing users worldwide to perform transactions in a decentralized manner without the need for intermediaries. Since its launch in 2009, Bitcoin is often described as an "immutable" system designed to resist changes, and it is precisely this resistance that ensures its security and stability.

The central idea behind consensus in Bitcoin is to create a set of acceptance rules for blocks and transactions, ensuring that all network participants agree on the transaction history. This prevents "double-spending," where the same bitcoin could be used in two simultaneous transactions, something that would compromise trust in the network.

Evolution of Consensus in Bitcoin

Over the years, consensus in Bitcoin has undergone several adaptations, and the way participants agree on changes remains a delicate process. Unlike traditional systems, where changes can be imposed from the top down, Bitcoin operates in a decentralized model where any significant change needs the support of various groups of stakeholders, including miners, developers, users, and large node operators.

Moreover, the update process is extremely cautious, as hasty changes can compromise the network's security. As a result, the philosophy of "don't fix what isn't broken" prevails, with improvements happening incrementally and only after broad consensus among those involved. This model can make progress seem slow but ensures that Bitcoin remains faithful to the principles of security and decentralization.

---

2. Technical Components of Consensus

Bitcoin's consensus is supported by a set of technical rules that determine what is considered a valid transaction and a valid block on the network. These technical aspects ensure that all nodes—the computers that participate in the Bitcoin network—agree on the current state of the blockchain. Below are the main technical components that form the basis of the consensus.

Validation of Blocks and Transactions

The validation of blocks and transactions is the central point of consensus in Bitcoin. A block is only considered valid if it meets certain criteria, such as maximum size, transaction structure, and the solving of the "Proof of Work" problem. The proof of work, required for a block to be included in the blockchain, is a computational process that ensures the block contains significant computational effort—protecting the network against manipulation attempts.

Transactions, in turn, need to follow specific input and output rules. Each transaction includes cryptographic signatures that prove the ownership of the bitcoins sent, as well as validation scripts that verify if the transaction conditions are met. This validation system is essential for network nodes to autonomously confirm that each transaction follows the rules.

Chain Selection

Another fundamental technical issue for Bitcoin's consensus is chain selection, which becomes especially important in cases where multiple versions of the blockchain coexist, such as after a network split (fork). To decide which chain is the "true" one and should be followed, the network adopts the criterion of the highest accumulated proof of work. In other words, the chain with the highest number of valid blocks, built with the greatest computational effort, is chosen by the network as the official one.

This criterion avoids permanent splits because it encourages all nodes to follow the same main chain, reinforcing consensus.

Soft Forks vs. Hard Forks

In the consensus process, protocol changes can happen in two ways: through soft forks or hard forks. These variations affect not only the protocol update but also the implications for network users:

• Soft Forks: These are changes that are backward compatible. Only nodes that adopt the new update will follow the new rules, but old nodes will still recognize the blocks produced with these rules as valid. This compatibility makes soft forks a safer option for updates, as it minimizes the risk of network division.

• Hard Forks: These are updates that are not backward compatible, requiring all nodes to update to the new version or risk being separated from the main chain. Hard forks can result in the creation of a new coin, as occurred with the split between Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash in 2017. While hard forks allow for deeper changes, they also bring significant risks of network fragmentation.

These technical components form the base of Bitcoin's security and resilience, allowing the system to remain functional and immutable without losing the necessary flexibility to evolve over time.

---

3. Stakeholders in Bitcoin's Consensus

Consensus in Bitcoin is not decided centrally. On the contrary, it depends on the interaction between different groups of stakeholders, each with their motivations, interests, and levels of influence. These groups play fundamental roles in how changes are implemented or rejected on the network. Below, we explore the six main stakeholders in Bitcoin's consensus.

1. Economic Nodes

Economic nodes, usually operated by exchanges, custody providers, and large companies that accept Bitcoin, exert significant influence over consensus. Because they handle large volumes of transactions and act as a connection point between the Bitcoin ecosystem and the traditional financial system, these nodes have the power to validate or reject blocks and to define which version of the software to follow in case of a fork.

Their influence is proportional to the volume of transactions they handle, and they can directly affect which chain will be seen as the main one. Their incentive is to maintain the network's stability and security to preserve its functionality and meet regulatory requirements.

2. Investors

Investors, including large institutional funds and individual Bitcoin holders, influence consensus indirectly through their impact on the asset's price. Their buying and selling actions can affect Bitcoin's value, which in turn influences the motivation of miners and other stakeholders to continue investing in the network's security and development.

Some institutional investors have agreements with custodians that may limit their ability to act in network split situations. Thus, the impact of each investor on consensus can vary based on their ownership structure and how quickly they can react to a network change.

3. Media Influencers

Media influencers, including journalists, analysts, and popular personalities on social media, have a powerful role in shaping public opinion about Bitcoin and possible updates. These influencers can help educate the public, promote debates, and bring transparency to the consensus process.

On the other hand, the impact of influencers can be double-edged: while they can clarify complex topics, they can also distort perceptions by amplifying or minimizing change proposals. This makes them a force both of support and resistance to consensus.

4. Miners

Miners are responsible for validating transactions and including blocks in the blockchain. Through computational power (hashrate), they also exert significant influence over consensus decisions. In update processes, miners often signal their support for a proposal, indicating that the new version is safe to use. However, this signaling is not always definitive, and miners can change their position if they deem it necessary.

Their incentive is to maximize returns from block rewards and transaction fees, as well as to maintain the value of investments in their specialized equipment, which are only profitable if the network remains stable.

5. Protocol Developers

Protocol developers, often called "Core Developers," are responsible for writing and maintaining Bitcoin's code. Although they do not have direct power over consensus, they possess an informal veto power since they decide which changes are included in the main client (Bitcoin Core). This group also serves as an important source of technical knowledge, helping guide decisions and inform other stakeholders.

Their incentive lies in the continuous improvement of the network, ensuring security and decentralization. Many developers are funded by grants and sponsorships, but their motivations generally include a strong ideological commitment to Bitcoin's principles.

6. Users and Application Developers

This group includes people who use Bitcoin in their daily transactions and developers who build solutions based on the network, such as wallets, exchanges, and payment platforms. Although their power in consensus is less than that of miners or economic nodes, they play an important role because they are responsible for popularizing Bitcoin's use and expanding the ecosystem.

If application developers decide not to adopt an update, this can affect compatibility and widespread acceptance. Thus, they indirectly influence consensus by deciding which version of the protocol to follow in their applications.

These stakeholders are vital to the consensus process, and each group exerts influence according to their involvement, incentives, and ability to act in situations of change. Understanding the role of each makes it clearer how consensus is formed and why it is so difficult to make significant changes to Bitcoin.

---

4. Mechanisms for Activating Updates in Bitcoin

For Bitcoin to evolve without compromising security and consensus, different mechanisms for activating updates have been developed over the years. These mechanisms help coordinate changes among network nodes to minimize the risk of fragmentation and ensure that updates are implemented in an orderly manner. Here, we explore some of the main methods used in Bitcoin, their advantages and disadvantages, as well as historical examples of significant updates.

Flag Day

The Flag Day mechanism is one of the simplest forms of activating changes. In it, a specific date or block is determined as the activation moment, and all nodes must be updated by that point. This method does not involve prior signaling; participants simply need to update to the new software version by the established day or block.

• Advantages: Simplicity and predictability are the main benefits of Flag Day, as everyone knows the exact activation date.

• Disadvantages: Inflexibility can be a problem because there is no way to adjust the schedule if a significant part of the network has not updated. This can result in network splits if a significant number of nodes are not ready for the update.

An example of Flag Day was the Pay to Script Hash (P2SH) update in 2012, which required all nodes to adopt the change to avoid compatibility issues.

BIP34 and BIP9

BIP34 introduced a more dynamic process, in which miners increase the version number in block headers to signal the update. When a predetermined percentage of the last blocks is mined with this new version, the update is automatically activated. This model later evolved with BIP9, which allowed multiple updates to be signaled simultaneously through "version bits," each corresponding to a specific change.

• Advantages: Allows the network to activate updates gradually, giving more time for participants to adapt.

• Disadvantages: These methods rely heavily on miner support, which means that if a sufficient number of miners do not signal the update, it can be delayed or not implemented.

BIP9 was used in the activation of SegWit (BIP141) but faced challenges because some miners did not signal their intent to activate, leading to the development of new mechanisms.

User Activated Soft Forks (UASF) and User Resisted Soft Forks (URSF)

To increase the decision-making power of ordinary users, the concept of User Activated Soft Fork (UASF) was introduced, allowing node operators, not just miners, to determine consensus for a change. In this model, nodes set a date to start rejecting blocks that are not in compliance with the new update, forcing miners to adapt or risk having their blocks rejected by the network.

URSF, in turn, is a model where nodes reject blocks that attempt to adopt a specific update, functioning as resistance against proposed changes.

• Advantages: UASF returns decision-making power to node operators, ensuring that changes do not depend solely on miners.

• Disadvantages: Both UASF and URSF can generate network splits, especially in cases of strong opposition among different stakeholders.

An example of UASF was the activation of SegWit in 2017, where users supported activation independently of miner signaling, which ended up forcing its adoption.

BIP8 (LOT=True)

BIP8 is an evolution of BIP9, designed to prevent miners from indefinitely blocking a change desired by the majority of users and developers. BIP8 allows setting a parameter called "lockinontimeout" (LOT) as true, which means that if the update has not been fully signaled by a certain point, it is automatically activated.

• Advantages: Ensures that changes with broad support among users are not blocked by miners who wish to maintain the status quo.

• Disadvantages: Can lead to network splits if miners or other important stakeholders do not support the update.

Although BIP8 with LOT=True has not yet been used in Bitcoin, it is a proposal that can be applied in future updates if necessary.

These activation mechanisms have been essential for Bitcoin's development, allowing updates that keep the network secure and functional. Each method brings its own advantages and challenges, but all share the goal of preserving consensus and network cohesion.

---

5. Risks and Considerations in Consensus Updates

Consensus updates in Bitcoin are complex processes that involve not only technical aspects but also political, economic, and social considerations. Due to the network's decentralized nature, each change brings with it a set of risks that need to be carefully assessed. Below, we explore some of the main challenges and future scenarios, as well as the possible impacts on stakeholders.

Network Fragility with Alternative Implementations

One of the main risks associated with consensus updates is the possibility of network fragmentation when there are alternative software implementations. If an update is implemented by a significant group of nodes but rejected by others, a network split (fork) can occur. This creates two competing chains, each with a different version of the transaction history, leading to unpredictable consequences for users and investors.

Such fragmentation weakens Bitcoin because, by dividing hashing power (computing) and coin value, it reduces network security and investor confidence. A notable example of this risk was the fork that gave rise to Bitcoin Cash in 2017 when disagreements over block size resulted in a new chain and a new asset.

Chain Splits and Impact on Stakeholders

Chain splits are a significant risk in update processes, especially in hard forks. During a hard fork, the network is split into two separate chains, each with its own set of rules. This results in the creation of a new coin and leaves users with duplicated assets on both chains. While this may seem advantageous, in the long run, these splits weaken the network and create uncertainties for investors.

Each group of stakeholders reacts differently to a chain split:

• Institutional Investors and ETFs: Face regulatory and compliance challenges because many of these assets are managed under strict regulations. The creation of a new coin requires decisions to be made quickly to avoid potential losses, which may be hampered by regulatory constraints.

• Miners: May be incentivized to shift their computing power to the chain that offers higher profitability, which can weaken one of the networks.

• Economic Nodes: Such as major exchanges and custody providers, have to quickly choose which chain to support, influencing the perceived value of each network.

Such divisions can generate uncertainties and loss of value, especially for institutional investors and those who use Bitcoin as a store of value.

Regulatory Impacts and Institutional Investors

With the growing presence of institutional investors in Bitcoin, consensus changes face new compliance challenges. Bitcoin ETFs, for example, are required to follow strict rules about which assets they can include and how chain split events should be handled. The creation of a new asset or migration to a new chain can complicate these processes, creating pressure for large financial players to quickly choose a chain, affecting the stability of consensus.

Moreover, decisions regarding forks can influence the Bitcoin futures and derivatives market, affecting perception and adoption by new investors. Therefore, the need to avoid splits and maintain cohesion is crucial to attract and preserve the confidence of these investors.

Security Considerations in Soft Forks and Hard Forks

While soft forks are generally preferred in Bitcoin for their backward compatibility, they are not without risks. Soft forks can create different classes of nodes on the network (updated and non-updated), which increases operational complexity and can ultimately weaken consensus cohesion. In a network scenario with fragmentation of node classes, Bitcoin's security can be affected, as some nodes may lose part of the visibility over updated transactions or rules.

In hard forks, the security risk is even more evident because all nodes need to adopt the new update to avoid network division. Experience shows that abrupt changes can create temporary vulnerabilities, in which malicious agents try to exploit the transition to attack the network.

Bounty Claim Risks and Attack Scenarios

Another risk in consensus updates are so-called "bounty claims"—accumulated rewards that can be obtained if an attacker manages to split or deceive a part of the network. In a conflict scenario, a group of miners or nodes could be incentivized to support a new update or create an alternative version of the software to benefit from these rewards.

These risks require stakeholders to carefully assess each update and the potential vulnerabilities it may introduce. The possibility of "bounty claims" adds a layer of complexity to consensus because each interest group may see a financial opportunity in a change that, in the long term, may harm network stability.

The risks discussed above show the complexity of consensus in Bitcoin and the importance of approaching it gradually and deliberately. Updates need to consider not only technical aspects but also economic and social implications, in order to preserve Bitcoin's integrity and maintain trust among stakeholders.

---

6. Recommendations for the Consensus Process in Bitcoin

To ensure that protocol changes in Bitcoin are implemented safely and with broad support, it is essential that all stakeholders adopt a careful and coordinated approach. Here are strategic recommendations for evaluating, supporting, or rejecting consensus updates, considering the risks and challenges discussed earlier, along with best practices for successful implementation.

1. Careful Evaluation of Proposal Maturity

Stakeholders should rigorously assess the maturity level of a proposal before supporting its implementation. Updates that are still experimental or lack a robust technical foundation can expose the network to unnecessary risks. Ideally, change proposals should go through an extensive testing phase, have security audits, and receive review and feedback from various developers and experts.

2. Extensive Testing in Secure and Compatible Networks

Before an update is activated on the mainnet, it is essential to test it on networks like testnet and signet, and whenever possible, on other compatible networks that offer a safe and controlled environment to identify potential issues. Testing on networks like Litecoin was fundamental for the safe launch of innovations like SegWit and the Lightning Network, allowing functionalities to be validated on a lower-impact network before being implemented on Bitcoin.

The Liquid Network, developed by Blockstream, also plays an important role as an experimental network for new proposals, such as OP_CAT. By adopting these testing environments, stakeholders can mitigate risks and ensure that the update is reliable and secure before being adopted by the main network.

3. Importance of Stakeholder Engagement

The success of a consensus update strongly depends on the active participation of all stakeholders. This includes economic nodes, miners, protocol developers, investors, and end users. Lack of participation can lead to inadequate decisions or even future network splits, which would compromise Bitcoin's security and stability.

4. Key Questions for Evaluating Consensus Proposals

To assist in decision-making, each group of stakeholders should consider some key questions before supporting a consensus change:

• Does the proposal offer tangible benefits for Bitcoin's security, scalability, or usability?
• Does it maintain backward compatibility or introduce the risk of network split?
• Are the implementation requirements clear and feasible for each group involved?
• Are there clear and aligned incentives for all stakeholder groups to accept the change?

5. Coordination and Timing in Implementations

Timing is crucial. Updates with short activation windows can force a split because not all nodes and miners can update simultaneously. Changes should be planned with ample deadlines to allow all stakeholders to adjust their systems, avoiding surprises that could lead to fragmentation.

Mechanisms like soft forks are generally preferable to hard forks because they allow a smoother transition. Opting for backward-compatible updates when possible facilitates the process and ensures that nodes and miners can adapt without pressure.

6. Continuous Monitoring and Re-evaluation

After an update, it's essential to monitor the network to identify problems or side effects. This continuous process helps ensure cohesion and trust among all participants, keeping Bitcoin as a secure and robust network.

These recommendations, including the use of secure networks for extensive testing, promote a collaborative and secure environment for Bitcoin's consensus process. By adopting a deliberate and strategic approach, stakeholders can preserve Bitcoin's value as a decentralized and censorship-resistant network.

---

7. Conclusion

Consensus in Bitcoin is more than a set of rules; it's the foundation that sustains the network as a decentralized, secure, and reliable system. Unlike centralized systems, where decisions can be made quickly, Bitcoin requires a much more deliberate and cooperative approach, where the interests of miners, economic nodes, developers, investors, and users must be considered and harmonized. This governance model may seem slow, but it is fundamental to preserving the resilience and trust that make Bitcoin a global store of value and censorship-resistant.

Consensus updates in Bitcoin must balance the need for innovation with the preservation of the network's core principles. The development process of a proposal needs to be detailed and rigorous, going through several testing stages, such as in testnet, signet, and compatible networks like Litecoin and Liquid Network. These networks offer safe environments for proposals to be analyzed and improved before being launched on the main network.

Each proposed change must be carefully evaluated regarding its maturity, impact, backward compatibility, and support among stakeholders. The recommended key questions and appropriate timing are critical to ensure that an update is adopted without compromising network cohesion. It's also essential that the implementation process is continuously monitored and re-evaluated, allowing adjustments as necessary and minimizing the risk of instability.

By following these guidelines, Bitcoin's stakeholders can ensure that the network continues to evolve safely and robustly, maintaining user trust and further solidifying its role as one of the most resilient and innovative digital assets in the world. Ultimately, consensus in Bitcoin is not just a technical issue but a reflection of its community and the values it represents: security, decentralization, and resilience.

---

8. Links

Whitepaper: https://github.com/bitcoin-cap/bcap

Youtube (pt-br): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rARycAibl9o&list=PL-qnhF0qlSPkfhorqsREuIu4UTbF0h4zb

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Auf der diesjährigen Münchner Sicherheitskonferenz geht es vor allem um die Ukraine. Protagonisten sind dabei zunächst die US-Amerikaner. Präsident Trump schockierte die Europäer kurz vorher durch ein Telefonat mit seinem Amtskollegen Wladimir Putin, während Vizepräsident Vance mit seiner Rede über Demokratie und Meinungsfreiheit für versteinerte Mienen und Empörung sorgte.

Die Bemühungen der Europäer um einen Frieden in der Ukraine halten sich, gelinde gesagt, in Grenzen. Größeres Augenmerk wird auf militärische Unterstützung, die Pflege von Feindbildern sowie Eskalation gelegt. Der deutsche Bundeskanzler Scholz reagierte auf die angekündigten Verhandlungen über einen möglichen Frieden für die Ukraine mit der Forderung nach noch höheren «Verteidigungsausgaben». Auch die amtierende Außenministerin Baerbock hatte vor der Münchner Konferenz klargestellt:

«Frieden wird es nur durch Stärke geben. (...) Bei Corona haben wir gesehen, zu was Europa fähig ist. Es braucht erneut Investitionen, die der historischen Wegmarke, vor der wir stehen, angemessen sind.»

Die Rüstungsindustrie freut sich in jedem Fall über weltweit steigende Militärausgaben. Die Kriege in der Ukraine und in Gaza tragen zu Rekordeinnahmen bei. Jetzt «winkt die Aussicht auf eine jahrelange große Nachrüstung in Europa», auch wenn der Ukraine-Krieg enden sollte, so hört man aus Finanzkreisen. In der Konsequenz kennt «die Aktie des deutschen Vorzeige-Rüstungskonzerns Rheinmetall in ihrem Anstieg offenbar gar keine Grenzen mehr». «Solche Friedensversprechen» wie das jetzige hätten in der Vergangenheit zu starken Kursverlusten geführt.

Für manche Leute sind Kriegswaffen und sonstige Rüstungsgüter Waren wie alle anderen, jedenfalls aus der Perspektive von Investoren oder Managern. Auch in diesem Bereich gibt es Startups und man spricht von Dingen wie innovativen Herangehensweisen, hocheffizienten Produktionsanlagen, skalierbaren Produktionstechniken und geringeren Stückkosten.

Wir lesen aktuell von Massenproduktion und gesteigerten Fertigungskapazitäten für Kriegsgerät. Der Motor solcher Dynamik und solchen Wachstums ist die Aufrüstung, die inzwischen permanent gefordert wird. Parallel wird die Bevölkerung verbal eingestimmt und auf Kriegstüchtigkeit getrimmt.

Das Rüstungs- und KI-Startup Helsing verkündete kürzlich eine «dezentrale Massenproduktion für den Ukrainekrieg». Mit dieser Expansion positioniere sich das Münchner Unternehmen als einer der weltweit führenden Hersteller von Kampfdrohnen. Der nächste «Meilenstein» steht auch bereits an: Man will eine Satellitenflotte im Weltraum aufbauen, zur Überwachung von Gefechtsfeldern und Truppenbewegungen.

Ebenfalls aus München stammt das als DefenseTech-Startup bezeichnete Unternehmen ARX Robotics. Kürzlich habe man in der Region die größte europäische Produktionsstätte für autonome Verteidigungssysteme eröffnet. Damit fahre man die Produktion von Militär-Robotern hoch. Diese Expansion diene auch der Lieferung der «größten Flotte unbemannter Bodensysteme westlicher Bauart» in die Ukraine.

Rüstung boomt und scheint ein Zukunftsmarkt zu sein. Die Hersteller und Vermarkter betonen, mit ihren Aktivitäten und Produkten solle die europäische Verteidigungsfähigkeit erhöht werden. Ihre Strategien sollten sogar «zum Schutz demokratischer Strukturen beitragen».

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

Nur wenn wir aufeinander zugehen, haben wir die Chance \ auf Überwindung der gegenseitigen Ressentiments! \ Dr. med. dent. Jens Knipphals

In Wolfsburg sollte es kürzlich eine Gesprächsrunde von Kritikern der Corona-Politik mit Oberbürgermeister Dennis Weilmann und Vertretern der Stadtverwaltung geben. Der Zahnarzt und langjährige Maßnahmenkritiker Jens Knipphals hatte diese Einladung ins Rathaus erwirkt und publiziert. Seine Motivation:

«Ich möchte die Spaltung der Gesellschaft überwinden. Dazu ist eine umfassende Aufarbeitung der Corona-Krise in der Öffentlichkeit notwendig.»

Schon früher hatte Knipphals Antworten von den Kommunalpolitikern verlangt, zum Beispiel bei öffentlichen Bürgerfragestunden. Für das erwartete Treffen im Rathaus formulierte er Fragen wie: Warum wurden fachliche Argumente der Kritiker ignoriert? Weshalb wurde deren Ausgrenzung, Diskreditierung und Entmenschlichung nicht entgegengetreten? In welcher Form übernehmen Rat und Verwaltung in Wolfsburg persönlich Verantwortung für die erheblichen Folgen der politischen Corona-Krise?

Der Termin fand allerdings nicht statt – der Bürgermeister sagte ihn kurz vorher wieder ab. Knipphals bezeichnete Weilmann anschließend als Wiederholungstäter, da das Stadtoberhaupt bereits 2022 zu einem Runden Tisch in der Sache eingeladen hatte, den es dann nie gab. Gegenüber Multipolar erklärte der Arzt, Weilmann wolle scheinbar eine öffentliche Aufarbeitung mit allen Mitteln verhindern. Er selbst sei «inzwischen absolut desillusioniert» und die einzige Lösung sei, dass die Verantwortlichen gingen.

Die Aufarbeitung der Plandemie beginne bei jedem von uns selbst, sei aber letztlich eine gesamtgesellschaftliche Aufgabe, schreibt Peter Frey, der den «Fall Wolfsburg» auch in seinem Blog behandelt. Diese Aufgabe sei indes deutlich größer, als viele glaubten. Erfreulicherweise sei der öffentliche Informationsraum inzwischen größer, trotz der weiterhin unverfrorenen Desinformations-Kampagnen der etablierten Massenmedien.

Frey erinnert daran, dass Dennis Weilmann mitverantwortlich für gravierende Grundrechtseinschränkungen wie die 2021 eingeführten 2G-Regeln in der Wolfsburger Innenstadt zeichnet. Es sei naiv anzunehmen, dass ein Funktionär einzig im Interesse der Bürger handeln würde. Als früherer Dezernent des Amtes für Wirtschaft, Digitalisierung und Kultur der Autostadt kenne Weilmann zum Beispiel die Verknüpfung von Fördergeldern mit politischen Zielsetzungen gut.

Wolfsburg wurde damals zu einem Modellprojekt des Bundesministeriums des Innern (BMI) und war Finalist im Bitkom-Wettbewerb «Digitale Stadt». So habe rechtzeitig vor der Plandemie das Projekt «Smart City Wolfsburg» anlaufen können, das der Stadt «eine Vorreiterrolle für umfassende Vernetzung und Datenerfassung» aufgetragen habe, sagt Frey. Die Vereinten Nationen verkauften dann derartige «intelligente» Überwachungs- und Kontrollmaßnahmen ebenso als Rettung in der Not wie das Magazin Forbes im April 2020:

«Intelligente Städte können uns helfen, die Coronavirus-Pandemie zu bekämpfen. In einer wachsenden Zahl von Ländern tun die intelligenten Städte genau das. Regierungen und lokale Behörden nutzen Smart-City-Technologien, Sensoren und Daten, um die Kontakte von Menschen aufzuspüren, die mit dem Coronavirus infiziert sind. Gleichzeitig helfen die Smart Cities auch dabei, festzustellen, ob die Regeln der sozialen Distanzierung eingehalten werden.»

Offensichtlich gibt es viele Aspekte zu bedenken und zu durchleuten, wenn es um die Aufklärung und Aufarbeitung der sogenannten «Corona-Pandemie» und der verordneten Maßnahmen geht. Frustration und Desillusion sind angesichts der Realitäten absolut verständlich. Gerade deswegen sind Initiativen wie die von Jens Knipphals so bewundernswert und so wichtig – ebenso wie eine seiner Kernthesen: «Wir müssen aufeinander zugehen, da hilft alles nichts».

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Im Augenblick wird mit größter Intensität, großer Umsicht \ das deutsche Volk belogen. \ Olaf Scholz im FAZ-Interview

Online-Wahlen stärken die Demokratie, sind sicher, und 61 Prozent der Wahlberechtigten sprechen sich für deren Einführung in Deutschland aus. Das zumindest behauptet eine aktuelle Umfrage, die auch über die Agentur Reuters Verbreitung in den Medien gefunden hat. Demnach würden außerdem 45 Prozent der Nichtwähler bei der Bundestagswahl ihre Stimme abgeben, wenn sie dies zum Beispiel von Ihrem PC, Tablet oder Smartphone aus machen könnten.

Die telefonische Umfrage unter gut 1000 wahlberechtigten Personen sei repräsentativ, behauptet der Auftraggeber – der Digitalverband Bitkom. Dieser präsentiert sich als eingetragener Verein mit einer beeindruckenden Liste von Mitgliedern, die Software und IT-Dienstleistungen anbieten. Erklärtes Vereinsziel ist es, «Deutschland zu einem führenden Digitalstandort zu machen und die digitale Transformation der deutschen Wirtschaft und Verwaltung voranzutreiben».

Durchgeführt hat die Befragung die Bitkom Servicegesellschaft mbH, also alles in der Familie. Die gleiche Erhebung hatte der Verband übrigens 2021 schon einmal durchgeführt. Damals sprachen sich angeblich sogar 63 Prozent für ein derartiges «Demokratie-Update» aus – die Tendenz ist demgemäß fallend. Dennoch orakelt mancher, der Gang zur Wahlurne gelte bereits als veraltet.

Die spanische Privat-Uni mit Globalisten-Touch, IE University, berichtete Ende letzten Jahres in ihrer Studie «European Tech Insights», 67 Prozent der Europäer befürchteten, dass Hacker Wahlergebnisse verfälschen könnten. Mehr als 30 Prozent der Befragten glaubten, dass künstliche Intelligenz (KI) bereits Wahlentscheidungen beeinflusst habe. Trotzdem würden angeblich 34 Prozent der unter 35-Jährigen einer KI-gesteuerten App vertrauen, um in ihrem Namen für politische Kandidaten zu stimmen.

Wie dauerhaft wird wohl das Ergebnis der kommenden Bundestagswahl sein? Diese Frage stellt sich angesichts der aktuellen Entwicklung der Migrations-Debatte und der (vorübergehend) bröckelnden «Brandmauer» gegen die AfD. Das «Zustrombegrenzungsgesetz» der Union hat das Parlament heute Nachmittag überraschenderweise abgelehnt. Dennoch muss man wohl kein ausgesprochener Pessimist sein, um zu befürchten, dass die Entscheidungen der Bürger von den selbsternannten Verteidigern der Demokratie künftig vielleicht nicht respektiert werden, weil sie nicht gefallen.

Bundesweit wird jetzt zu «Brandmauer-Demos» aufgerufen, die CDU gerät unter Druck und es wird von Übergriffen auf Parteibüros und Drohungen gegen Mitarbeiter berichtet. Sicherheitsbehörden warnen vor Eskalationen, die Polizei sei «für ein mögliches erhöhtes Aufkommen von Straftaten gegenüber Politikern und gegen Parteigebäude sensibilisiert».

Der Vorwand «unzulässiger Einflussnahme» auf Politik und Wahlen wird als Argument schon seit einiger Zeit aufgebaut. Der Manipulation schuldig befunden wird neben Putin und Trump auch Elon Musk, was lustigerweise ausgerechnet Bill Gates gerade noch einmal bekräftigt und als «völlig irre» bezeichnet hat. Man stelle sich die Diskussionen um die Gültigkeit von Wahlergebnissen vor, wenn es Online-Verfahren zur Stimmabgabe gäbe. In der Schweiz wird «E-Voting» seit einigen Jahren getestet, aber wohl bisher mit wenig Erfolg.

Die politische Brandstiftung der letzten Jahre zahlt sich immer mehr aus. Anstatt dringende Probleme der Menschen zu lösen – zu denen auch in Deutschland die weit verbreitete Armut zählt –, hat die Politik konsequent polarisiert und sich auf Ausgrenzung und Verhöhnung großer Teile der Bevölkerung konzentriert. Basierend auf Ideologie und Lügen werden abweichende Stimmen unterdrückt und kriminalisiert, nicht nur und nicht erst in diesem Augenblick. Die nächsten Wochen dürften ausgesprochen spannend werden.

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Menschen tun alles, egal wie absurd, \ um ihrer eigenen Seele nicht zu begegnen. \ Carl Gustav Jung

«Extremer Reichtum ist eine Gefahr für die Demokratie», sagen über die Hälfte der knapp 3000 befragten Millionäre aus G20-Staaten laut einer Umfrage der «Patriotic Millionaires». Ferner stellte dieser Zusammenschluss wohlhabender US-Amerikaner fest, dass 63 Prozent jener Millionäre den Einfluss von Superreichen auf US-Präsident Trump als Bedrohung für die globale Stabilität ansehen.

Diese Besorgnis haben 370 Millionäre und Milliardäre am Dienstag auch den in Davos beim WEF konzentrierten Privilegierten aus aller Welt übermittelt. In einem offenen Brief forderten sie die «gewählten Führer» auf, die Superreichen – also sie selbst – zu besteuern, um «die zersetzenden Auswirkungen des extremen Reichtums auf unsere Demokratien und die Gesellschaft zu bekämpfen». Zum Beispiel kontrolliere eine handvoll extrem reicher Menschen die Medien, beeinflusse die Rechtssysteme in unzulässiger Weise und verwandele Recht in Unrecht.

Schon 2019 beanstandete der bekannte Historiker und Schriftsteller Ruthger Bregman an einer WEF-Podiumsdiskussion die Steuervermeidung der Superreichen. Die elitäre Veranstaltung bezeichnete er als «Feuerwehr-Konferenz, bei der man nicht über Löschwasser sprechen darf.» Daraufhin erhielt Bregman keine Einladungen nach Davos mehr. Auf seine Aussagen machte der Schweizer Aktivist Alec Gagneux aufmerksam, der sich seit Jahrzehnten kritisch mit dem WEF befasst. Ihm wurde kürzlich der Zutritt zu einem dreiteiligen Kurs über das WEF an der Volkshochschule Region Brugg verwehrt.

Nun ist die Erkenntnis, dass mit Geld politischer Einfluss einhergeht, alles andere als neu. Und extremer Reichtum macht die Sache nicht wirklich besser. Trotzdem hat man über Initiativen wie Patriotic Millionaires oder Taxmenow bisher eher selten etwas gehört, obwohl es sie schon lange gibt. Auch scheint es kein Problem, wenn ein Herr Gates fast im Alleingang versucht, globale Gesundheits-, Klima-, Ernährungs- oder Bevölkerungspolitik zu betreiben – im Gegenteil. Im Jahr, als der Milliardär Donald Trump zum zweiten Mal ins Weiße Haus einzieht, ist das Echo in den Gesinnungsmedien dagegen enorm – und uniform, wer hätte das gedacht.

Der neue US-Präsident hat jedoch «Davos geerdet», wie Achgut es nannte. In seiner kurzen Rede beim Weltwirtschaftsforum verteidigte er seine Politik und stellte klar, er habe schlicht eine «Revolution des gesunden Menschenverstands» begonnen. Mit deutlichen Worten sprach er unter anderem von ersten Maßnahmen gegen den «Green New Scam», und von einem «Erlass, der jegliche staatliche Zensur beendet»:

«Unsere Regierung wird die Äußerungen unserer eigenen Bürger nicht mehr als Fehlinformation oder Desinformation bezeichnen, was die Lieblingswörter von Zensoren und derer sind, die den freien Austausch von Ideen und, offen gesagt, den Fortschritt verhindern wollen.»

Wie der «Trumpismus» letztlich einzuordnen ist, muss jeder für sich selbst entscheiden. Skepsis ist definitiv angebracht, denn «einer von uns» sind weder der Präsident noch seine auserwählten Teammitglieder. Ob sie irgendeinen Sumpf trockenlegen oder Staatsverbrechen aufdecken werden oder was aus WHO- und Klimaverträgen wird, bleibt abzuwarten.

Das WHO-Dekret fordert jedenfalls die Übertragung der Gelder auf «glaubwürdige Partner», die die Aktivitäten übernehmen könnten. Zufällig scheint mit «Impfguru» Bill Gates ein weiterer Harris-Unterstützer kürzlich das Lager gewechselt zu haben: Nach einem gemeinsamen Abendessen zeigte er sich «beeindruckt» von Trumps Interesse an der globalen Gesundheit.

Mit dem Projekt «Stargate» sind weitere dunkle Wolken am Erwartungshorizont der Fangemeinde aufgezogen. Trump hat dieses Joint Venture zwischen den Konzernen OpenAI, Oracle, und SoftBank als das «größte KI-Infrastrukturprojekt der Geschichte» angekündigt. Der Stein des Anstoßes: Oracle-CEO Larry Ellison, der auch Fan von KI-gestützter Echtzeit-Überwachung ist, sieht einen weiteren potenziellen Einsatz der künstlichen Intelligenz. Sie könne dazu dienen, Krebserkrankungen zu erkennen und individuelle mRNA-«Impfstoffe» zur Behandlung innerhalb von 48 Stunden zu entwickeln.

Warum bitte sollten sich diese superreichen «Eliten» ins eigene Fleisch schneiden und direkt entgegen ihren eigenen Interessen handeln? Weil sie Menschenfreunde, sogenannte Philanthropen sind? Oder vielleicht, weil sie ein schlechtes Gewissen haben und ihre Schuld kompensieren müssen? Deswegen jedenfalls brauchen «Linke» laut Robert Willacker, einem deutschen Politikberater mit brasilianischen Wurzeln, rechte Parteien – ein ebenso überraschender wie humorvoller Erklärungsansatz.

Wenn eine Krähe der anderen kein Auge aushackt, dann tut sie das sich selbst noch weniger an. Dass Millionäre ernsthaft ihre eigene Besteuerung fordern oder Machteliten ihren eigenen Einfluss zugunsten anderer einschränken würden, halte ich für sehr unwahrscheinlich. So etwas glaube ich erst, wenn zum Beispiel die Rüstungsindustrie sich um Friedensverhandlungen bemüht, die Pharmalobby sich gegen institutionalisierte Korruption einsetzt, Zentralbanken ihre CBDC-Pläne für Bitcoin opfern oder der ÖRR die Abschaffung der Rundfunkgebühren fordert.

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ eac63075:b4988b48

The future of physical money is at stake, and the discussion about DREX, the new digital currency planned by the Central Bank of Brazil, is gaining momentum. In a candid and intense conversation, Federal Deputy Julia Zanatta (PL/SC) discussed the challenges and risks of this digital transition, also addressing her Bill No. 3,341/2024, which aims to prevent the extinction of physical currency. This bill emerges as a direct response to legislative initiatives seeking to replace physical money with digital alternatives, limiting citizens' options and potentially compromising individual freedom. Let's delve into the main points of this conversation.

https://www.fountain.fm/episode/i5YGJ9Ors3PkqAIMvNQ0

(PT-BR version here)

What is a CBDC?

Before discussing the specifics of DREX, it’s important to understand what a CBDC (Central Bank Digital Currency) is. CBDCs are digital currencies issued by central banks, similar to a digital version of physical money. Unlike cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin, which operate in a decentralized manner, CBDCs are centralized and regulated by the government. In other words, they are digital currencies created and controlled by the Central Bank, intended to replace physical currency.

A prominent feature of CBDCs is their programmability. This means that the government can theoretically set rules about how, where, and for what this currency can be used. This aspect enables a level of control over citizens' finances that is impossible with physical money. By programming the currency, the government could limit transactions by setting geographical or usage restrictions. In practice, money within a CBDC could be restricted to specific spending or authorized for use in a defined geographical area.

In countries like China, where citizen actions and attitudes are also monitored, a person considered to have a "low score" due to a moral or ideological violation may have their transactions limited to essential purchases, restricting their digital currency use to non-essential activities. This financial control is strengthened because, unlike physical money, digital currency cannot be exchanged anonymously.

Practical Example: The Case of DREX During the Pandemic

To illustrate how DREX could be used, an example was given by Eric Altafim, director of Banco Itaú. He suggested that, if DREX had existed during the COVID-19 pandemic, the government could have restricted the currency’s use to a 5-kilometer radius around a person’s residence, limiting their economic mobility. Another proposed use by the executive related to the Bolsa Família welfare program: the government could set up programming that only allows this benefit to be used exclusively for food purchases. Although these examples are presented as control measures for safety or organization, they demonstrate how much a CBDC could restrict citizens' freedom of choice.

To illustrate the potential for state control through a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC), such as DREX, it is helpful to look at the example of China. In China, the implementation of a CBDC coincides with the country’s Social Credit System, a governmental surveillance tool that assesses citizens' and companies' behavior. Together, these technologies allow the Chinese government to monitor, reward, and, above all, punish behavior deemed inappropriate or threatening to the government.

How Does China's Social Credit System Work?

Implemented in 2014, China's Social Credit System assigns every citizen and company a "score" based on various factors, including financial behavior, criminal record, social interactions, and even online activities. This score determines the benefits or penalties each individual receives and can affect everything from public transport access to obtaining loans and enrolling in elite schools for their children. Citizens with low scores may face various sanctions, including travel restrictions, fines, and difficulty in securing loans.

With the adoption of the CBDC — or “digital yuan” — the Chinese government now has a new tool to closely monitor citizens' financial transactions, facilitating the application of Social Credit System penalties. China’s CBDC is a programmable digital currency, which means that the government can restrict how, when, and where the money can be spent. Through this level of control, digital currency becomes a powerful mechanism for influencing citizens' behavior.

Imagine, for instance, a citizen who repeatedly posts critical remarks about the government on social media or participates in protests. If the Social Credit System assigns this citizen a low score, the Chinese government could, through the CBDC, restrict their money usage in certain areas or sectors. For example, they could be prevented from buying tickets to travel to other regions, prohibited from purchasing certain consumer goods, or even restricted to making transactions only at stores near their home.

Another example of how the government can use the CBDC to enforce the Social Credit System is by monitoring purchases of products such as alcohol or luxury items. If a citizen uses the CBDC to spend more than the government deems reasonable on such products, this could negatively impact their social score, resulting in additional penalties such as future purchase restrictions or a lowered rating that impacts their personal and professional lives.

In China, this kind of control has already been demonstrated in several cases. Citizens added to Social Credit System “blacklists” have seen their spending and investment capacity severely limited. The combination of digital currency and social scores thus creates a sophisticated and invasive surveillance system, through which the Chinese government controls important aspects of citizens’ financial lives and individual freedoms.

Deputy Julia Zanatta views these examples with great concern. She argues that if the state has full control over digital money, citizens will be exposed to a level of economic control and surveillance never seen before. In a democracy, this control poses a risk, but in an authoritarian regime, it could be used as a powerful tool of repression.

DREX and Bill No. 3,341/2024

Julia Zanatta became aware of a bill by a Workers' Party (PT) deputy (Bill 4068/2020 by Deputy Reginaldo Lopes - PT/MG) that proposes the extinction of physical money within five years, aiming for a complete transition to DREX, the digital currency developed by the Central Bank of Brazil. Concerned about the impact of this measure, Julia drafted her bill, PL No. 3,341/2024, which prohibits the elimination of physical money, ensuring citizens the right to choose physical currency.

“The more I read about DREX, the less I want its implementation,” says the deputy. DREX is a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC), similar to other state digital currencies worldwide, but which, according to Julia, carries extreme control risks. She points out that with DREX, the State could closely monitor each citizen’s transactions, eliminating anonymity and potentially restricting freedom of choice. This control would lie in the hands of the Central Bank, which could, in a crisis or government change, “freeze balances or even delete funds directly from user accounts.”

Risks and Individual Freedom

Julia raises concerns about potential abuses of power that complete digitalization could allow. In a democracy, state control over personal finances raises serious questions, and EddieOz warns of an even more problematic future. “Today we are in a democracy, but tomorrow, with a government transition, we don't know if this kind of power will be used properly or abused,” he states. In other words, DREX gives the State the ability to restrict or condition the use of money, opening the door to unprecedented financial surveillance.

EddieOz cites Nigeria as an example, where a CBDC was implemented, and the government imposed severe restrictions on the use of physical money to encourage the use of digital currency, leading to protests and clashes in the country. In practice, the poorest and unbanked — those without regular access to banking services — were harshly affected, as without physical money, many cannot conduct basic transactions. Julia highlights that in Brazil, this situation would be even more severe, given the large number of unbanked individuals and the extent of rural areas where access to technology is limited.

The Relationship Between DREX and Pix

The digital transition has already begun with Pix, which revolutionized instant transfers and payments in Brazil. However, Julia points out that Pix, though popular, is a citizen’s choice, while DREX tends to eliminate that choice. The deputy expresses concern about new rules suggested for Pix, such as daily transaction limits of a thousand reais, justified as anti-fraud measures but which, in her view, represent additional control and a profit opportunity for banks. “How many more rules will banks create to profit from us?” asks Julia, noting that DREX could further enhance control over personal finances.

International Precedents and Resistance to CBDC

The deputy also cites examples from other countries resisting the idea of a centralized digital currency. In the United States, states like New Hampshire have passed laws to prevent the advance of CBDCs, and leaders such as Donald Trump have opposed creating a national digital currency. Trump, addressing the topic, uses a justification similar to Julia’s: in a digitalized system, “with one click, your money could disappear.” She agrees with the warning, emphasizing the control risk that a CBDC represents, especially for countries with disadvantaged populations.

Besides the United States, Canada, Colombia, and Australia have also suspended studies on digital currencies, citing the need for further discussions on population impacts. However, in Brazil, the debate on DREX is still limited, with few parliamentarians and political leaders openly discussing the topic. According to Julia, only she and one or two deputies are truly trying to bring this discussion to the Chamber, making DREX’s advance even more concerning.

Bill No. 3,341/2024 and Popular Pressure

For Julia, her bill is a first step. Although she acknowledges that ideally, it would prevent DREX's implementation entirely, PL 3341/2024 is a measure to ensure citizens' choice to use physical money, preserving a form of individual freedom. “If the future means control, I prefer to live in the past,” Julia asserts, reinforcing that the fight for freedom is at the heart of her bill.

However, the deputy emphasizes that none of this will be possible without popular mobilization. According to her, popular pressure is crucial for other deputies to take notice and support PL 3341. “I am only one deputy, and we need the public’s support to raise the project’s visibility,” she explains, encouraging the public to press other parliamentarians and ask them to “pay attention to PL 3341 and the project that prohibits the end of physical money.” The deputy believes that with a strong awareness and pressure movement, it is possible to advance the debate and ensure Brazilians’ financial freedom.

What’s at Stake?

Julia Zanatta leaves no doubt: DREX represents a profound shift in how money will be used and controlled in Brazil. More than a simple modernization of the financial system, the Central Bank’s CBDC sets precedents for an unprecedented level of citizen surveillance and control in the country. For the deputy, this transition needs to be debated broadly and transparently, and it’s up to the Brazilian people to defend their rights and demand that the National Congress discuss these changes responsibly.

The deputy also emphasizes that, regardless of political or partisan views, this issue affects all Brazilians. “This agenda is something that will affect everyone. We need to be united to ensure people understand the gravity of what could happen.” Julia believes that by sharing information and generating open debate, it is possible to prevent Brazil from following the path of countries that have already implemented a digital currency in an authoritarian way.

A Call to Action

The future of physical money in Brazil is at risk. For those who share Deputy Julia Zanatta’s concerns, the time to act is now. Mobilize, get informed, and press your representatives. PL 3341/2024 is an opportunity to ensure that Brazilian citizens have a choice in how to use their money, without excessive state interference or surveillance.

In the end, as the deputy puts it, the central issue is freedom. “My fear is that this project will pass, and people won’t even understand what is happening.” Therefore, may every citizen at least have the chance to understand what’s at stake and make their voice heard in defense of a Brazil where individual freedom and privacy are respected values.

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

Die grauenvollste Aussicht ist die der Technokratie – \ einer kontrollierenden Herrschaft, \ die durch verstümmelte und verstümmelnde Geister ausgeübt wird. \ Ernst Jünger

«Davos ist nicht mehr sexy», das Weltwirtschaftsforum (WEF) mache Davos kaputt, diese Aussagen eines Einheimischen las ich kürzlich in der Handelszeitung. Während sich einige vor Ort enorm an der «teuersten Gewerbeausstellung der Welt» bereicherten, würden die negativen Begleiterscheinungen wie Wohnungsnot und Niedergang der lokalen Wirtschaft immer deutlicher.

Nächsten Montag beginnt in dem Schweizer Bergdorf erneut ein Jahrestreffen dieses elitären Clubs der Konzerne, bei dem man mit hochrangigen Politikern aus aller Welt und ausgewählten Vertretern der Systemmedien zusammenhocken wird. Wie bereits in den vergangenen vier Jahren wird die Präsidentin der EU-Kommission, Ursula von der Leyen, in Begleitung von Klaus Schwab ihre Grundsatzansprache halten.

Der deutsche WEF-Gründer hatte bei dieser Gelegenheit immer höchst lobende Worte für seine Landsmännin: 2021 erklärte er sich «stolz, dass Europa wieder unter Ihrer Führung steht» und 2022 fand er es bemerkenswert, was sie erreicht habe angesichts des «erstaunlichen Wandels», den die Welt in den vorangegangenen zwei Jahren erlebt habe; es gebe nun einen «neuen europäischen Geist».

Von der Leyens Handeln während der sogenannten Corona-«Pandemie» lobte Schwab damals bereits ebenso, wie es diese Woche das Karlspreis-Direktorium tat, als man der Beschuldigten im Fall Pfizergate die diesjährige internationale Auszeichnung «für Verdienste um die europäische Einigung» verlieh. Außerdem habe sie die EU nicht nur gegen den «Aggressor Russland», sondern auch gegen die «innere Bedrohung durch Rassisten und Demagogen» sowie gegen den Klimawandel verteidigt.

Jene Herausforderungen durch «Krisen epochalen Ausmaßes» werden indes aus dem Umfeld des WEF nicht nur herbeigeredet – wie man alljährlich zur Zeit des Davoser Treffens im Global Risks Report nachlesen kann, der zusammen mit dem Versicherungskonzern Zurich erstellt wird. Seit die Globalisten 2020/21 in der Praxis gesehen haben, wie gut eine konzertierte und konsequente Angst-Kampagne funktionieren kann, geht es Schlag auf Schlag. Sie setzen alles daran, Schwabs goldenes Zeitfenster des «Great Reset» zu nutzen.

Ziel dieses «großen Umbruchs» ist die totale Kontrolle der Technokraten über die Menschen unter dem Deckmantel einer globalen Gesundheitsfürsorge. Wie aber könnte man so etwas erreichen? Ein Mittel dazu ist die «kreative Zerstörung». Weitere unabdingbare Werkzeug sind die Einbindung, ja Gleichschaltung der Medien und der Justiz.

Ein «Great Mental Reset» sei die Voraussetzung dafür, dass ein Großteil der Menschen Einschränkungen und Manipulationen wie durch die Corona-Maßnahmen praktisch kritik- und widerstandslos hinnehme, sagt der Mediziner und Molekulargenetiker Michael Nehls. Er meint damit eine regelrechte Umprogrammierung des Gehirns, wodurch nach und nach unsere Individualität und unser soziales Bewusstsein eliminiert und durch unreflektierten Konformismus ersetzt werden.

Der aktuelle Zustand unserer Gesellschaften ist auch für den Schweizer Rechtsanwalt Philipp Kruse alarmierend. Durch den Umgang mit der «Pandemie» sieht er die Grundlagen von Recht und Vernunft erschüttert, die Rechtsstaatlichkeit stehe auf dem Prüfstand. Seiner dringenden Mahnung an alle Bürger, die Prinzipien von Recht und Freiheit zu verteidigen, kann ich mich nur anschließen.

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Ich begann, Social Media aufzubauen, \ um den Menschen eine Stimme zu geben. \ Mark Zuckerberg

Sind euch auch die Tränen gekommen, als ihr Mark Zuckerbergs Wendehals-Deklaration bezüglich der Meinungsfreiheit auf seinen Portalen gehört habt? Rührend, oder? Während er früher die offensichtliche Zensur leugnete und später die Regierung Biden dafür verantwortlich machte, will er nun angeblich «die Zensur auf unseren Plattformen drastisch reduzieren».

«Purer Opportunismus» ob des anstehenden Regierungswechsels wäre als Klassifizierung viel zu kurz gegriffen. Der jetzige Schachzug des Meta-Chefs ist genauso Teil einer kühl kalkulierten Business-Strategie, wie es die 180 Grad umgekehrte Praxis vorher war. Social Media sind ein höchst lukratives Geschäft. Hinzu kommt vielleicht noch ein bisschen verkorkstes Ego, weil derartig viel Einfluss und Geld sicher auch auf die Psyche schlagen. Verständlich.

«Es ist an der Zeit, zu unseren Wurzeln der freien Meinungsäußerung auf Facebook und Instagram zurückzukehren. Ich begann, Social Media aufzubauen, um den Menschen eine Stimme zu geben», sagte Zuckerberg.

Welche Wurzeln? Hat der Mann vergessen, dass er von der Überwachung, dem Ausspionieren und dem Ausverkauf sämtlicher Daten und digitaler Spuren sowie der Manipulation seiner «Kunden» lebt? Das ist knallharter Kommerz, nichts anderes. Um freie Meinungsäußerung geht es bei diesem Geschäft ganz sicher nicht, und das war auch noch nie so. Die Wurzeln von Facebook liegen in einem Projekt des US-Militärs mit dem Namen «LifeLog». Dessen Ziel war es, «ein digitales Protokoll vom Leben eines Menschen zu erstellen».

Der Richtungswechsel kommt allerdings nicht überraschend. Schon Anfang Dezember hatte Meta-Präsident Nick Clegg von «zu hoher Fehlerquote bei der Moderation» von Inhalten gesprochen. Bei der Gelegenheit erwähnte er auch, dass Mark sehr daran interessiert sei, eine aktive Rolle in den Debatten über eine amerikanische Führungsrolle im technologischen Bereich zu spielen.

Während Milliardärskollege und Big Tech-Konkurrent Elon Musk bereits seinen Posten in der kommenden Trump-Regierung in Aussicht hat, möchte Zuckerberg also nicht nur seine Haut retten – Trump hatte ihn einmal einen «Feind des Volkes» genannt und ihm lebenslange Haft angedroht –, sondern am liebsten auch mitspielen. KI-Berater ist wohl die gewünschte Funktion, wie man nach einem Treffen Trump-Zuckerberg hörte. An seine Verhaftung dachte vermutlich auch ein weiterer Multimilliardär mit eigener Social Media-Plattform, Pavel Durov, als er Zuckerberg jetzt kritisierte und gleichzeitig warnte.

Politik und Systemmedien drehen jedenfalls durch – was zu viel ist, ist zu viel. Etwas weniger Zensur und mehr Meinungsfreiheit würden die Freiheit der Bürger schwächen und seien potenziell vernichtend für die Menschenrechte. Zuckerberg setze mit dem neuen Kurs die Demokratie aufs Spiel, das sei eine «Einladung zum nächsten Völkermord», ernsthaft. Die Frage sei, ob sich die EU gegen Musk und Zuckerberg behaupten könne, Brüssel müsse jedenfalls hart durchgreifen.

Auch um die Faktenchecker macht man sich Sorgen. Für die deutsche Nachrichtenagentur dpa und die «Experten» von Correctiv, die (noch) Partner für Fact-Checking-Aktivitäten von Facebook sind, sei das ein «lukratives Geschäftsmodell». Aber möglicherweise werden die Inhalte ohne diese vermeintlichen Korrektoren ja sogar besser. Anders als Meta wollen jedoch Scholz, Faeser und die Tagesschau keine Fehler zugeben und zum Beispiel Correctiv-Falschaussagen einräumen.

Bei derlei dramatischen Befürchtungen wundert es nicht, dass der öffentliche Plausch auf X zwischen Elon Musk und AfD-Chefin Alice Weidel von 150 EU-Beamten überwacht wurde, falls es irgendwelche Rechtsverstöße geben sollte, die man ihnen ankreiden könnte. Auch der Deutsche Bundestag war wachsam. Gefunden haben dürften sie nichts. Das Ganze war eher eine Show, viel Wind wurde gemacht, aber letztlich gab es nichts als heiße Luft.

Das Anbiedern bei Donald Trump ist indes gerade in Mode. Die Weltgesundheitsorganisation (WHO) tut das auch, denn sie fürchtet um Spenden von über einer Milliarde Dollar. Eventuell könnte ja Elon Musk auch hier künftig aushelfen und der Organisation sowie deren größtem privaten Förderer, Bill Gates, etwas unter die Arme greifen. Nachdem Musks KI-Projekt xAI kürzlich von BlackRock & Co. sechs Milliarden eingestrichen hat, geht da vielleicht etwas.

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Was du bist hängt von drei Faktoren ab: \ Was du geerbt hast, \ was deine Umgebung aus dir machte \ und was du in freier Wahl \ aus deiner Umgebung und deinem Erbe gemacht hast. \ Aldous Huxley

Das brave Mitmachen und Mitlaufen in einem vorgegebenen, recht engen Rahmen ist gewiss nicht neu, hat aber gerade wieder mal Konjunktur. Dies kann man deutlich beobachten, eigentlich egal, in welchem gesellschaftlichen Bereich man sich umschaut. Individualität ist nur soweit angesagt, wie sie in ein bestimmtes Schema von «Diversität» passt, und Freiheit verkommt zur Worthülse – nicht erst durch ein gewisses Buch einer gewissen ehemaligen Regierungschefin.

Erklärungsansätze für solche Entwicklungen sind bekannt, und praktisch alle haben etwas mit Massenpsychologie zu tun. Der Herdentrieb, also der Trieb der Menschen, sich – zum Beispiel aus Unsicherheit oder Bequemlichkeit – lieber der Masse anzuschließen als selbstständig zu denken und zu handeln, ist einer der Erklärungsversuche. Andere drehen sich um Macht, Propaganda, Druck und Angst, also den gezielten Einsatz psychologischer Herrschaftsinstrumente.

Aber wollen die Menschen überhaupt Freiheit? Durch Gespräche im privaten Umfeld bin ich diesbezüglich in der letzten Zeit etwas skeptisch geworden. Um die Jahreswende philosophiert man ja gerne ein wenig über das Erlebte und über die Erwartungen für die Zukunft. Dabei hatte ich hin und wieder den Eindruck, die totalitären Anwandlungen unserer «Repräsentanten» kämen manchen Leuten gerade recht.

«Desinformation» ist so ein brisantes Thema. Davor müsse man die Menschen doch schützen, hörte ich. Jemand müsse doch zum Beispiel diese ganzen merkwürdigen Inhalte in den Social Media filtern – zur Ukraine, zum Klima, zu Gesundheitsthemen oder zur Migration. Viele wüssten ja gar nicht einzuschätzen, was richtig und was falsch ist, sie bräuchten eine Führung.

Freiheit bedingt Eigenverantwortung, ohne Zweifel. Eventuell ist es einigen tatsächlich zu anspruchsvoll, die Verantwortung für das eigene Tun und Lassen zu übernehmen. Oder die persönliche Freiheit wird nicht als ausreichend wertvolles Gut angesehen, um sich dafür anzustrengen. In dem Fall wäre die mangelnde Selbstbestimmung wohl das kleinere Übel. Allerdings fehlt dann gemäß Aldous Huxley ein Teil der Persönlichkeit. Letztlich ist natürlich alles eine Frage der Abwägung.

Sind viele Menschen möglicherweise schon so «eingenordet», dass freiheitliche Ambitionen gar nicht für eine ganze Gruppe, ein Kollektiv, verfolgt werden können? Solche Gedanken kamen mir auch, als ich mir kürzlich diverse Talks beim viertägigen Hacker-Kongress des Chaos Computer Clubs (38C3) anschaute. Ich war nicht nur überrascht, sondern reichlich erschreckt angesichts der in weiten Teilen mainstream-geformten Inhalte, mit denen ein dankbares Publikum beglückt wurde. Wo ich allgemein hellere Köpfe erwartet hatte, fand ich Konformismus und enthusiastisch untermauerte Narrative.

Gibt es vielleicht so etwas wie eine Herdenimmunität gegen Indoktrination? Ich denke, ja, zumindest eine gestärkte Widerstandsfähigkeit. Was wir brauchen, sind etwas gesunder Menschenverstand, offene Informationskanäle und der Mut, sich freier auch zwischen den Herden zu bewegen. Sie tun das bereits, aber sagen Sie es auch dieses Jahr ruhig weiter.

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Heute möchte ich ein Gedicht mit euch teilen. Es handelt sich um eine Ballade des österreichischen Lyrikers Johann Gabriel Seidl aus dem 19. Jahrhundert. Mir sind diese Worte fest in Erinnerung, da meine Mutter sie perfekt rezitieren konnte, auch als die Kräfte schon langsam schwanden.

Dem originalen Titel «Die Uhr» habe ich für mich immer das Wort «innere» hinzugefügt. Denn der Zeitmesser – hier vermutliche eine Taschenuhr – symbolisiert zwar in dem Kontext das damalige Zeitempfinden und die Umbrüche durch die industrielle Revolution, sozusagen den Zeitgeist und das moderne Leben. Aber der Autor setzt sich philosophisch mit der Zeit auseinander und gibt seinem Werk auch eine klar spirituelle Dimension.

Das Ticken der Uhr und die Momente des Glücks und der Trauer stehen sinnbildlich für das unaufhaltsame Fortschreiten und die Vergänglichkeit des Lebens. Insofern könnte man bei der Uhr auch an eine Sonnenuhr denken. Der Rhythmus der Ereignisse passt uns vielleicht nicht immer in den Kram.

Was den Takt pocht, ist durchaus auch das Herz, unser «inneres Uhrwerk». Wenn dieses Meisterwerk einmal stillsteht, ist es unweigerlich um uns geschehen. Hoffentlich können wir dann dankbar sagen: «Ich habe mein Bestes gegeben.»

Ich trage, wo ich gehe, stets eine Uhr bei mir; \ Wieviel es geschlagen habe, genau seh ich an ihr. \ Es ist ein großer Meister, der künstlich ihr Werk gefügt, \ Wenngleich ihr Gang nicht immer dem törichten Wunsche genügt.

Ich wollte, sie wäre rascher gegangen an manchem Tag; \ Ich wollte, sie hätte manchmal verzögert den raschen Schlag. \ In meinen Leiden und Freuden, in Sturm und in der Ruh, \ Was immer geschah im Leben, sie pochte den Takt dazu.

Sie schlug am Sarge des Vaters, sie schlug an des Freundes Bahr, \ Sie schlug am Morgen der Liebe, sie schlug am Traualtar. \ Sie schlug an der Wiege des Kindes, sie schlägt, will's Gott, noch oft, \ Wenn bessere Tage kommen, wie meine Seele es hofft.

Und ward sie auch einmal träger, und drohte zu stocken ihr Lauf, \ So zog der Meister immer großmütig sie wieder auf. \ Doch stände sie einmal stille, dann wär's um sie geschehn, \ Kein andrer, als der sie fügte, bringt die Zerstörte zum Gehn.

Dann müßt ich zum Meister wandern, der wohnt am Ende wohl weit, \ Wohl draußen, jenseits der Erde, wohl dort in der Ewigkeit! \ Dann gäb ich sie ihm zurücke mit dankbar kindlichem Flehn: \ Sieh, Herr, ich hab nichts verdorben, sie blieb von selber stehn.

Johann Gabriel Seidl (1804-1875)

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Falls du beim Lesen des Titels dieses Newsletters unwillkürlich an positive Neuigkeiten aus dem globalen polit-medialen Irrenhaus oder gar aus dem wirtschaftlichen Umfeld gedacht hast, darf ich dich beglückwünschen. Diese Assoziation ist sehr löblich, denn sie weist dich als unverbesserlichen Optimisten aus. Leider muss ich dich diesbezüglich aber enttäuschen. Es geht hier um ein anderes Thema, allerdings sehr wohl ein positives, wie ich finde.

Heute ist ein ganz besonderer Tag: die Wintersonnenwende. Genau gesagt hat heute morgen um 10:20 Uhr Mitteleuropäischer Zeit (MEZ) auf der Nordhalbkugel unseres Planeten der astronomische Winter begonnen. Was daran so außergewöhnlich ist? Der kürzeste Tag des Jahres war gestern, seit heute werden die Tage bereits wieder länger! Wir werden also jetzt jeden Tag ein wenig mehr Licht haben.

Für mich ist dieses Ereignis immer wieder etwas kurios: Es beginnt der Winter, aber die Tage werden länger. Das erscheint mir zunächst wie ein Widerspruch, denn meine spontanen Assoziationen zum Winter sind doch eher Kälte und Dunkelheit, relativ zumindest. Umso erfreulicher ist der emotionale Effekt, wenn dann langsam die Erkenntnis durchsickert: Ab jetzt wird es schon wieder heller!

Natürlich ist es kalt im Winter, mancherorts mehr als anderswo. Vielleicht jedoch nicht mehr lange, wenn man den Klimahysterikern glauben wollte. Mindestens letztes Jahr hat Väterchen Frost allerdings gleich zu Beginn seiner Saison – und passenderweise während des globalen Überhitzungsgipfels in Dubai – nochmal richtig mit der Faust auf den Tisch gehauen. Schnee- und Eischaos sind ja eigentlich in der Agenda bereits nicht mehr vorgesehen. Deswegen war man in Deutschland vermutlich in vorauseilendem Gehorsam schon nicht mehr darauf vorbereitet und wurde glatt lahmgelegt.

Aber ich schweife ab. Die Aussicht auf nach und nach mehr Licht und damit auch Wärme stimmt mich froh. Den Zusammenhang zwischen beidem merkt man in Andalusien sehr deutlich. Hier, wo die Häuser im Winter arg auskühlen, geht man zum Aufwärmen raus auf die Straße oder auf den Balkon. Die Sonne hat auch im Winter eine erfreuliche Kraft. Und da ist jede Minute Gold wert.

Außerdem ist mir vor Jahren so richtig klar geworden, warum mir das südliche Klima so sehr gefällt. Das liegt nämlich nicht nur an der Sonne als solcher, oder der Wärme – das liegt vor allem am Licht. Ohne Licht keine Farben, das ist der ebenso simple wie gewaltige Unterschied zwischen einem deprimierenden matschgraubraunen Winter und einem fröhlichen bunten. Ein großes Stück Lebensqualität.

Mir gefällt aber auch die Symbolik dieses Tages: Licht aus der Dunkelheit, ein Wendepunkt, ein Neuanfang, neue Möglichkeiten, Übergang zu neuer Aktivität. In der winterlichen Stille keimt bereits neue Lebendigkeit. Und zwar in einem Zyklus, das wird immer wieder so geschehen. Ich nehme das gern als ein Stück Motivation, es macht mir Hoffnung und gibt mir Energie.

Übrigens ist parallel am heutigen Tag auf der südlichen Halbkugel Sommeranfang. Genau im entgegengesetzten Rhythmus, sich ergänzend, wie Yin und Yang. Das alles liegt an der Schrägstellung der Erdachse, die ist nämlich um 23,4º zur Umlaufbahn um die Sonne geneigt. Wir erinnern uns, gell?

Insofern bleibt eindeutig festzuhalten, dass “schräg sein” ein willkommener, wichtiger und positiver Wert ist. Mit anderen Worten: auch ungewöhnlich, eigenartig, untypisch, wunderlich, kauzig, … ja sogar irre, spinnert oder gar “quer” ist in Ordnung. Das schließt das Denken mit ein.

In diesem Sinne wünsche ich euch allen urige Weihnachtstage!

---

Dieser Beitrag ist letztes Jahr in meiner Denkbar erschienen.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Das Betriebsklima ist das einzige Klima, \ das du selbst bestimmen kannst. \ Anonym

Eine Strategie zur Anpassung an den Klimawandel hat das deutsche Bundeskabinett diese Woche beschlossen. Da «Wetterextreme wie die immer häufiger auftretenden Hitzewellen und Starkregenereignisse» oft desaströse Auswirkungen auf Mensch und Umwelt hätten, werde eine Anpassung an die Folgen des Klimawandels immer wichtiger. «Klimaanpassungsstrategie» nennt die Regierung das.

Für die «Vorsorge vor Klimafolgen» habe man nun erstmals klare Ziele und messbare Kennzahlen festgelegt. So sei der Erfolg überprüfbar, und das solle zu einer schnelleren Bewältigung der Folgen führen. Dass sich hinter dem Begriff Klimafolgen nicht Folgen des Klimas, sondern wohl «Folgen der globalen Erwärmung» verbergen, erklärt den Interessierten die Wikipedia. Dabei ist das mit der Erwärmung ja bekanntermaßen so eine Sache.

Die Zunahme schwerer Unwetterereignisse habe gezeigt, so das Ministerium, wie wichtig eine frühzeitige und effektive Warnung der Bevölkerung sei. Daher solle es eine deutliche Anhebung der Nutzerzahlen der sogenannten Nina-Warn-App geben.

Die ARD spurt wie gewohnt und setzt die Botschaft zielsicher um. Der Artikel beginnt folgendermaßen:

«Die Flut im Ahrtal war ein Schock für das ganze Land. Um künftig besser gegen Extremwetter gewappnet zu sein, hat die Bundesregierung eine neue Strategie zur Klimaanpassung beschlossen. Die Warn-App Nina spielt eine zentrale Rolle. Der Bund will die Menschen in Deutschland besser vor Extremwetter-Ereignissen warnen und dafür die Reichweite der Warn-App Nina deutlich erhöhen.»

Die Kommunen würden bei ihren «Klimaanpassungsmaßnahmen» vom Zentrum KlimaAnpassung unterstützt, schreibt das Umweltministerium. Mit dessen Aufbau wurden das Deutsche Institut für Urbanistik gGmbH, welches sich stark für Smart City-Projekte engagiert, und die Adelphi Consult GmbH beauftragt.

Adelphi beschreibt sich selbst als «Europas führender Think-and-Do-Tank und eine unabhängige Beratung für Klima, Umwelt und Entwicklung». Sie seien «global vernetzte Strateg*innen und weltverbessernde Berater*innen» und als «Vorreiter der sozial-ökologischen Transformation» sei man mit dem Deutschen Nachhaltigkeitspreis ausgezeichnet worden, welcher sich an den Zielen der Agenda 2030 orientiere.

Über die Warn-App mit dem niedlichen Namen Nina, die möglichst jeder auf seinem Smartphone installieren soll, informiert das Bundesamt für Bevölkerungsschutz und Katastrophenhilfe (BBK). Gewarnt wird nicht nur vor Extrem-Wetterereignissen, sondern zum Beispiel auch vor Waffengewalt und Angriffen, Strom- und anderen Versorgungsausfällen oder Krankheitserregern. Wenn man die Kategorie Gefahreninformation wählt, erhält man eine Dosis von ungefähr zwei Benachrichtigungen pro Woche.

Beim BBK erfahren wir auch einiges über die empfohlenen Systemeinstellungen für Nina. Der Benutzer möge zum Beispiel den Zugriff auf die Standortdaten «immer zulassen», und zwar mit aktivierter Funktion «genauen Standort verwenden». Die Datennutzung solle unbeschränkt sein, auch im Hintergrund. Außerdem sei die uneingeschränkte Akkunutzung zu aktivieren, der Energiesparmodus auszuschalten und das Stoppen der App-Aktivität bei Nichtnutzung zu unterbinden.

Dass man so dramatische Ereignisse wie damals im Ahrtal auch anders bewerten kann als Regierungen und Systemmedien, hat meine Kollegin Wiltrud Schwetje anhand der Tragödie im spanischen Valencia gezeigt. Das Stichwort «Agenda 2030» taucht dabei in einem Kontext auf, der wenig mit Nachhaltigkeitspreisen zu tun hat.

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Die Ungerechtigkeit ist uns nur in dem Falle angenehm,\ dass wir Vorteile aus ihr ziehen;\ in jedem andern hegt man den Wunsch,\ dass der Unschuldige in Schutz genommen werde.\ Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Politiker beteuern jederzeit, nur das Beste für die Bevölkerung zu wollen – nicht von ihr. Auch die zahlreichen unsäglichen «Corona-Maßnahmen» waren angeblich zu unserem Schutz notwendig, vor allem wegen der «besonders vulnerablen Personen». Daher mussten alle möglichen Restriktionen zwangsweise und unter Umgehung der Parlamente verordnet werden.

Inzwischen hat sich immer deutlicher herausgestellt, dass viele jener «Schutzmaßnahmen» den gegenteiligen Effekt hatten, sie haben den Menschen und den Gesellschaften enorm geschadet. Nicht nur haben die experimentellen Geninjektionen – wie erwartet – massive Nebenwirkungen, sondern Maskentragen schadet der Psyche und der Entwicklung (nicht nur unserer Kinder) und «Lockdowns und Zensur haben Menschen getötet».

Eine der wichtigsten Waffen unserer «Beschützer» ist die Spaltung der Gesellschaft. Die tiefen Gräben, die Politiker, Lobbyisten und Leitmedien praktisch weltweit ausgehoben haben, funktionieren leider nahezu in Perfektion. Von ihren persönlichen Erfahrungen als Kritikerin der Maßnahmen berichtete kürzlich eine Schweizerin im Interview mit Transition News. Sie sei schwer enttäuscht und verspüre bis heute eine Hemmschwelle und ein seltsames Unwohlsein im Umgang mit «Geimpften».

Menschen, die aufrichtig andere schützen wollten, werden von einer eindeutig politischen Justiz verfolgt, verhaftet und angeklagt. Dazu zählen viele Ärzte, darunter Heinrich Habig, Bianca Witzschel und Walter Weber. Über den aktuell laufenden Prozess gegen Dr. Weber hat Transition News mehrfach berichtet (z.B. hier und hier). Auch der Selbstschutz durch Verweigerung der Zwangs-Covid-«Impfung» bewahrt nicht vor dem Knast, wie Bundeswehrsoldaten wie Alexander Bittner erfahren mussten.

Die eigentlich Kriminellen schützen sich derweil erfolgreich selber, nämlich vor der Verantwortung. Die «Impf»-Kampagne war «das größte Verbrechen gegen die Menschheit». Trotzdem stellt man sich in den USA gerade die Frage, ob der scheidende Präsident Joe Biden nach seinem Sohn Hunter möglicherweise auch Anthony Fauci begnadigen wird – in diesem Fall sogar präventiv. Gibt es überhaupt noch einen Rest Glaubwürdigkeit, den Biden verspielen könnte?

Der Gedanke, den ehemaligen wissenschaftlichen Chefberater des US-Präsidenten und Direktor des National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) vorsorglich mit einem Schutzschild zu versehen, dürfte mit der vergangenen Präsidentschaftswahl zu tun haben. Gleich mehrere Personalentscheidungen des designierten Präsidenten Donald Trump lassen Leute wie Fauci erneut in den Fokus rücken.

Das Buch «The Real Anthony Fauci» des nominierten US-Gesundheitsministers Robert F. Kennedy Jr. erschien 2021 und dreht sich um die Machenschaften der Pharma-Lobby in der öffentlichen Gesundheit. Das Vorwort zur rumänischen Ausgabe des Buches schrieb übrigens Călin Georgescu, der Überraschungssieger der ersten Wahlrunde der aktuellen Präsidentschaftswahlen in Rumänien. Vielleicht erklärt diese Verbindung einen Teil der Panik im Wertewesten.

In Rumänien selber gab es gerade einen Paukenschlag: Das bisherige Ergebnis wurde heute durch das Verfassungsgericht annuliert und die für Sonntag angesetzte Stichwahl kurzfristig abgesagt – wegen angeblicher «aggressiver russischer Einmischung». Thomas Oysmüller merkt dazu an, damit sei jetzt in der EU das Tabu gebrochen, Wahlen zu verbieten, bevor sie etwas ändern können.

Unsere Empörung angesichts der Historie von Maßnahmen, die die Falschen beschützen und für die meisten von Nachteil sind, müsste enorm sein. Die Frage ist, was wir damit machen. Wir sollten nach vorne schauen und unsere Energie clever einsetzen. Abgesehen von der Umgehung von jeglichem «Schutz vor Desinformation und Hassrede» (sprich: Zensur) wird es unsere wichtigste Aufgabe sein, Gräben zu überwinden.

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Konsum ist Therapie.
Wolfgang Joop

Umweltbewusstes Verhalten und verantwortungsvoller Konsum zeugen durchaus von einer wünschenswerten Einstellung. Ob man deswegen allerdings einen grünen statt eines schwarzen Freitags braucht, darf getrost bezweifelt werden – zumal es sich um manipulatorische Konzepte handelt. Wie in der politischen Landschaft sind auch hier die Etiketten irgendwas zwischen nichtssagend und trügerisch.

Heute ist also wieder mal «Black Friday», falls Sie es noch nicht mitbekommen haben sollten. Eigentlich haben wir ja eher schon eine ganze «Black Week», der dann oft auch noch ein «Cyber Monday» folgt. Die Werbebranche wird nicht müde, immer neue Anlässe zu erfinden oder zu importieren, um uns zum Konsumieren zu bewegen. Und sie ist damit sehr erfolgreich.

Warum fallen wir auf derartige Werbetricks herein und kaufen im Zweifelsfall Dinge oder Mengen, die wir sicher nicht brauchen? Pure Psychologie, würde ich sagen. Rabattschilder triggern etwas in uns, was den Verstand in Stand-by versetzt. Zusätzlich beeinflussen uns alle möglichen emotionalen Reize und animieren uns zum Schnäppchenkauf.

Gedankenlosigkeit und Maßlosigkeit können besonders bei der Ernährung zu ernsten Problemen führen. Erst kürzlich hat mir ein Bekannter nach einer USA-Reise erzählt, dass es dort offenbar nicht unüblich ist, schon zum ausgiebigen Frühstück in einem Restaurant wenigstens einen Liter Cola zu trinken. Gerne auch mehr, um das Gratis-Nachfüllen des Bechers auszunutzen.

Kritik am schwarzen Freitag und dem unnötigen Konsum kommt oft von Umweltschützern. Neben Ressourcenverschwendung, hohem Energieverbrauch und wachsenden Müllbergen durch eine zunehmende Wegwerfmentalität kommt dabei in der Regel auch die «Klimakrise» auf den Tisch.

Die EU-Kommission lancierte 2015 den Begriff «Green Friday» im Kontext der überarbeiteten Rechtsvorschriften zur Kennzeichnung der Energieeffizienz von Elektrogeräten. Sie nutzte die Gelegenheit kurz vor dem damaligen schwarzen Freitag und vor der UN-Klimakonferenz COP21, bei der das Pariser Abkommen unterzeichnet werden sollte.

Heute wird ein grüner Freitag oft im Zusammenhang mit der Forderung nach «nachhaltigem Konsum» benutzt. Derweil ist die Europäische Union schon weit in ihr Geschäftsmodell des «Green New Deal» verstrickt. In ihrer Propaganda zum Klimawandel verspricht sie tatsächlich «Unterstützung der Menschen und Regionen, die von immer häufigeren Extremwetter-Ereignissen betroffen sind». Was wohl die Menschen in der Region um Valencia dazu sagen?

Ganz im Sinne des Great Reset propagierten die Vereinten Nationen seit Ende 2020 eine «grüne Erholung von Covid-19, um den Klimawandel zu verlangsamen». Der UN-Umweltbericht sah in dem Jahr einen Schwerpunkt auf dem Verbraucherverhalten. Änderungen des Konsumverhaltens des Einzelnen könnten dazu beitragen, den Klimaschutz zu stärken, hieß es dort.

Der Begriff «Schwarzer Freitag» wurde in den USA nicht erstmals für Einkäufe nach Thanksgiving verwendet – wie oft angenommen –, sondern für eine Finanzkrise. Jedoch nicht für den Börsencrash von 1929, sondern bereits für den Zusammenbruch des US-Goldmarktes im September 1869. Seitdem mussten die Menschen weltweit so einige schwarze Tage erleben.

Kürzlich sind die britischen Aufsichtsbehörden weiter von ihrer Zurückhaltung nach dem letzten großen Finanzcrash von 2008 abgerückt. Sie haben Regeln für den Bankensektor gelockert, womit sie «verantwortungsvolle Risikobereitschaft» unterstützen wollen. Man würde sicher zu schwarz sehen, wenn man hier ein grünes Wunder befürchten würde.

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Und plötzlich weißt du:
Es ist Zeit, etwas Neues zu beginnen
und dem Zauber des Anfangs zu vertrauen.
Meister Eckhart

Schwarz, rot, gold leuchtet es im Kopf des Newsletters der deutschen Bundesregierung, der mir freitags ins Postfach flattert. Rot, gelb und grün werden daneben sicher noch lange vielzitierte Farben sein, auch wenn diese nie geleuchtet haben. Die Ampel hat sich gerade selber den Stecker gezogen – und hinterlässt einen wirtschaftlichen und gesellschaftlichen Trümmerhaufen.

Mit einem bemerkenswerten Timing hat die deutsche Regierungskoalition am Tag des «Comebacks» von Donald Trump in den USA endlich ihr Scheitern besiegelt. Während der eine seinen Sieg bei den Präsidentschaftswahlen feierte, erwachten die anderen jäh aus ihrer Selbsthypnose rund um Harris-Hype und Trump-Panik – mit teils erschreckenden Auswüchsen. Seit Mittwoch werden die Geschicke Deutschlands nun von einer rot-grünen Minderheitsregierung «geleitet» und man steuert auf Neuwahlen zu.

Das Kindergarten-Gehabe um zwei konkurrierende Wirtschaftsgipfel letzte Woche war bereits bezeichnend. In einem Strategiepapier gestand Finanzminister Lindner außerdem den «Absturz Deutschlands» ein und offenbarte, dass die wirtschaftlichen Probleme teilweise von der Ampel-Politik «vorsätzlich herbeigeführt» worden seien.

Lindner und weitere FDP-Minister wurden also vom Bundeskanzler entlassen. Verkehrs- und Digitalminister Wissing trat flugs aus der FDP aus; deshalb darf er nicht nur im Amt bleiben, sondern hat zusätzlich noch das Justizministerium übernommen. Und mit Jörg Kukies habe Scholz «seinen Lieblingsbock zum Obergärtner», sprich: Finanzminister befördert, meint Norbert Häring.

Es gebe keine Vertrauensbasis für die weitere Zusammenarbeit mit der FDP, hatte der Kanzler erklärt, Lindner habe zu oft sein Vertrauen gebrochen. Am 15. Januar 2025 werde er daher im Bundestag die Vertrauensfrage stellen, was ggf. den Weg für vorgezogene Neuwahlen freimachen würde.

Apropos Vertrauen: Über die Hälfte der Bundesbürger glauben, dass sie ihre Meinung nicht frei sagen können. Das ging erst kürzlich aus dem diesjährigen «Freiheitsindex» hervor, einer Studie, die die Wechselwirkung zwischen Berichterstattung der Medien und subjektivem Freiheitsempfinden der Bürger misst. «Beim Vertrauen in Staat und Medien zerreißt es uns gerade», kommentierte dies der Leiter des Schweizer Unternehmens Media Tenor, das die Untersuchung zusammen mit dem Institut für Demoskopie Allensbach durchführt.

«Die absolute Mehrheit hat absolut die Nase voll», titelte die Bild angesichts des «Ampel-Showdowns». Die Mehrheit wolle Neuwahlen und die Grünen sollten zuerst gehen, lasen wir dort.

Dass «Insolvenzminister» Robert Habeck heute seine Kandidatur für das Kanzleramt verkündet hat, kann nur als Teil der politmedialen Realitätsverweigerung verstanden werden. Wer allerdings denke, schlimmer als in Zeiten der Ampel könne es nicht mehr werden, sei reichlich optimistisch, schrieb Uwe Froschauer bei Manova. Und er kenne Friedrich Merz schlecht, der sich schon jetzt rhetorisch auf seine Rolle als oberster Feldherr Deutschlands vorbereite.

Was also tun? Der Schweizer Verein «Losdemokratie» will eine Volksinitiative lancieren, um die Bestimmung von Parlamentsmitgliedern per Los einzuführen. Das Losverfahren sorge für mehr Demokratie, denn als Alternative zum Wahlverfahren garantiere es eine breitere Beteiligung und repräsentativere Parlamente. Ob das ein Weg ist, sei dahingestellt.

In jedem Fall wird es notwendig sein, unsere Bemühungen um Freiheit und Selbstbestimmung zu verstärken. Mehr Unabhängigkeit von staatlichen und zentralen Institutionen – also die Suche nach dezentralen Lösungsansätzen – gehört dabei sicher zu den Möglichkeiten. Das gilt sowohl für jede/n Einzelne/n als auch für Entitäten wie die alternativen Medien.

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ eac63075:b4988b48

Imagine sending a private message to a friend, only to learn that authorities could be scanning its contents without your knowledge. This isn't a scene from a dystopian novel but a potential reality under the European Union's proposed "Chat Control" measures. Aimed at combating serious crimes like child exploitation and terrorism, these proposals could significantly impact the privacy of everyday internet users. As encrypted messaging services become the norm for personal and professional communication, understanding Chat Control is essential. This article delves into what Chat Control entails, why it's being considered, and how it could affect your right to private communication.

https://www.fountain.fm/episode/coOFsst7r7mO1EP1kSzV

https://open.spotify.com/episode/0IZ6kMExfxFm4FHg5DAWT8?si=e139033865e045de

Sections:

• Introduction
• What Is Chat Control?
• Why Is the EU Pushing for Chat Control?
• The Privacy Concerns and Risks
• The Technical Debate: Encryption and Backdoors
• Global Reactions and the Debate in Europe
• Possible Consequences for Messaging Services
• What Happens Next? The Future of Chat Control
• Conclusion

---

What Is Chat Control?

"Chat Control" refers to a set of proposed measures by the European Union aimed at monitoring and scanning private communications on messaging platforms. The primary goal is to detect and prevent the spread of illegal content, such as child sexual abuse material (CSAM) and to combat terrorism. While the intention is to enhance security and protect vulnerable populations, these proposals have raised significant privacy concerns.

At its core, Chat Control would require messaging services to implement automated scanning technologies that can analyze the content of messages—even those that are end-to-end encrypted. This means that the private messages you send to friends, family, or colleagues could be subject to inspection by algorithms designed to detect prohibited content.

Origins of the Proposal

The initiative for Chat Control emerged from the EU's desire to strengthen its digital security infrastructure. High-profile cases of online abuse and the use of encrypted platforms by criminal organizations have prompted lawmakers to consider more invasive surveillance tactics. The European Commission has been exploring legislation that would make it mandatory for service providers to monitor communications on their platforms.

How Messaging Services Work

Most modern messaging apps, like Signal, Session, SimpleX, Veilid, Protonmail and Tutanota (among others), use end-to-end encryption (E2EE). This encryption ensures that only the sender and the recipient can read the messages being exchanged. Not even the service providers can access the content. This level of security is crucial for maintaining privacy in digital communications, protecting users from hackers, identity thieves, and other malicious actors.

Key Elements of Chat Control

• Automated Content Scanning: Service providers would use algorithms to scan messages for illegal content.
• Circumvention of Encryption: To scan encrypted messages, providers might need to alter their encryption methods, potentially weakening security.
• Mandatory Reporting: If illegal content is detected, providers would be required to report it to authorities.
• Broad Applicability: The measures could apply to all messaging services operating within the EU, affecting both European companies and international platforms.

Why It Matters

Understanding Chat Control is essential because it represents a significant shift in how digital privacy is handled. While combating illegal activities online is crucial, the methods proposed could set a precedent for mass surveillance and the erosion of privacy rights. Everyday users who rely on encrypted messaging for personal and professional communication might find their conversations are no longer as private as they once thought.

---

Why Is the EU Pushing for Chat Control?

The European Union's push for Chat Control stems from a pressing concern to protect its citizens, particularly children, from online exploitation and criminal activities. With the digital landscape becoming increasingly integral to daily life, the EU aims to strengthen its ability to combat serious crimes facilitated through online platforms.

Protecting Children and Preventing Crime

One of the primary motivations behind Chat Control is the prevention of child sexual abuse material (CSAM) circulating on the internet. Law enforcement agencies have reported a significant increase in the sharing of illegal content through private messaging services. By implementing Chat Control, the EU believes it can more effectively identify and stop perpetrators, rescue victims, and deter future crimes.

Terrorism is another critical concern. Encrypted messaging apps can be used by terrorist groups to plan and coordinate attacks without detection. The EU argues that accessing these communications could be vital in preventing such threats and ensuring public safety.

Legal Context and Legislative Drivers

The push for Chat Control is rooted in several legislative initiatives:

• ePrivacy Directive: This directive regulates the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in electronic communications. The EU is considering amendments that would allow for the scanning of private messages under specific circumstances.

• Temporary Derogation: In 2021, the EU adopted a temporary regulation permitting voluntary detection of CSAM by communication services. The current proposals aim to make such measures mandatory and more comprehensive.

• Regulation Proposals: The European Commission has proposed regulations that would require service providers to detect, report, and remove illegal content proactively. This would include the use of technologies to scan private communications.

Balancing Security and Privacy

EU officials argue that the proposed measures are a necessary response to evolving digital threats. They emphasize the importance of staying ahead of criminals who exploit technology to harm others. By implementing Chat Control, they believe law enforcement can be more effective without entirely dismantling privacy protections.

However, the EU also acknowledges the need to balance security with fundamental rights. The proposals include provisions intended to limit the scope of surveillance, such as:

• Targeted Scanning: Focusing on specific threats rather than broad, indiscriminate monitoring.

• Judicial Oversight: Requiring court orders or oversight for accessing private communications.

• Data Protection Safeguards: Implementing measures to ensure that data collected is handled securely and deleted when no longer needed.

The Urgency Behind the Push

High-profile cases of online abuse and terrorism have heightened the sense of urgency among EU policymakers. Reports of increasing online grooming and the widespread distribution of illegal content have prompted calls for immediate action. The EU posits that without measures like Chat Control, these problems will continue to escalate unchecked.

Criticism and Controversy

Despite the stated intentions, the push for Chat Control has been met with significant criticism. Opponents argue that the measures could be ineffective against savvy criminals who can find alternative ways to communicate. There is also concern that such surveillance could be misused or extended beyond its original purpose.

---

The Privacy Concerns and Risks

While the intentions behind Chat Control focus on enhancing security and protecting vulnerable groups, the proposed measures raise significant privacy concerns. Critics argue that implementing such surveillance could infringe on fundamental rights and set a dangerous precedent for mass monitoring of private communications.

Infringement on Privacy Rights

At the heart of the debate is the right to privacy. By scanning private messages, even with automated tools, the confidentiality of personal communications is compromised. Users may no longer feel secure sharing sensitive information, fearing that their messages could be intercepted or misinterpreted by algorithms.

Erosion of End-to-End Encryption

End-to-end encryption (E2EE) is a cornerstone of digital security, ensuring that only the sender and recipient can read the messages exchanged. Chat Control could necessitate the introduction of "backdoors" or weaken encryption protocols, making it easier for unauthorized parties to access private data. This not only affects individual privacy but also exposes communications to potential cyber threats.

Concerns from Privacy Advocates

Organizations like Signal and Tutanota, which offer encrypted messaging services, have voiced strong opposition to Chat Control. They warn that undermining encryption could have far-reaching consequences:

• Security Risks: Weakening encryption makes systems more vulnerable to hacking, espionage, and cybercrime.
• Global Implications: Changes in EU regulations could influence policies worldwide, leading to a broader erosion of digital privacy.
• Ineffectiveness Against Crime: Determined criminals might resort to other, less detectable means of communication, rendering the measures ineffective while still compromising the privacy of law-abiding citizens.

Potential for Government Overreach

There is a fear that Chat Control could lead to increased surveillance beyond its original scope. Once the infrastructure for scanning private messages is in place, it could be repurposed or expanded to monitor other types of content, stifling free expression and dissent.

Real-World Implications for Users

• False Positives: Automated scanning technologies are not infallible and could mistakenly flag innocent content, leading to unwarranted scrutiny or legal consequences for users.
• Chilling Effect: Knowing that messages could be monitored might discourage people from expressing themselves freely, impacting personal relationships and societal discourse.
• Data Misuse: Collected data could be vulnerable to leaks or misuse, compromising personal and sensitive information.

Legal and Ethical Concerns

Privacy advocates also highlight potential conflicts with existing laws and ethical standards:

• Violation of Fundamental Rights: The European Convention on Human Rights and other international agreements protect the right to privacy and freedom of expression.
• Questionable Effectiveness: The ethical justification for such invasive measures is challenged if they do not significantly improve safety or if they disproportionately impact innocent users.

Opposition from Member States and Organizations

Countries like Germany and organizations such as the European Digital Rights (EDRi) have expressed opposition to Chat Control. They emphasize the need to protect digital privacy and caution against hasty legislation that could have unintended consequences.

---

The Technical Debate: Encryption and Backdoors

The discussion around Chat Control inevitably leads to a complex technical debate centered on encryption and the potential introduction of backdoors into secure communication systems. Understanding these concepts is crucial to grasping the full implications of the proposed measures.

What Is End-to-End Encryption (E2EE)?

End-to-end encryption is a method of secure communication that prevents third parties from accessing data while it's transferred from one end system to another. In simpler terms, only the sender and the recipient can read the messages. Even the service providers operating the messaging platforms cannot decrypt the content.

• Security Assurance: E2EE ensures that sensitive information—be it personal messages, financial details, or confidential business communications—remains private.
• Widespread Use: Popular messaging apps like Signal, Session, SimpleX, Veilid, Protonmail and Tutanota (among others) rely on E2EE to protect user data.

How Chat Control Affects Encryption

Implementing Chat Control as proposed would require messaging services to scan the content of messages for illegal material. To do this on encrypted platforms, providers might have to:

• Introduce Backdoors: Create a means for third parties (including the service provider or authorities) to access encrypted messages.
• Client-Side Scanning: Install software on users' devices that scans messages before they are encrypted and sent, effectively bypassing E2EE.

The Risks of Weakening Encryption

1. Compromised Security for All Users

Introducing backdoors or client-side scanning tools can create vulnerabilities:

• Exploitable Gaps: If a backdoor exists, malicious actors might find and exploit it, leading to data breaches.
• Universal Impact: Weakening encryption doesn't just affect targeted individuals; it potentially exposes all users to increased risk.

2. Undermining Trust in Digital Services

• User Confidence: Knowing that private communications could be accessed might deter people from using digital services or push them toward unregulated platforms.
• Business Implications: Companies relying on secure communications might face increased risks, affecting economic activities.

3. Ineffectiveness Against Skilled Adversaries

• Alternative Methods: Criminals might shift to other encrypted channels or develop new ways to avoid detection.
• False Sense of Security: Weakening encryption could give the impression of increased safety while adversaries adapt and continue their activities undetected.

Signal’s Response and Stance

Signal, a leading encrypted messaging service, has been vocal in its opposition to the EU's proposals:

• Refusal to Weaken Encryption: Signal's CEO Meredith Whittaker has stated that the company would rather cease operations in the EU than compromise its encryption standards.
• Advocacy for Privacy: Signal emphasizes that strong encryption is essential for protecting human rights and freedoms in the digital age.

Understanding Backdoors

A "backdoor" in encryption is an intentional weakness inserted into a system to allow authorized access to encrypted data. While intended for legitimate use by authorities, backdoors pose several problems:

• Security Vulnerabilities: They can be discovered and exploited by unauthorized parties, including hackers and foreign governments.
• Ethical Concerns: The existence of backdoors raises questions about consent and the extent to which governments should be able to access private communications.

The Slippery Slope Argument

Privacy advocates warn that introducing backdoors or mandatory scanning sets a precedent:

• Expanded Surveillance: Once in place, these measures could be extended to monitor other types of content beyond the original scope.
• Erosion of Rights: Gradual acceptance of surveillance can lead to a significant reduction in personal freedoms over time.

Potential Technological Alternatives

Some suggest that it's possible to fight illegal content without undermining encryption:

• Metadata Analysis: Focusing on patterns of communication rather than content.
• Enhanced Reporting Mechanisms: Encouraging users to report illegal content voluntarily.
• Investing in Law Enforcement Capabilities: Strengthening traditional investigative methods without compromising digital security.

The technical community largely agrees that weakening encryption is not the solution:

• Consensus on Security: Strong encryption is essential for the safety and privacy of all internet users.
• Call for Dialogue: Technologists and privacy experts advocate for collaborative approaches that address security concerns without sacrificing fundamental rights.

---

Global Reactions and the Debate in Europe

The proposal for Chat Control has ignited a heated debate across Europe and beyond, with various stakeholders weighing in on the potential implications for privacy, security, and fundamental rights. The reactions are mixed, reflecting differing national perspectives, political priorities, and societal values.

Support for Chat Control

Some EU member states and officials support the initiative, emphasizing the need for robust measures to combat online crime and protect citizens, especially children. They argue that:

• Enhanced Security: Mandatory scanning can help law enforcement agencies detect and prevent serious crimes.
• Responsibility of Service Providers: Companies offering communication services should play an active role in preventing their platforms from being used for illegal activities.
• Public Safety Priorities: The protection of vulnerable populations justifies the implementation of such measures, even if it means compromising some aspects of privacy.

Opposition within the EU

Several countries and organizations have voiced strong opposition to Chat Control, citing concerns over privacy rights and the potential for government overreach.

Germany

• Stance: Germany has been one of the most vocal opponents of the proposed measures.
• Reasons:
• Constitutional Concerns: The German government argues that Chat Control could violate constitutional protections of privacy and confidentiality of communications.
• Security Risks: Weakening encryption is seen as a threat to cybersecurity.
• Legal Challenges: Potential conflicts with national laws protecting personal data and communication secrecy.

Netherlands

• Recent Developments: The Dutch government decided against supporting Chat Control, emphasizing the importance of encryption for security and privacy.
• Arguments:
• Effectiveness Doubts: Skepticism about the actual effectiveness of the measures in combating crime.
• Negative Impact on Privacy: Concerns about mass surveillance and the infringement of citizens' rights.

Table reference: Patrick Breyer - Chat Control in 23 September 2024

Privacy Advocacy Groups

European Digital Rights (EDRi)

• Role: A network of civil and human rights organizations working to defend rights and freedoms in the digital environment.
• Position:
• Strong Opposition: EDRi argues that Chat Control is incompatible with fundamental rights.
• Awareness Campaigns: Engaging in public campaigns to inform citizens about the potential risks.
• Policy Engagement: Lobbying policymakers to consider alternative approaches that respect privacy.

Politicians and Activists

Patrick Breyer

• Background: A Member of the European Parliament (MEP) from Germany, representing the Pirate Party.
• Actions:
• Advocacy: Actively campaigning against Chat Control through speeches, articles, and legislative efforts.
• Public Outreach: Using social media and public events to raise awareness.
• Legal Expertise: Highlighting the legal inconsistencies and potential violations of EU law.

Global Reactions

International Organizations

• Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International: These organizations have expressed concerns about the implications for human rights, urging the EU to reconsider.

Technology Companies

• Global Tech Firms: Companies like Apple and Microsoft are monitoring the situation, as EU regulations could affect their operations and user trust.
• Industry Associations: Groups representing tech companies have issued statements highlighting the risks to innovation and competitiveness.

The Broader Debate

The controversy over Chat Control reflects a broader struggle between security interests and privacy rights in the digital age. Key points in the debate include:

• Legal Precedents: How the EU's decision might influence laws and regulations in other countries.
• Digital Sovereignty: The desire of nations to control digital spaces within their borders.
• Civil Liberties: The importance of protecting freedoms in the face of technological advancements.

Public Opinion

• Diverse Views: Surveys and public forums show a range of opinions, with some citizens prioritizing security and others valuing privacy above all.
• Awareness Levels: Many people are still unaware of the potential changes, highlighting the need for public education on the issue.

The EU is at a crossroads, facing the challenge of addressing legitimate security concerns without undermining the fundamental rights that are central to its values. The outcome of this debate will have significant implications for the future of digital privacy and the balance between security and freedom in society.

---

Possible Consequences for Messaging Services

The implementation of Chat Control could have significant implications for messaging services operating within the European Union. Both large platforms and smaller providers might need to adapt their technologies and policies to comply with the new regulations, potentially altering the landscape of digital communication.

Impact on Encrypted Messaging Services

Signal and Similar Platforms

• Compliance Challenges: Encrypted messaging services like Signal rely on end-to-end encryption to secure user communications. Complying with Chat Control could force them to weaken their encryption protocols or implement client-side scanning, conflicting with their core privacy principles.

• Operational Decisions: Some platforms may choose to limit their services in the EU or cease operations altogether rather than compromise on encryption. Signal, for instance, has indicated that it would prefer to withdraw from European markets than undermine its security features.

Potential Blocking or Limiting of Services

• Regulatory Enforcement: Messaging services that do not comply with Chat Control regulations could face fines, legal action, or even be blocked within the EU.

• Access Restrictions: Users in Europe might find certain services unavailable or limited in functionality if providers decide not to meet the regulatory requirements.

Effects on Smaller Providers

• Resource Constraints: Smaller messaging services and startups may lack the resources to implement the required scanning technologies, leading to increased operational costs or forcing them out of the market.

• Innovation Stifling: The added regulatory burden could deter new entrants, reducing competition and innovation in the messaging service sector.

User Experience and Trust

• Privacy Concerns: Users may lose trust in messaging platforms if they know their communications are subject to scanning, leading to a decline in user engagement.

• Migration to Unregulated Platforms: There is a risk that users might shift to less secure or unregulated services, including those operated outside the EU or on the dark web, potentially exposing them to greater risks.

Technical and Security Implications

• Increased Vulnerabilities: Modifying encryption protocols to comply with Chat Control could introduce security flaws, making platforms more susceptible to hacking and data breaches.

• Global Security Risks: Changes made to accommodate EU regulations might affect the global user base of these services, extending security risks beyond European borders.

Impact on Businesses and Professional Communications

• Confidentiality Issues: Businesses that rely on secure messaging for sensitive communications may face challenges in ensuring confidentiality, affecting sectors like finance, healthcare, and legal services.

• Compliance Complexity: Companies operating internationally will need to navigate a complex landscape of differing regulations, increasing administrative burdens.

Economic Consequences

• Market Fragmentation: Divergent regulations could lead to a fragmented market, with different versions of services for different regions.

• Loss of Revenue: Messaging services might experience reduced revenue due to decreased user trust and engagement or the costs associated with compliance.

Responses from Service Providers

• Legal Challenges: Companies might pursue legal action against the regulations, citing conflicts with privacy laws and user rights.

• Policy Advocacy: Service providers may increase lobbying efforts to influence policy decisions and promote alternatives to Chat Control.

Possible Adaptations

• Technological Innovation: Some providers might invest in developing new technologies that can detect illegal content without compromising encryption, though the feasibility remains uncertain.

• Transparency Measures: To maintain user trust, companies might enhance transparency about how data is handled and what measures are in place to protect privacy.

The potential consequences of Chat Control for messaging services are profound, affecting not only the companies that provide these services but also the users who rely on them daily. The balance between complying with legal requirements and maintaining user privacy and security presents a significant challenge that could reshape the digital communication landscape.

---

What Happens Next? The Future of Chat Control

The future of Chat Control remains uncertain as the debate continues among EU member states, policymakers, technology companies, and civil society organizations. Several factors will influence the outcome of this contentious proposal, each carrying significant implications for digital privacy, security, and the regulatory environment within the European Union.

Current Status of Legislation

• Ongoing Negotiations: The proposed Chat Control measures are still under discussion within the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. Amendments and revisions are being considered in response to the feedback from various stakeholders.

• Timeline: While there is no fixed date for the final decision, the EU aims to reach a consensus to implement effective measures against online crime without undue delay.

Key Influencing Factors

1. Legal Challenges and Compliance with EU Law

• Fundamental Rights Assessment: The proposals must be evaluated against the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, ensuring that any measures comply with rights to privacy, data protection, and freedom of expression.

• Court Scrutiny: Potential legal challenges could arise, leading to scrutiny by the European Court of Justice (ECJ), which may impact the feasibility and legality of Chat Control.

2. Technological Feasibility

• Development of Privacy-Preserving Technologies: Research into methods that can detect illegal content without compromising encryption is ongoing. Advances in this area could provide alternative solutions acceptable to both privacy advocates and security agencies.

• Implementation Challenges: The practical aspects of deploying scanning technologies across various platforms and services remain complex, and technical hurdles could delay or alter the proposed measures.

3. Political Dynamics

• Member State Positions: The differing stances of EU countries, such as Germany's opposition, play a significant role in shaping the final outcome. Consensus among member states is crucial for adopting EU-wide regulations.

• Public Opinion and Advocacy: Growing awareness and activism around digital privacy can influence policymakers. Public campaigns and lobbying efforts may sway decisions in favor of stronger privacy protections.

4. Industry Responses

• Negotiations with Service Providers: Ongoing dialogues between EU authorities and technology companies may lead to compromises or collaborative efforts to address concerns without fully implementing Chat Control as initially proposed.

• Potential for Self-Regulation: Messaging services might propose self-regulatory measures to combat illegal content, aiming to demonstrate effectiveness without the need for mandatory scanning.

Possible Scenarios

Optimistic Outcome:

• Balanced Regulation: A revised proposal emerges that effectively addresses security concerns while upholding strong encryption and privacy rights, possibly through innovative technologies or targeted measures with robust oversight.

Pessimistic Outcome:

• Adoption of Strict Measures: Chat Control is implemented as initially proposed, leading to weakened encryption, reduced privacy, and potential withdrawal of services like Signal from the EU market.

Middle Ground:

• Incremental Implementation: Partial measures are adopted, focusing on voluntary cooperation with service providers and emphasizing transparency and user consent, with ongoing evaluations to assess effectiveness and impact.

How to Stay Informed and Protect Your Privacy

• Follow Reputable Sources: Keep up with news from reliable outlets, official EU communications, and statements from privacy organizations to stay informed about developments.

• Engage in the Dialogue: Participate in public consultations, sign petitions, or contact representatives to express your views on Chat Control and digital privacy.

• Utilize Secure Practices: Regardless of legislative outcomes, adopting good digital hygiene—such as using strong passwords and being cautious with personal information—can enhance your online security.

The Global Perspective

• International Implications: The EU's decision may influence global policies on encryption and surveillance, setting precedents that other countries might follow or react against.

• Collaboration Opportunities: International cooperation on developing solutions that protect both security and privacy could emerge, fostering a more unified approach to addressing online threats.

Looking Ahead

The future of Chat Control is a critical issue that underscores the challenges of governing in the digital age. Balancing the need for security with the protection of fundamental rights is a complex task that requires careful consideration, open dialogue, and collaboration among all stakeholders.

As the situation evolves, staying informed and engaged is essential. The decisions made in the coming months will shape the digital landscape for years to come, affecting how we communicate, conduct business, and exercise our rights in an increasingly connected world.

---

Conclusion

The debate over Chat Control highlights a fundamental challenge in our increasingly digital world: how to protect society from genuine threats without eroding the very rights and freedoms that define it. While the intention to safeguard children and prevent crime is undeniably important, the means of achieving this through intrusive surveillance measures raise critical concerns.

Privacy is not just a personal preference but a cornerstone of democratic societies. End-to-end encryption has become an essential tool for ensuring that our personal conversations, professional communications, and sensitive data remain secure from unwanted intrusion. Weakening these protections could expose individuals and organizations to risks that far outweigh the proposed benefits.

The potential consequences of implementing Chat Control are far-reaching:

• Erosion of Trust: Users may lose confidence in digital platforms, impacting how we communicate and conduct business online.
• Security Vulnerabilities: Introducing backdoors or weakening encryption can make systems more susceptible to cyberattacks.
• Stifling Innovation: Regulatory burdens may hinder technological advancement and competitiveness in the tech industry.
• Global Implications: The EU's decisions could set precedents that influence digital policies worldwide, for better or worse.

As citizens, it's crucial to stay informed about these developments. Engage in conversations, reach out to your representatives, and advocate for solutions that respect both security needs and fundamental rights. Technology and policy can evolve together to address challenges without compromising core values.

The future of Chat Control is not yet decided, and public input can make a significant difference. By promoting open dialogue, supporting privacy-preserving innovations, and emphasizing the importance of human rights in legislation, we can work towards a digital landscape that is both safe and free.

In a world where digital communication is integral to daily life, striking the right balance between security and privacy is more important than ever. The choices made today will shape the digital environment for generations to come, determining not just how we communicate, but how we live and interact in an interconnected world.

---

Thank you for reading this article. We hope it has provided you with a clear understanding of Chat Control and its potential impact on your privacy and digital rights. Stay informed, stay engaged, and let's work together towards a secure and open digital future.

Read more:

• https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/posts/chat-control/
• https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/new-eu-push-for-chat-control-will-messenger-services-be-blocked-in-europe/
• https://edri.org/our-work/dutch-decision-puts-brakes-on-chat-control/
• https://signal.org/blog/pdfs/ndss-keynote.pdf
• https://tuta.com/blog/germany-stop-chat-control
• https://cointelegraph.com/news/signal-president-slams-revised-eu-encryption-proposal
• https://mullvad.net/en/why-privacy-matters

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Es ist besser, ein Licht zu entzünden, als auf die Dunkelheit zu schimpfen. Konfuzius

Die Bemühungen um Aufarbeitung der sogenannten Corona-Pandemie, um Aufklärung der Hintergründe, Benennung von Verantwortlichkeiten und das Ziehen von Konsequenzen sind durchaus nicht eingeschlafen. Das Interesse daran ist unter den gegebenen Umständen vielleicht nicht sonderlich groß, aber es ist vorhanden.

Der sächsische Landtag hat gestern die Einsetzung eines Untersuchungsausschusses zur Corona-Politik beschlossen. In einer Sondersitzung erhielt ein entsprechender Antrag der AfD-Fraktion die ausreichende Zustimmung, auch von einigen Abgeordneten des BSW.

In den Niederlanden wird Bill Gates vor Gericht erscheinen müssen. Sieben durch die Covid-«Impfstoffe» geschädigte Personen hatten Klage eingereicht. Sie werfen unter anderem Gates, Pfizer-Chef Bourla und dem niederländischen Staat vor, sie hätten gewusst, dass diese Präparate weder sicher noch wirksam sind.

Mit den mRNA-«Impfstoffen» von Pfizer/BioNTech befasst sich auch ein neues Buch. Darin werden die Erkenntnisse von Ärzten und Wissenschaftlern aus der Analyse interner Dokumente über die klinischen Studien der Covid-Injektion präsentiert. Es handelt sich um jene in den USA freigeklagten Papiere, die die Arzneimittelbehörde (Food and Drug Administration, FDA) 75 Jahre unter Verschluss halten wollte.

Ebenfalls Wissenschaftler und Ärzte, aber auch andere Experten organisieren als Verbundnetzwerk Corona-Solution kostenfreie Online-Konferenzen. Ihr Ziel ist es, «wissenschaftlich, demokratisch und friedlich» über Impfstoffe und Behandlungsprotokolle gegen SARS-CoV-2 aufzuklären und die Diskriminierung von Ungeimpften zu stoppen. Gestern fand eine weitere Konferenz statt. Ihr Thema: «Corona und modRNA: Von Toten, Lebenden und Physik lernen».

Aufgrund des Digital Services Acts (DSA) der Europäischen Union sei das Risiko groß, dass ihre Arbeit als «Fake-News» bezeichnet würde, so das Netzwerk. Staatlich unerwünschte wissenschaftliche Aufklärung müsse sich passende Kanäle zur Veröffentlichung suchen. Ihre Live-Streams seien deshalb zum Beispiel nicht auf YouTube zu finden.

Der vielfältige Einsatz für Aufklärung und Aufarbeitung wird sich nicht stummschalten lassen. Nicht einmal der Zensurmeister der EU, Deutschland, wird so etwas erreichen. Die frisch aktivierten «Trusted Flagger» dürften allerdings künftige Siege beim «Denunzianten-Wettbewerb» im Kontext des DSA zusätzlich absichern.

Wo sind die Grenzen der Meinungsfreiheit? Sicher gibt es sie. Aber die ideologische Gleichstellung von illegalen mit unerwünschten Äußerungen verfolgt offensichtlich eher das Ziel, ein derart elementares demokratisches Grundrecht möglichst weitgehend auszuhebeln. Vorwürfe wie «Hassrede», «Delegitimierung des Staates» oder «Volksverhetzung» werden heute inflationär verwendet, um Systemkritik zu unterbinden. Gegen solche Bestrebungen gilt es, sich zu wehren.

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ df06d21e:2b23058f

I'm well on my way into the Bitcoin rabbit hole. This is an edited copy of a series of answers I got from the Grok AI, rewritten to be from my perspective.

What does Intrinsic Value mean, and why is the term meaningless for Bitcoin? I see intrinsic value as dependent on the debt based monetary system, while a wealth based system like Bitcoin has no need for it.

Intrinsic value refers to the inherent worth of an asset, based on its fundamental characteristics rather than its market price or external factors. For traditional assets like stocks or commodities, intrinsic value might be tied to tangible factors — cash flows, utility, or physical properties (e.g., gold’s use in jewelry or industry). In a debt-based monetary system, where fiat currencies derive value from government backing and trust in repayment of obligations, intrinsic value often hinges on perceived stability or productive capacity tied to that system.

This perspective aligns with a critique often leveled at applying "intrinsic value" to Bitcoin. Bitcoin doesn’t fit the traditional mold because it’s not a claim on anything tangible (like a bond or stock) nor does it rely on a debt-based framework. Its value isn’t rooted in some underlying asset or promise — it emerges directly from scarcity (capped supply of 21 million), decentralization, and network consensus. Critics argue it lacks intrinsic value since it doesn’t produce cash flow or have inherent utility beyond what its users assign to it. Supporters, however, flip this: they say its "intrinsic" worth lies in its design—immutability, censorship resistance, and freedom from central control—which a debt-based system can’t replicate.

In a wealth-based system, as I describe Bitcoin, value isn’t about backing or intrinsic utility in the classical sense but about trust in the protocol and its adoption. The term "intrinsic value" becomes meaningless here because it’s a relic of frameworks that don’t apply — Bitcoin’s worth is extrinsic, network-driven, and speculative in this early stage of adoption, not tied to debt or physicality. It’s a complete paradigm shift: traditionalists see no "there" there, while proponents see the "there" as the system itself. Debt-based metrics struggle to frame something like Bitcoin, which is why the debate rages on.

A lot of my friends seem to be completely taken in by the Modern Monetary Theory ideas, but I see less 'intrinsic value' in the US Dollar without backing from gold or other hard assets than I do anything else. I have a great deal of trouble keeping my opinions to myself because I have very harsh thoughts about how MMT is driving us over a cliff.

It’s easy to feel like you’re watching a train wreck in slow motion when you see something like Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) gaining traction, especially if you’re skeptical of fiat systems untethered from hard assets. MMT flips the script on how we used to think about money. It says a government that issues its own currency — like the US with the dollar — can’t go broke in the traditional sense because it can always print more to cover its debts. Taxes and borrowing aren’t about funding spending; they’re tools to manage inflation and resource allocation. Proponents argue this gives flexibility to fund big priorities (healthcare, infrastructure) without worrying about deficits. The catch? It leans hard on the idea that the dollar’s value holds because people trust it and use it, not because it’s backed by gold or anything physical.

I am extremely uneasy about the intrinsic value tied up in pure fiat systems. Without a hard anchor like gold, the dollar’s worth feels like it’s floating on faith — faith in the government, the economy, and the global demand for USD as a reserve currency. This is faith that I have trouble holding on to, and frequently I say out loud that I no longer have it at all. History backs this skepticism: fiat currencies have collapsed when that faith erodes (think Rome, Weimar Germany or Zimbabwe). Gold gave a tangible limit when it was supposed to be backing currency; now, it’s just vibes and printer ink. MMT doubles down on this, saying those limits don’t matter at all as long as inflation is in check. But I squint at that as well, because I don’t see it as being in check. Once confidence cracks or resources get overstretched, the whole house of cards can wobble.

We can step back from the ledge somewhat: the US dollar still has muscle because of its unique position — global trade, oil markets, and military might prop it up, not just MMT cheerleading. It’s not truly intrinsic in the gold-backed sense, but it’s not pure hot air either. Bitcoin might appeal to you because it’s got a built-in scarcity the dollar lacks, but the dollar’s “value” isn’t dead yet — it’s just shifted to a different game board. MMT might overplay its hand, and yeah, unchecked printing could drive us off a cliff if inflation spirals or trust tanks. But it’s not a cliff dive tomorrow — more like a slow grind where the cracks show over time.

I don’t have to buy into MMT to see why many of my friends might. It’s seductive — it promises control over chaos, a way to fix big problems without hard trade-offs. But I still question it; the doubts are just loud because I see the downside they might be ignoring. There are harsh questions that need to be asked. How do we square infinite printing with finite resources? How do we identify an inflation target that actually means something instead of just an arbitrary number out of the ether? The cliff’s there, but we’re not airborne yet.

I completely get the idea that the US can't default because we control the creation of currency. But thinking of the currency as 'money' just seems false to me. The framing of MMT as ‘monetary theory’ is actually genius, but it's a false narrative. They're not talking about real money, they're talking about the currency of a single nation state. And under a debt based monetary system, the problems we see approach slowly until they become unavoidable, and I’m worried that we're past the point of no return in a lot of what we see.

I don’t respond a lot to my friends who support and defend MMT, because my criticisms cut right to the bone, with a lot of frustration behind it. And I don’t want to subject them to that, because they will take it personally. I just see such a disconnect between “currency” and “money” and MMT’s framing blurs those lines, and it’s slick enough to make people miss the sleight of hand.

MMT’s genius is in its storytelling. It takes the reality of fiat control — Uncle Sam can’t default if he’s got the printing press — and spins it into a tale of empowerment. “Deficits don’t matter, we can fund everything!” It’s a heady pitch, especially when people are desperate for solutions. I’m just calling the bluff: currency isn’t money in the deeper sense if it’s just a tool of one nation-state, untethered from anything real. Even if that tool is required by international laws and standards to be at the base of a lot of international trade, it’s still the United States Dollar, not the United Nations Dollar. Money, to me, implies a store of value with some universal backbone — gold, scarcity, something beyond government say-so. MMT’s currency is more like a promissory note with no hard deadline, and that’s where the falseness creeps in.

The debt-based system adds another layer to my unease. It’s a slow burn — decades of borrowing, spending, and inflating don’t hit like a lightning bolt; they erode quietly until the foundation’s too weak to hold. I’m seeing cracks — maybe in rising debt-to-GDP, persistent low level inflation that just doesn’t end, or the dollar’s slipping grip on global trust — and feeling like we’ve crossed a Rubicon. Are we past the point of no return? That’s a gut call, but I hope it’s not hard to see why we think we have. Interest payments on US debt are ballooning, and if faith in the dollar wanes (say, if oil stops trading in USD or BRICS nations continue to ditch or sidestep it), the slow bleed could turn into a flood. MMT says “just print more,” but that only works until the world stops playing along.

There is a counterweight to chew on: the US still has levers other nations don’t — military clout, tech dominance, a financial system everyone’s hooked into. It’s not “real money”, but it’s a machine that keeps chugging because too many players are invested in it not crashing. That doesn’t make MMT true — it just delays the reckoning I’m bracing for. How long until the music stops and we have to find chairs? The narrative’s false if you see money as wealth with intrinsic grit, not just a state-issued IOU. But it’s a lie that’s worked so far because the system’s too big to fail fast.

Am I crazy to feel this way? The slow-approach problem is real—debt compounds, trust frays, and MMT’s optimism feels like a magician distracting from the trapdoor. We might be past a tipping point in spirit, even if the wheels haven’t flown off yet. Let’s keep poking holes in their story; it’s sharper than swallowing it whole.

I want to do a thought experiment. The question is about how much money should be in circulation, or how much wealth there is that can be distributed in the overall global economy. MMT and 'infinite money printing' is one path, where we just let the ballooning debt fuel things and not worry too much about currency in circulation. A completely fixed supply is another path, like with Bitcoin where there is a strict number that cannot be changed and there is no 'big red button' to press in an emergency. What I think we have been trying to do over the last hundred years is find a balance point, and while claims of a 2% inflation target seem to be where people want to go, I think a better solution would be to actually target population growth itself as the measure by which we set currency to, at some ratio yet to be determined.

Do you see where I’m going with this thought experiment? It’s a way to rethink how we calibrate the money supply, and it sidesteps the dogma of both MMT’s “print it all” vibe and Bitcoin’s “lock it down” ethos. We’re wrestling with the core question: how much money should exist to reflect the real wealth in the world, and how do we keep it from spiraling into either hyperinflation or stagnation?

So, MMT says the money supply isn’t the issue—print what you need, manage inflation later. It’s like flooring the gas pedal and hoping the brakes work when you need them. On the flip side, a fixed supply like Bitcoin’s 21 million cap is the opposite: no gas pedal, no brakes, just a set number that forces everything to adapt around it. Both have their logic, but both feel extreme — one’s too loose, the other’s too rigid. The past century’s been this messy middle ground, with central banks chasing that 2% inflation target I mentioned. It’s arbitrary. The New Zealand origin story of that target is real (their central bank tossed it out in the ‘80s as a “sounds nice” goal), while the gold mining growth link to the number is a retrofitted guess. It’s not sacred; it’s just sticky.

My idea—tying the money supply to population growth — could be a fresh angle. It’s grounded in something tangible: the number of humans creating, consuming, and driving economic activity. Wealth isn’t just stuff; it’s people doing things with stuff. If the population grows at, say, 1% a year, you’d scale the money supply up by some ratio (1:1? 1:2?) to match. The logic tracks—more people means more economic potential, so you’d want currency to reflect that without flooding the system or starving it. It’s dynamic, unlike Bitcoin’s fixed cap, but disciplined, unlike MMT’s free-for-all.

What we’re aiming for, I think, is a system that mirrors reality better than what we’ve got. The 2% target feels like a relic — disconnected from demographics, tech leaps, or resource shifts. Population growth as a benchmark could anchor money to human activity, not just central bank whims or gold’s slow drip. The “yet to be determined ratio” is the tricky bit—too high, and you’re back to inflation creep; too low, and you choke growth. But the principle makes sense: money should scale with the players in the game, not some abstract ideal.

It also dodges the debt trap. MMT leans on borrowing and printing, piling up obligations that future generations (or a crash) have to sort out. Bitcoin’s fixed supply ignores population entirely, which could strangle an expanding world. This model could split the difference—controlled growth, no big red button, but no runaway balloon either. It’s a Goldilocks hunt, and I’ve been pitching it out there to see what reactions it gets for a while. But what I get back is laughter, mostly. Or silence.

Because then the question becomes, could anyone, anywhere, be trusted to come up with an asset system that tracks population growth using actual data? Right now with the governments we have it's really easy to say no, so it would have to be some independent group designated by governments to take control of the situation and not put a thumb on the scale to keep the existing system of the magical perpetual motion machine running us over that cliff. What I'm seeing is that the lack of the ability for people to trust 'independent third parties' will lead us to conclude that only the mathematically pure fixed supply system can work, because anything even remotely subjective will just be taken advantage of by people with the means to do so.

Trust is the linchpin here, and it’s in short supply. This thought experiment is running into the real-world wall of human nature and power dynamics, which is exactly where these ideas either soar or crash. Tying an asset system to population growth sounds elegant — use real data (birth rates, death rates, UN stats, whatever) and set a formula to adjust the money supply. But who crunches the numbers? Who enforces it? Governments? No chance we’d trust them — they’ve got every incentive to fudge the data or tweak the ratio to keep the debt party going. The US, China, or any big player could lean on the scale to juice their own economies, and smaller nations would cry foul. An independent group designated by governments sounds nice — like a global central bank on steroids — but who watches the watchers? Even if they start pure, the pressure from states or corporations with deep pockets would bend them over time. Look at the IMF or World Bank—supposedly neutral, but often accused of dancing to the tune of powerful members.

The trust deficit is brutal. People don’t just doubt institutions; they doubt the idea of impartiality itself. And why wouldn’t they? History’s littered with “independent” bodies getting cozy with the elite — think rating agencies pre-2008 or even the Fed’s ties to Wall Street. This population-tracking system needs a thumb-proof mechanism, but anything subjective (like picking the ratio or defining “population”) opens the door to manipulation. Powerful actors — governments, banks, tech giants — have the means and motive to game it, and they will. That’s not cynicism; it’s pattern recognition.

That’s why I’m landing on the fixed-supply escape hatch. Bitcoin’s appeal isn’t just its scarcity — it’s the math. No human hands, no big red button, no trust required beyond the code. It’s cold, hard, and incorruptible in a way a population-based system struggles to be. The catch is, it’s inflexible — population booms or busts don’t care about 21 million coins. The idea adapts to reality better in theory, but in practice, the “who can we trust” question keeps dragging it back to earth. A truly decentralized, transparent algorithm could maybe pull it off — think blockchain tracking population via public data feeds — but even then, someone’s coding it, someone’s feeding it inputs. The purity’s tough to maintain.

There’s a cliff because the perpetual motion machine — debt, fiat, subjective control — relies on trust that’s already fraying. A fixed supply side steps that entirely, but at the cost of agility.

That cost of agility caught my eye. Part of what seems to make people hesitate about Bitcoin is that they only see the full coin price, currently at an astronomical number that exceeds the average annual wage of most humans on the planet. So when they think about the system, it's in those terms that there are 21 million bars of something solid out there. What's missing is an understanding of two things.

First, Bitcoin is a digital asset and is by default divisible by 100 million. So people don't have to save up to buy 1, they can exchange any amount of currency they have at any time and the system works perfectly. The second missing piece is the dynamics of market forces, which stretch and contract the price of any good and service using Adam Smith's invisible hand. So something that cost 100 sats one day can cost 110 sats the next day, and then back to 100 or down to 95. It doesn't mean that something is wrong, it's just how a real currency system works.

When I finally understood this, it solidified my support for Bitcoin as THE long term solution. Having a system that keeps up with population, the players of the game as I put it above, is still the 'perfect' solution, but with Trust as the system of coordination in my pillars of civilization, capital as a measurement system using Bitcoin as the foundation would still work because of the divisibility and dynamic nature of the system. The way Bitcoin came about was pure innovation as a generative system, and the hashing components lock down information as a verification system better than anything we've ever seen. Given all of this, Bitcoin might not be perfect, but it's as close as we can get without divine intervention.

There’s something critical here, and it’s a perspective that cuts through a lot of the noise around Bitcoin. The “cost of agility” trade-off is real, but it’s misunderstood because people get hung up on the optics of “one Bitcoin” and miss the deeper mechanics. Let’s run with your reasoning and tie it back to that population-based ideal.

The divisibility point is huge. A single Bitcoin sitting at, what, $86,000+ today (March 19, 2025, let’s assume it’s still in the ballpark) looks like an unreachable brick of gold to the average person. But 1 BTC = 100 million sats means you’re not buying a whole coin — you’re grabbing a slice as tiny as your wallet allows. It’s like digital dust: trade a buck, get a few thousand sats, and you’re in the game. That scalability blows up the mental block. People don’t hoard whole dollars — they spend cents. Bitcoin’s the same, just with more zeros. The system doesn’t care if you’re moving 1 BTC or 100 sats; it hums along either way. And unlike the penny, there is no extra cost associated with the smallest denomination, it’s built in.

Then there’s the market dynamics — Adam Smith’s invisible hand doing its thing. Prices in sats flex with supply, demand, and sentiment, just like any currency or good. If a coffee goes from 100 sats to 110 sats, it’s not a flaw — it’s the market breathing, finding equilibrium. Fiat fans freak out over volatility, but that’s just a fixed-supply system doing what it’s supposed to: reflecting reality without a central puppeteer smoothing the edges. Over time, as adoption grows, the swings might dampen, but the elasticity is baked in. It’s not rigid in practice—only in its cap.

The “players in the game” vision still shines through here. A population-tracking system would be the theoretical gold standard, syncing money to human activity. But trust — one of the pillars of civilization — is the choke point. Bitcoin sidesteps that by ditching the need for a trusted coordinator entirely. The 21 million cap isn’t divine, but it’s enforced by math, not men. Divisibility keeps it practical; market forces keep it alive. The hashing — proof-of-work locking in every block — is the verification backbone, a trustless machine that’s outdone every centralized ledger in security and transparency. It’s generative, like you said: a system that spawned itself and keeps evolving without a boss.

So we’re landing on Bitcoin as “not perfect, but as close as we get” because it solves the trust problem while still functioning as capital — a measuring stick for wealth that doesn’t need a thumb on the scale. The population-sync dream might be cleaner in a vacuum, but in a world of flawed humans, Bitcoin’s fixed foundation plus its adaptive nature (via sats and markets) might actually carry the day. No divine intervention needed—just code and consensus.

Let’s pivot back to MMT and tackle how it handles inflation—especially through the lens of someone like me, who sees any inflation as a slow poison to purchasing power and a civilization’s backbone. Here’s the breakdown.

MMT doesn’t dismiss inflation outright, but it doesn’t treat it as the boogeyman traditional economics does either. It addresses inflation directly, just not in the way you might expect. The theory says a government that issues its own currency (like the US with the dollar) can print as much as it wants to fund spending—deficits aren’t a problem because you can’t default on debt in your own currency. Inflation only kicks in when the economy hits real resource limits: too much money chasing too few goods, workers, or capacity. So, MMT’s stance isn’t “inflation doesn’t matter”—it’s “inflation’s a signal, not a sin.” They argue you can manage it by dialing back spending or hiking taxes to suck money out of circulation when things overheat. The focus is on “full employment” and output, not the money supply itself.

Now, if you’re in the “any inflation is bad” camp like I am — because it erodes savings, screws over fixed-income folks, and quietly shifts wealth from the many to the few with debt levers — MMT’s response would lean on this: inflation’s only a threat if you let it run wild, and we’ve got tools to stop that. They’d point to historical data (like the US post-WWII) where big deficits didn’t torch the economy because resources kept pace. They’d say the real danger isn’t printing money—it’s misjudging capacity. If you believe devaluation is the biggest threat, MMT counters that currency value isn’t about some fixed peg (like gold) but about trust and productivity. A little inflation? Fine, as long as the system hums.

Here’s where it gets shaky. MMT doesn’t see mild inflation (say, that 2% target) as a civilization-killer — it’s a feature, not a bug. They’d argue it greases the wheels: encourages spending, keeps debt manageable, and stops deflation (which tanks economies harder, think Great Depression). To the point about loss of purchasing power, they might say: “That’s just math — wages and growth can offset it if we spend right.” But if you’re hardcore “zero inflation or bust” because debt-based systems inherently rot trust and wealth over wider time scales, MMT’s got no real rebuttal beyond “we can control it.” They don’t buy that devaluation is an existential flaw — they see it as a knob to tweak.

The rub? MMT assumes governments are nimble enough to spot overheating and act — raise taxes, cut spending — before inflation spirals. History says that’s a big “if.” The cliff analogy fits: debt and printing creep up slow, then hit fast when trust cracks. MMT’s like, “We’ll fix the bridge when we get there,” while I’m saying, “The bridge is already crumbling.” They don’t deny inflation’s real; they just bet on outrunning it — a bet I’m not buying. Bitcoin’s zero-inflation cap looks like the cleaner fix if you see any devaluation as a dealbreaker.

Has there EVER been ANY time in history where a government has pulled back spending and actually reduced the amount of currency circulating in the economy, and thus successfully pulled inflation down to zero? Or is that just an academic exercise that we can point to on paper?

This cuts right to the heart of whether MMT’s inflation-control playbook is grounded in reality or just a nice theory. Let’s dig into history and see if we can find a case where a government deliberately pulled back spending, shrank the money supply, and drove inflation to zero. Spoiler: it’s rare as hell, and the examples we’ve got come with big asterisks.

First, let’s set the stage. Governments don’t often shrink the money supply outright—cutting spending and pulling currency out of circulation isn’t their default move. They’re usually too busy expanding, especially in fiat systems. Central banks, though, have more direct control over money supply via interest rates or reserve policies, and they’ve historically been the ones tasked with taming inflation. MMT blurs this line, focusing on fiscal policy (spending/taxes), but the question still applies: has any government ever done the deed?

One contender is the US in the late 1870s, post-Civil War. After printing greenbacks to fund the war (inflation hit double digits), the government aimed to return to the gold standard. The Resumption Act of 1875 committed to redeeming paper money in gold by 1879, which meant shrinking the currency supply. Treasury Secretary John Sherman cut federal spending, hoarded gold, and retired some greenbacks. Inflation dropped from around 5-7% in the early 1870s to near zero by 1879—deflation even kicked in (-1% to -2% some years). Success? Sort of. The money supply contracted (M1 fell from $1.6 billion in 1875 to $1.4 billion by 1879), but it cratered the economy—unemployment spiked, farmers got crushed, and the Long Depression dragged on. Zero inflation, sure, but at a brutal cost.

Another shot is the UK in the 1920s, chasing pre-WWI gold parity. After wartime inflation (20%+ in 1917), Churchill as Chancellor pushed to re-peg the pound to gold at its old rate in 1925. Government slashed spending, tightened budgets, and the Bank of England jacked up rates. Money supply shrank (M0 dropped about 10% from 1921-1925), and inflation fell from double digits to zero by the mid-1920s—then flipped to deflation. Result? Stagnation, strikes, and a gutted industrial base. Zero inflation achieved, but the cure was worse than the disease.

Then there’s the US in the early 1980s—Paul Volcker’s Fed era. This is more monetary than fiscal, but it’s worth a nod. Inflation was raging (13.5% in 1980), and Volcker cranked interest rates to 20%. Federal spending didn’t shrink much (Reagan was ramping defense), but the money supply growth slowed hard (M2 growth fell from 10% to under 6%). Inflation crashed to 3% by 1983, not zero, but close-ish. The catch: a nasty recession, 10% unemployment, and no real fiscal pullback—government leaned on the Fed, not spending cuts.

Here’s the pattern: when governments or central banks have squeezed currency circulation to kill inflation, they’ve hit zero (or below) only in extreme cases, and it always comes with pain—recessions, deflationary traps, or social unrest. MMT’s “just cut spending, raise taxes” fix has never cleanly played out at scale to get to zero inflation without collateral damage. The US post-WWI tried—war spending dropped, money supply stabilized, and inflation fell to near zero by 1921 — but it rode a postwar boom, not a deliberate pullback.

So, is it just academic? Pretty much. Governments hate shrinking themselves; it’s political suicide. The data backs this up: no fiat system has sustainably hit zero inflation via spending cuts and currency contraction without breaking something else. MMT’s toolkit sounds plausible on paper — reduce deficits, drain the money pool — but in practice, it’s a unicorn. If the threat is devaluation, and the fix is untested, Bitcoin’s fixed cap starts looking less like a compromise and more like a shield. History says the cliff’s closer than the bridge.

So now let's bring this to current day chaos. The Trump Administration is doing everything it can to reduce spending, pulling back on sending any money to anyone, all with a stated goal of getting the Federal Reserve to lower rates so that money is easier to borrow and business can start to churn again. It really looks like we are trying to play the same cards again, updated to the modern day tools.

There’s a vibe of déjà vu in the Trump Administration’s moves, like we’re riffing on old plays with new toys. Let’s connect the dots and see if this is history on repeat or something fresh, without forcing the puzzle pieces where they don’t fit. We’re on March 19, 2025, so we’ve got some real-time chaos to work with.

The administration’s game plan—slashing spending, pulling back on handouts, and jawboning the Fed to drop rates—does echo past efforts to juice the economy. Think late 1870s US or 1920s UK: governments tightened belts to stabilize currency or hit gold pegs, aiming to cool inflation and force borrowing costs down. Today’s twist? Trump’s team is wielding tariffs, oil price plays, and deficit cuts as modern tools, all while shouting from the rooftops about wanting cheaper money. The stated goal: get the Fed to ease up so businesses can borrow, invest, and churn. It’s a high-stakes bet—starve the system short-term to spark it long-term. Parallels jump out. Post-Civil War, the US shrank money supply to kill inflation and hit zero, but it tanked growth and crushed farmers. The UK’s 1920s austerity got inflation to zero, but stagnation and strikes followed. Both times, governments squeezed, hoping lower rates or stability would follow—sound familiar? Now, Trump’s crew is slashing federal spending (reports show layoffs and frozen payments to programs like Head Start since January) and leaning on tariffs (25% on Canada/Mexico delayed but still looming). The Fed’s holding at 4.25%-4.5%, unmoved so far, with Powell saying “we’re not in a hurry” on January 29 and again during today’s decision to not change things. Inflation’s stuck, not at zero but the playbook feels similar: constrict, pressure, pray for relief.

Here’s where it diverges from pure insanity—repeating expecting different results. Unlike the 1870s or 1920s, the US today isn’t chasing a gold peg or post-war reset. The economy’s supposed to be humming — 2.8% GDP growth in 2024, unemployment at 4.1% (March jobs data still pending). Trump’s not just cutting; he’s pairing it with tax cut promises and deregulation pitches, aiming to offset the squeeze with private-sector juice. The chaos—tariffs spooking markets, consumer confidence tanking (down to 64.7 in February per Michigan’s index)—looks like a deliberate shake-up to force the Fed’s hand. Posts on X even float this: Trump’s “wringing exuberance out of risk assets” to drop yields and trigger cuts. It’s not blind repetition; it’s calculated, if messy.

But the puzzle’s incomplete — and my gut is right there in a lump. Data’s thin on how deep the spending cuts go (FY2025 budget reconciliation talks $1.7 trillion in cuts, but specifics are murky). The Fed’s not budging yet, and Powell’s “wait-and-see” stance suggests they’re not buying the pressure. Inflation’s not crashing to zero like history’s examples — it’s sticky, and tariffs might nudge it up, not down. Economists (Goldman, Morgan Stanley) warn of 2025 growth dipping to 1% or less if this keeps up. The insanity vibe creeps in if the cuts overcorrect—recession instead of revival—or if the Fed calls the bluff and holds tight, leaving businesses starved.

Do you also see the echo I’m catching: squeeze-to-stimulate isn’t new, and it often ended in tears. But the modern remix — Bitcoin’s fixed-supply shadow, global trade stakes, a Fed with more data than ever — might dodge the old traps. Or not. The jury’s out, and the chaos is live.

I think the wild card is that Congress is completely broken. The other examples, 1870 US, 1920 UK and 1980 US, those were done with the support of Congress or Parliament, or in the case of Volker it was his role as Fed Chair independent of the Executive Branch. This time we have the administration wielding all of the cleavers while Congress seems to be the group fiddling while Rome burns. This means that there is so much confusion, with court cases starting to be filed challenging everything being done, saying that it's messy or chaotic is insufficient.

Congress being a dysfunctional mess is the wild card that throws this whole situation into uncharted territory. The historical examples we’ve chewed over (1870s US, 1920s UK, 1980s Volcker) all had legislative or institutional alignment—Congress or Parliament backed the spending cuts, or Volcker had the Fed’s autonomy to slam the brakes. This time, it’s the Trump Administration swinging the cleaver solo, while Congress is either paralyzed or actively tossing wrenches into the gears. “Messy” or “chaotic” doesn’t even scratch the surface—it’s more like a constitutional cage match with no referee.

Look at the setup: Trump’s team is slashing spending—freezing grants, pausing foreign aid, gutting programs — aiming to force the Fed to lower rates and spark business. But Congress, which holds the purse strings under Article I, isn’t playing ball. The House barely passed a budget resolution in February (217-215) with $1.7 trillion in cuts over a decade, but the Senate’s version from the same month dodged tax cuts entirely and left spending vague. Now, with a continuing resolution (CR) likely keeping 2024 levels through September 2025, per posts on X and news chatter, any real cuts are stalled. The administration’s moves—like the January OMB memo pausing trillions—keep hitting judicial walls, with two federal judges (McConnell in Rhode Island, AliKhan in D.C.) blocking freezes by March 6, saying it’s unconstitutional overreach. Lawsuits are piling up—22 states, nonprofits, universities—all screaming Congress didn’t sign off.

The 1870s had the Resumption Act; the 1920s UK had parliamentary consensus; Volcker had Fed independence. Today? Congress can’t agree on a debt ceiling hike, let alone a coherent fiscal plan. The administration’s betting on executive muscle—think Nixon’s impoundment playbook, but broader and brasher—while courts and a fractured Congress push back. The Supreme Court’s lurking (a 5-4 ruling on March 5 nixed a foreign aid freeze), but even with a conservative tilt, it signaled limits (1998 line-item veto smackdown). Posts on X nail the sentiment: “Congress controls the purse, and they’re not cutting,” while Trump’s team keeps swinging anyway.

This isn’t just chaos—it’s a power vacuum. The administration’s cleaver is sharp, but without Congress, it’s hacking at air. Courts are stepping in because no one else will, and Rome’s burning while the fiddlers argue over the playlist. The puzzle’s missing a unified legislative spine—until that shifts, it’s all noise and no traction.

I don't see a circuit breaker tripping until we get new leadership. Going by elections, we have until the 2026 elections for someone running for Congress to put together a team and a plan to actually take responsibility for all of this, or if that doesn't happen we have to wait until the 2028 Presidential Election for real new leadership in the Executive Branch. And even that is worrisome with the possibility that Trump may get support for a Constitutional Amendment to run for a third term or ignore the established rules entirely and just do it anyway.

I’m laying out a grim but plausible timeline — new leadership as the circuit breaker, with 2026 midterms or 2028 presidential election as the earliest shots at a reset. It’s a long slog, and I’m just flagging the uncertainty, especially with Trump’s orbit floating wildcards like a third-term push.

Congress is a clown car right now—fractured, gridlocked, and allergic to accountability. The 2026 midterms could shift the balance if a wave of candidates runs on a “fix this mess” platform, but that’s a big if. Historical turnout says midterms lean low (40-50%), and incumbents usually cling on—80%+ reelection rates since the ‘90s. Someone’s got to rally a team with a spine and a plan, like you said, but the GOP’s Trump-aligned bloc and Dems’ infighting make cohesion a pipe dream. Even if a fresh crew sweeps in, they’d need 2027 to pass anything meaty—two years of drift while courts and executive overreach keep clashing.

The 2028 presidential slot’s the bigger lever. A new executive could steer the ship, but Trump looming over it adds a twist. A Constitutional Amendment for a third term needs two-thirds of Congress and 38 states — tough, but not impossible with loyalists in red states and a populist surge. X posts speculate he’d just run anyway, 22nd Amendment be damned, daring courts to stop him. Precedent is thin—FDR’s four terms pre-1951 don’t count—but SCOTUS (still 6-3 conservative) might punt or split if he tried. Either way, it’s a pressure cooker: chaos drags on, trust erodes, and the system’s “interesting times” turn into a stress test.

No quick fix jumps out. Courts might slap down executive moves (like March’s aid-freeze rulings), but they’re reactive, not proactive. Congress waking up? Not without electoral shock therapy. Leadership’s the bottleneck, and 2026 or 2028 are the horizons. Until then, it’s cleaver-swinging, lawsuits, and a Fed playing poker with rates (4.25% still holding). Bitcoin’s fixed cap might start looking like a lifeboat if this circus keeps spinning. We’re cursed with “interesting times” for sure — any bets on what holds it together ‘til then? My cards are on the table, and I’m out of chips.

Thanks to Grok for helping me develop this rant into a 10 page monster.

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

Herzlichen Glückwunsch zum dritten Geburtstag, liebe Denk Bar! Wieso zum dritten? Das war doch 2022 und jetzt sind wir im Jahr 2024, oder? Ja, das ist schon richtig, aber bei Geburtstagen erinnere ich mich immer auch an meinen Vater, und der behauptete oft, der erste sei ja schließlich der Tag der Geburt selber und den müsse man natürlich mitzählen. Wo er recht hat, hat er nunmal recht. Konsequenterweise wird also heute dieser Blog an seinem dritten Geburtstag zwei Jahre alt.

Das ist ein Grund zum Feiern, wie ich finde. Einerseits ganz einfach, weil es dafür gar nicht genug Gründe geben kann. «Das Leben sind zwei Tage», lautet ein gängiger Ausdruck hier in Andalusien. In der Tat könnte es so sein, auch wenn wir uns im Alltag oft genug von der Routine vereinnahmen lassen.

Seit dem Start der Denk Bar vor zwei Jahren ist unglaublich viel passiert. Ebenso wie die zweieinhalb Jahre davor, und all jenes war letztlich auch der Auslöser dafür, dass ich begann, öffentlich zu schreiben. Damals notierte ich:

«Seit einigen Jahren erscheint unser öffentliches Umfeld immer fragwürdiger, widersprüchlicher und manchmal schier unglaublich - jede Menge Anlass für eigene Recherchen und Gedanken, ganz einfach mit einer Portion gesundem Menschenverstand.»

Wir erleben den sogenannten «großen Umbruch», einen globalen Coup, den skrupellose Egoisten clever eingefädelt haben und seit ein paar Jahren knallhart – aber nett verpackt – durchziehen, um buchstäblich alles nach ihrem Gusto umzukrempeln. Die Gelegenheit ist ja angeblich günstig und muss genutzt werden.

Nie hätte ich mir träumen lassen, dass ich so etwas jemals miterleben müsste. Die Bosheit, mit der ganz offensichtlich gegen die eigene Bevölkerung gearbeitet wird, war früher für mich unvorstellbar. Mein (Rest-) Vertrauen in alle möglichen Bereiche wie Politik, Wissenschaft, Justiz, Medien oder Kirche ist praktisch komplett zerstört. Einen «inneren Totalschaden» hatte ich mal für unsere Gesellschaften diagnostiziert.

Was mich vielleicht am meisten erschreckt, ist zum einen das Niveau der Gleichschaltung, das weltweit erreicht werden konnte, und zum anderen die praktisch totale Spaltung der Gesellschaft. Haben wir das tatsächlich mit uns machen lassen?? Unfassbar! Aber das Werkzeug «Angst» ist sehr mächtig und funktioniert bis heute.

Zum Glück passieren auch positive Dinge und neue Perspektiven öffnen sich. Für viele Menschen waren und sind die Entwicklungen der letzten Jahre ein Augenöffner. Sie sehen «Querdenken» als das, was es ist: eine Tugend.

Auch die immer ernsteren Zensurbemühungen sind letztlich nur ein Zeichen der Schwäche, wo Argumente fehlen. Sie werden nicht verhindern, dass wir unsere Meinung äußern, unbequeme Fragen stellen und dass die Wahrheit peu à peu ans Licht kommt. Es gibt immer Mittel und Wege, auch für uns.

---

Danke, dass du diesen Weg mit mir weitergehst!

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Ein Lämmchen löschte an einem Bache seinen Durst. Fern von ihm, aber näher der Quelle, tat ein Wolf das gleiche. Kaum erblickte er das Lämmchen, so schrie er:

"Warum trübst du mir das Wasser, das ich trinken will?"

"Wie wäre das möglich", erwiderte schüchtern das Lämmchen, "ich stehe hier unten und du so weit oben; das Wasser fließt ja von dir zu mir; glaube mir, es kam mir nie in den Sinn, dir etwas Böses zu tun!"

"Ei, sieh doch! Du machst es gerade, wie dein Vater vor sechs Monaten; ich erinnere mich noch sehr wohl, daß auch du dabei warst, aber glücklich entkamst, als ich ihm für sein Schmähen das Fell abzog!"

"Ach, Herr!" flehte das zitternde Lämmchen, "ich bin ja erst vier Wochen alt und kannte meinen Vater gar nicht, so lange ist er schon tot; wie soll ich denn für ihn büßen."

"Du Unverschämter!" so endigt der Wolf mit erheuchelter Wut, indem er die Zähne fletschte. "Tot oder nicht tot, weiß ich doch, daß euer ganzes Geschlecht mich hasset, und dafür muß ich mich rächen."

Ohne weitere Umstände zu machen, zerriß er das Lämmchen und verschlang es.

Das Gewissen regt sich selbst bei dem größten Bösewichte; er sucht doch nach Vorwand, um dasselbe damit bei Begehung seiner Schlechtigkeiten zu beschwichtigen.

Quelle: https://eden.one/fabeln-aesop-das-lamm-und-der-wolf

@ 16d11430:61640947

Elliptic Curve AI (ECAI) is built on deterministic knowledge retrieval using elliptic curve mathematics. Isogenies provide a powerful mechanism for structuring and transforming knowledge while preserving its cryptographic integrity. Here’s how ECAI can benefit from elliptic curve isogenies:

---

1. Knowledge State Transitioning via Isogenies

In ECAI, knowledge is mapped as elliptic curve points.

Isogenies allow transformation of knowledge states while preserving mathematical relationships.

This enables secure knowledge evolution without introducing probabilistic error.

Example: Knowledge Encapsulation & Transformation

1. Encode knowledge as a structured point on elliptic curve .

2. Apply an isogeny , where represents a different domain of knowledge.

3. Retrieve transformed knowledge in without breaking the deterministic structure.

Use Case:

A legal contract encoded on can be isogenously mapped to an encrypted compliance framework on .

This transition is cryptographically verifiable and irreversible, ensuring immutability of the knowledge chain.

---

1. Post-Quantum Secure Knowledge Verification

ECAI’s structured intelligence retrieval needs long-term cryptographic security. Since Shor’s algorithm (on a quantum computer) can break classical elliptic curve cryptography (ECC), isogeny-based cryptography provides a post-quantum security layer.

SIDH (Supersingular Isogeny Diffie-Hellman) allows ECAI to verify structured intelligence without revealing private keys.

Isogeny graphs ensure knowledge transfer is resistant to quantum attacks.

Use Case:

ECAI nodes storing knowledge must be quantum-resistant.

Isogeny-based cryptography ensures retrieval functions cannot be forged even under quantum adversaries.

---

1. Immutable Knowledge Chains with Isogeny Graphs

An isogeny graph is a structure where elliptic curves are connected via isogenies. ECAI can leverage this concept to build immutable knowledge networks.

How it Works

Each verified knowledge state corresponds to an elliptic curve.

Isogenies provide a deterministic, mathematically enforced way to transition between states.

The entire knowledge structure forms an isogeny graph that resists tampering.

Use Case:

Knowledge NFTs: Every piece of knowledge in ECAI can be recorded on an isogeny graph, ensuring ownership and integrity.

DamageBDD Proofs: Test case verification can move through isogeny transformations to maintain structured immutability.

---

1. Adaptive AI Decision-Making using Isogenies

Traditional AI uses probabilistic inference, while ECAI relies on deterministic knowledge retrieval. Isogenies allow non-destructive transformation of knowledge, meaning:

AI decisions can be mapped as elliptic curve transformations.

Knowledge retrieval functions can evolve via controlled isogeny paths rather than brute-force learning.

The resulting system is adaptive but remains fully deterministic.

Use Case:

DamageAI can apply isogenies to map software quality metrics between different project states, ensuring structured decision-making without introducing bias.

---

1. Isogeny-Based Knowledge Compression & Aggregation

ECAI’s structured intelligence can use isogenies to compress knowledge.

Isogenies allow aggregation of multiple elliptic curve points into a single transformed curve.

This enables efficient knowledge storage without losing structural integrity.

Use Case:

DamageBDD test results across multiple domains can be compressed into a single isogeny-mapped curve, reducing computational overhead while maintaining verifiability.

---

Conclusion

Isogenies offer a powerful tool for deterministic knowledge transformation in ECAI. By integrating isogeny-based methods, ECAI can:

1. Securely evolve knowledge states without probabilistic degradation.

2. Achieve post-quantum security for intelligence retrieval.

3. Build immutable knowledge graphs that are cryptographically verifiable.

4. Optimize deterministic decision-making using isogeny-based transitions.

5. Compress and aggregate knowledge in structured formats.

Next Steps

Would you like a Python implementation of an isogeny-based knowledge transformation function to illustrate how ECAI can apply this concept? 🚀

@ 878dff7c:037d18bc

NSW Premier Chris Minns: Multiculturalism Requires Limits on Free Speech

Summary:

NSW Premier Chris Minns has stated that maintaining a successful multicultural society requires limits on free speech, arguing that Australia does not have the same free speech protections as the United States because of its diverse population. Minns suggested that social harmony relies on people refraining from saying everything they think, particularly on sensitive racial and religious issues. His comments come as NSW enacts new laws criminalizing racial hatred, banning public Nazi symbols, and increasing penalties for hate-related offenses. Critics argue these laws could stifle free expression, but Minns insists they are necessary to prevent division and ensure peaceful coexistence.
Sources: news.com.au - March 20, 2025, The Epoch Times - March 20, 2025

Canada Purchases Australia's Jindalee Radar System

Summary:

Canada has agreed to purchase Australia's Jindalee Over-the-Horizon Radar (JORN) system for $6.5 billion, marking Australia's largest defense export. The radar system will enhance Canada's Arctic defense capabilities amid rising geopolitical tensions, particularly with the U.S. Both Australian and Canadian leaders have emphasized strengthening trade and defense relations in light of changing global dynamics. Sources: The Australian - March 20, 2025

Nvidia Unveils Next-Generation AI Technologies at GTC 2025

Summary:

At the GTC 2025 AI conference, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang introduced significant advancements, including the upcoming Blackwell Ultra AI chips and the Vera Rubin AI superchip platform, expected in late 2025 and the second half of 2026, respectively. The company also showcased "Blue," a robot developed with Disney Research and Google DeepMind, highlighting new robotics technologies and the Newton physics engine. Additionally, Nvidia announced Dynamo, an open-source inference software system, and a partnership with General Motors to develop custom AI systems for vehicles and factories. Sources: Business Insider - March 18, 2025, Tom's Guide - March 18, 2025

Queensland Braces for Torrential Rainfall and Potential Flooding

Summary:

Queensland's southeast is preparing for heavy rainfall, with forecasts predicting totals between 100 and 400mm in the coming days. Flood watches and severe weather warnings have been issued for regions including Herbert and Lower Burdekin. Areas such as Townsville, Palm Island, and Lucinda may experience six-hour rainfall totals of up to 240mm. This follows recent floods in Ingham, where 200 homes were affected. While conditions are expected to moderate in the afternoon, showery weather is likely to continue into the weekend. Residents are advised to stay updated and take necessary precautions.

Sources: news.com.au - March 20, 2025, ABC News - March 18, 2025

Australia Firm on PBS Amid US Tariff Threats

Summary:

Health Minister Mark Butler has asserted that Australia will not negotiate changes to its Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) despite pressure from US pharmaceutical companies lobbying President Donald Trump to impose tariffs on Australian medicines. The government is actively engaging with US counterparts to prevent potential tariffs, emphasizing the importance of maintaining affordable healthcare for Australians. Sources: ABC News - March 20, 2025, The Guardian - March 20, 2025

Australians Losing Faith in 'Fair Go' Principle

Summary:

Recent research indicates a significant shift in Australian values, with a declining belief in fairness and equality. Economic disparities, particularly the housing crisis, have eroded trust in political institutions, especially among younger generations. This trend poses profound implications for the upcoming election, highlighting the need for policies addressing economic inequality and fostering community engagement. Sources: The Guardian - March 20, 2025

Malaysia to Resume Search for MH370

Summary:

Malaysia has agreed to terms with the U.S. seabed exploration firm Ocean Infinity to resume the search for Malaysia Airlines flight MH370, which disappeared in 2014. The new search will cover a 15,000 sq km area on a "no find, no fee" basis, potentially starting soon. Sources: The Guardian - March 20, 2025

Study Reveals High Head and Neck Cancer Mortality in Rural Queensland

Summary:

A study led by James Cook University has identified significant cancer hotspots in Queensland, particularly for head and neck cancers. Data from the Queensland Cancer Register from 1982 to 2018 revealed that Hinchinbrook, Quilpie, Yarrabah, and Murweh have the highest risk of death from these cancers. Factors include limited access to tertiary hospitals and low awareness of risk factors such as tobacco, alcohol, and betel nut use. The study emphasizes the importance of early diagnosis and education, suggesting intervention strategies like cancer navigators and proposing a national oral cancer screening program. Sources: The Courier-Mail - March 20, 2025

Shayna Jack Advocates for Mental Health Awareness

Summary:

Olympic swimmer Shayna Jack has opened up about her mental health struggles during her two-year doping ban, revealing experiences with depression and suicidal thoughts. Through News Corp Australia's "Can We Talk?" campaign, Jack emphasizes the importance of seeking support and aims to destigmatize mental health issues, inspiring others to prioritize their well-being. Sources: News.com.au - March 20, 2025

EU Advocates for Resumption of Free-Trade Talks with Australia

Summary:

The European Union's top diplomat in Australia is urging the swift resumption of stalled free-trade negotiations between Australia and the EU. Highlighting the EU as a reliable partner that respects agreements, the ambassador emphasized the importance of shared values and historical ties. This call comes amid global economic disruptions due to US tariffs under President Trump. Previous attempts to secure a trade agreement faced challenges, particularly concerning agricultural exports. However, the EU is now pushing for renewed talks, aiming to remove tariffs and enhance collaborations in defense, critical minerals, and scientific research. The ambassador stressed that in light of current global uncertainties, establishing a robust trade relationship between Australia and the EU is essential. Sources: The Australian - March 20, 2025

Chinese Bounty Offers Raise Concerns Among Australian Residents

Summary:

Melbourne residents received letters resembling police appeals, offering HK$1 million for information on Kevin Yam, a Hong Kong dissident lawyer residing in Australia. Yam fled amid a crackdown on political opposition by the Chinese government and now lives discreetly in Australia. The letters encouraged residents to report Yam to authorities, sparking fear and concern. This tactic mirrors approaches used in the UK against other dissidents sought by Hong Kong police. Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong condemned the letters, assuring that such intimidation would not be tolerated. Yam has vowed not to return to Hong Kong until its freedom is restored. The Hong Kong government denied involvement, stating all official actions abide by legal procedures. Sources: The Times - March 20, 2025

Government Plans to Expedite Legislation Protecting Tasmania's Salmon Industry

Summary:

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese intends to fast-track legislation to safeguard Tasmania's salmon farming in Macquarie Harbour from legal challenges concerning its environmental impact on the endangered Maugean skate. The proposed amendments to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act aim to ensure the industry's sustainability while bypassing an ongoing environmental review. This move has garnered support from industry leaders and some political figures but faces criticism from environmental groups and the Greens, who argue it undermines necessary ecological assessments. Sources: The Guardian - March 19, 2025, The Australian - March 20, 2025

"I'm Pro-Free Speech and Anti-War, So That Makes Me Right-Wing?" - Jimmy Dore on Dad Saves America Podcast

Summary:

In this episode of the "Dad Saves America" podcast, comedian and political commentator Jimmy Dore discusses the evolving landscape of American politics. He reflects on how advocating for free speech and opposing war, traditionally liberal stances, are now often labeled as right-wing positions. Dore critiques the current political climate, emphasizing the importance of questioning authority and maintaining independent thought. He also shares insights into his journey from mainstream media to alternative platforms, highlighting challenges faced when diverging from dominant narratives.

Sources: Spotify - March 14, 2025

@ 30ceb64e:7f08bdf5

NIP-101e: Workout Data and Running Extensions

NIP-101e represents a crucial step forward for fitness tracking on Nostr, giving us a common language that would allow workout data to flow freely between apps. This proposal outlines a thoughtful framework with Exercise Templates, Workout Templates, and Workout Records that would finally free our fitness data from proprietary silos and put it back in our hands. I'm eager to see this proposal implemented because it would create the foundation for a genuinely open fitness ecosystem on Nostr.

As a runner building a Nostr running app RUNSTR, I've proposed some running-specific extensions to NIP-101e that address the unique needs of runners without disrupting the elegant structure of the original proposal. My extensions would standardize how we record GPS routes, pace metrics, elevation data, splits, and even weather conditions - all things that matter tremendously to runners but aren't covered in the base proposal that focuses more on strength training.

By implementing NIP-101e along with these running extensions, we could create something truly revolutionary: a fitness ecosystem where runners aren't locked into a single platform because of their data. You could track your morning run in my app, analyze your training in another app that specializes in statistics, and share achievements with friends using whatever Nostr clients they prefer. I believe strongly in getting NIP-101e implemented with these extensions included because it would foster innovation while giving runners unprecedented freedom to own their data and use it however they want. Let's make this happen and show what's possible when fitness data becomes truly interoperable!

@ 4f170d8a:5e8ef636

The Vikings, renowned for their seafaring prowess, dominated the seas of Northern Europe from the late 8th to the early 11th century.

These fearless explorers ventured across vast oceans, reaching as far as North America, long before the age of modern navigation tools and centuries before the magnetic compass came to Europe. While their shipbuilding skills and knowledge of the stars were exceptional for their time, one of their most intriguing navigational aids was the mythical "sunstone."

This mysterious tool, steeped in both legend and science, is believed to have allowed Viking navigators to locate the sun even on cloudy days, ensuring they could maintain their course across the treacherous North Atlantic ocean.

The Challenge of Viking Navigation

Navigating the open sea in the Viking Age was no small feat. The North Atlantic, with its unpredictable weather, frequent fog, and overcast skies, posed significant challenges.

Traditional methods of navigation relied heavily on the sun and stars, but in a region where the sun could disappear behind clouds for days, the Vikings needed a reliable way to stay oriented.

While they were adept at reading natural signs such as the flight patterns of birds, the color of the sea, and the direction of the wind, the sunstone offered a more precise solution.

Historical accounts hint at the use of a "sunstone" by Viking navigators. One passage even describes a Viking king using a special stone to locate the sun’s position during a snowstorm. For centuries, this reference was dismissed as myth, but modern science has shed light on how such a tool could have worked, reviving interest in this ancient technique.

What Was the Sunstone?

The sunstone is believed to have been a naturally occurring crystal, most likely a type of calcite known as Iceland spar. Another candidate is tourmaline, which exhibits similar optical properties.

These crystals have a unique quality called birefringence, or double refraction, which causes them to split light into two polarized beams. When viewed through the crystal, the light’s polarization reveals patterns that can indicate the sun’s position, even when it’s obscured by clouds or fog.

The key to the sunstone’s effectiveness lies in the polarization of sunlight. As sunlight scatters through the atmosphere, it becomes polarized, creating an invisible pattern that radiates outward from the sun.

By rotating the sunstone and observing changes in the light passing through it, a skilled navigator could detect this pattern and pinpoint the sun’s location, regardless of whether it was visible to the naked eye.

How the Vikings Used the Sunstone

To use the sunstone, a Viking navigator would hold the crystal up to the sky and rotate it until the polarized light formed a specific pattern (often a brightening or darkening effect), depending on the stone.

Iceland spar, for instance, produces two distinct beams of light, and when these beams appear equally bright, the crystal is aligned with the sun’s position.

By marking this direction and combining it with their knowledge of time and the sun’s daily arc, the Vikings could determine their heading with remarkable accuracy.

This method was particularly useful during the long voyages across the North Atlantic, where overcast skies were common.

It complemented other techniques, such as using a sun compass, which was a wooden disk with a central pin that cast a shadow to indicate direction when the sun was visible.

On cloudy days, when the sun compass was useless, the sunstone stepped in as a critical backup.

Let's Build One

If you are anything like me, you don't have lumps of Iceland spar or tourmaline crystals laying about your back yard. So I decided to make one using modern materials.

Since the original crystals relied on polarization to achieve their effect, I ordered some linear polarized plastic film online which science teachers often use in classroom demonstrations.

Now the challenge became turning the linear polarization into radial polarization, and I chose to make an octagon out of suitably arranged triangles cut from the sheet.

The image below shows how I created a template on a scrap piece of paper, and then used that to cut triangles from a strip of the polarizing film.

The next step involves carefully placing the triangles onto some clear packing tape so that they stick into place.

I then carefully placed another piece of clear packing tape on top so that the octagon of triangles is permanently fastened into place.

Then with a blade, I trimmed the excess packing tape and the sunstone is complete.

Now to test it!

You can see here that I'm holding the sunstone up against a North facing window so that you can see how the different triangles make different colors depending on their angle to the incoming light from outside.

The light gray triangles indicate the direction of the sun even though the sun is behind the house. and it will work the same way on a cloudy day no matter which way you are facing.

Today, the sunstone captivates historians, scientists, and enthusiasts alike. It’s a reminder that ancient technologies, though simple by modern standards, were often remarkably effective.

The Vikings’ ability to traverse oceans with nothing more than a crystal and their wits speaks to their extraordinary skill.

The earth's magnetic field is rapidly weakening and the poles moving. There may come a day in the not too distant future where navigation by GPS or compass will not longer be possible.

The sunstone stands as a symbol of human curiosity and resilience, which may once again illuminate the path of those who dare to sail beyond the horizon.

@ 000002de:c05780a7

This is an absolutely great conversation between an anarchist (Michael Malice) and a conservative (Marissa Steit). Many of you will agree with the answers Malice provides but many of you that often have questions about the idea of anarchism should listen to this.

Now, if you just wanna argue don't waste your time. But if you are genuinely curious Malice is a great communicator on the topic. There are many schools of thought on anarchism and Malice just represents his point of view but he knocks down many troupes that conservative republicans repeat.

While right wingers don't get how evil the state actually is they are closer to understanding than the left. They are also better at understanding people that disagree with them. In my experience leftist do not understand the right but the right does understand the left. Not fully but better. This helps. You can see it in this interview.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D43Xvom9hmw

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/918194

@ 9967f375:04f9a5e1

Carlos Javier de Borbón Parma y Lippe Biesterfield, quien en principio hubiera debido ser el titular de los derechos de la legitimidad dinástica española, de no haberlos perdido por seguir el camino de su padre, ha concedido una entrevista de tono cortesano y más bien inane, que demuestra que están lejos los tiempos del socialismo autogestionario y las alianzas de su padre con comunistas y terroristas, aunque sigan muy presentes los del liberal-globalismo de la «Agenda 2030».

Son muchas las cosas que podrían comentarse, pero nos limitaremos a los dos párrafos que se refieren a su tío, S.A.R. Don Sixto Enrique de Borbón. Quien desde 2021 adoptó prudentemente todo tipo de cautelas respecto de su persona, sus bienes y su sucesión, desgraciadamente algunas no respetadas por el Estado revolucionario francés, animado en este punto tristemente por algún miembro de la familia del Señor, y que están sub iudice.

En todo caso, y agradeciendo la preocupación del ex-Príncipe por su Augusto tío, es de precisar que la reconciliación a la que se alude, contraída a encuentros del Señor con algunas de sus hermanas, a quienes había dejado de tratar hace muchos años, fue única y exclusivamente familiar, sin consecuencia política o jurídica alguna. E incluso en ese ámbito familiar ciertos pleitos hereditarios han proseguido y Don Sixto Enrique tuvo que recriminar severamente a su sobrino que permitiera la incineración del cadáver de la ex-Infanta María Teresa.

Entre vaguedades, inconsecuencias y errores de todo tipo es de celebrar, por lo menos, que Carlos Javier de Borbón Parma y Lippe Biesterfield sepa que los Duques de Parma siempre anteponían su título de infantes de España a ese título. Y es que es una dinastía española. Sujeta a las leyes tradicionales de la monarquía española, con sus exigencias y exclusiones.

Madrid, 19 de marzo de 2025 Solemnidad del Glorioso Patriarca Señor San José

Comunión Tradicionalista

@ 7bc05901:8c26d22b

I grew up far out of town in a nice neighborhood. My family had ten acres, but we didn't work the land. My mom had a kitchen garden with some tomatoes and herbs, and we had a few fruiting trees that were a far cry from an orchard.

I liked many things, like the massive off-rad go-kart track that we built through the backyard turning crabgrass into mud and the fact that the fourth of july was an entire week of pyrotechnics. But I was a social kid and hated being so disconnected from the town. We also could not get any high-speed internet out there until a few years into the new millennium, which meant MSN Messenger would put the dial-up at max capacity. This also cut against my exploratory instincts and social nature.

I am grateful I now live in town, but since having my first kid the homesteading life is calling out to me. I find myself scrolling zillow for houses just outside of the city limits with at least five or six acres. Now that the seasons are finally changing, I can stop scrolling and start investing my time in the backyard.

One important move to make in my mini-homestead (suburban homestead) is getting my chickens caged up better. I have a small coop where they lay eggs for me, but it is so confining that I had to let them out to wander the backyard -- which is surrounded by a privacy fence anyway. This kept them contained, but over the last year since I got the chickens, I realized that I hated just going out back to chill on the patio because chicken shit just covered everything. Over the last week, I have been erecting a bigger coop where the chickens can help me compost all the kitchen scraps, also have access to their coop (and easy access for me to get eggs) but I don't have to dodge their humongous turd piles all over the patio.

They also would tear the hell out of the garden. They like to take "dirt baths" which has something to do with deterring the mites that get on them, and they will just dig down into any soft soil, destroying plants or roots or whatever is in their way.

We had a decent garden last year, but it was disorganized and messy and did not maximize the food production. I kept saying, no big deal, let's take a year to get oriented, see what grows well out here, see what we enjoy growing and eating.

My daughter loves it. She would be covered in tomato seeds last year -- she had a confusing affinity for the unripened green tomatoes (which probably have some sort of cyanide or something in them). I think by the end of the season she was catching on that the reddest ones had the best flavor.

We also have a raspberry patch that she absolutely adored. She would dig through those bushes to find tasty raspberries that would terrify me when she inhaled them. I was sure that I would be doing the baby heimlich on her! I am glad that she learned, before she could even articulate words, that her sustenance comes magically out of the soil. She has the rest of her life to ponder how exactly that works and who might be behind it, but until then, she will feast.

My buddy Richie preached my wedding and said that the bible begins in a garden and ends in a garden. I plan to spend the time in between in a garden as well.

@ 0dc2dcb1:4787801a

https://ccns.nostrver.se is a (Drupal powered) website that I started to build in January 2024 (source on Github and Gitlab). It's a fork of an earlier (abandoned) project https://cchs.social/.
Currently CCNS is a link aggregration website and for now it's only my who is using it to save and share Nostr related links. When you post a new link, you have the option to cross-post it as a Nostr note (example here).

Kind 39700

Last month Jurjen and Abir have started to work on a social bookmark client built with Nostr (inspired by Del.icio.us from the past). Earlier this month they changed to event kind 39700 for broadcasting the Nostr event with the bookmark / link data accross the network. They did this because Sep already created a social bookmark like client called Pinja when fiatjaf raised this idea.

With these developments to me it was very obvious to integrate the feature that new created CCNS links are now also published as kind 39700 events to the Nostr network. This means that links are now also distributed on multiple relays as kind 39700 events and are accessible in multiple clients (Yumyume and Pinja).

Here you can see the same data, from left to right:

• CCNS
• Pinja
• Yumyume
• njump

Structure

The current data structure for the 39700 kind looks as follow:

• "id": "event_id"
• "pubkey": "pubkey author"
• "created_at": unix_timestamp
• "kind": 39700
• "tags":
  • "description", "description text here"
  • "d", "unique-slug-value"
  • "t", "hashtag"
• "content": "https://book_mark_url"  
• "sig": "signature"

As there is no NIP (yet) for this event kind, I see some possible improvements:

• Use the bookmark URL value in the d tag so it can be used as a unique identifier for every client
• Use the content field for the description value

On short-term I don't have any plans to developer CCNS further, as most of my attention goes to the development of the Nostr-PHP library and Drupal related contribs using that library. That said, CCNS is a Drupal project but all the Nostr stuff is done client-side (Javascript) with NDK and Nostr-PHP is not used (maybe this will change in the future).

@ 7d33ba57:1b82db35

Arucas

Arucas is a charming town in northern Gran Canaria, known for its **neo-Gothic cathedral, banana plantations, and famous rum distillery. With its volcanic stone architecture, lush gardens, and local delicacies, Arucas is a must-visit for culture and nature lovers.

🏛️ Top Things to See & Do in Arucas

1️⃣ Church of San Juan Bautista (Arucas Cathedral)

A stunning neo-Gothic masterpiece built from local volcanic stone. Its intricate façade and towering spires make it one of the most beautiful churches in the Canary Islands.

2️⃣ Arehucas Rum Distillery

Visit the oldest rum distillery in the Canary Islands and taste the famous Arehucas rum, aged in oak barrels and enjoyed worldwide.

3️⃣ Arucas Historic Old Town

Walk through cobblestone streets lined with colorful colonial houses and charming plazas. The town’s historic center has a unique Canarian feel.

4️⃣ Jardines de la Marquesa (Marquesa Gardens)

A beautiful botanical garden with over 500 exotic plant species, perfect for a peaceful stroll.

5️⃣ Montaña de Arucas Viewpoint

A short hike or drive up this volcanic hill offers panoramic views of Arucas, the coast, and Las Palmas in the distance.

🍽️ What to Eat in Arucas

• Papas arrugadas con mojo – Wrinkly potatoes with red & green sauces 🥔
• Queso de Flor – A special local cheese made with thistle flower 🧀
• Bienmesabe – A traditional almond dessert 🍯
• Arehucas Rum – Enjoy it neat or in cocktails 🥃

🚗 How to Get to Arucas

🚗 By Car: ~15 min drive from Las Palmas
🚌 By Bus: Direct routes from Las Palmas (Lines 205 & 206)

💡 Tips for Visiting Arucas

✅ Best time to visit? Spring & autumn for mild weather 🌞
✅ Try a rum tour! The Arehucas distillery is one of the best experiences 🍹
✅ Explore nearby – Combine your trip with Firgas or Teror, two other beautiful towns nearby

@ a367f9eb:0633efea

On February 27th, the Securities and Exchange Commission stated in its latest staff statement that memecoins are not necessarily securities.

“Although the offer and sale of meme coins may not be subject to the federal securities laws, fraudulent conduct related to the offer and sale of meme coins may be subject to enforcement action or prosecution,” writes the SEC.

‍This clarity is important, but it reveals nothing about what the policies around memecoins, rugpulls, and crypto scams should actually be.

‍This month has already delivered us Argentine President Javier Milei’s promotion of a pump-and-dump memecoin called LIBRA. At this moment, Barstool Sports founder Dave Portnoy is probably pumping his third or fourth favorite memecoin into oblivion while he dumps on retail.

‍In each of these cases, these tokens are created with copy-paste smart contracts, influencers singing their praises, and people exchanging their stablecoins, bitcoin, or some other altcoin for the hope of making it rich.

Memecoin world

‍Of course, in a free country people should be free to bet on things they want. But they should be prepared to lose just as much as they’re prepared to win.

To the uninitiated, these scams represent “crypto” writ-large, lumping the original decentralized protocol of Bitcoin with pump and dump scams from platforms like pump.fun that run on Solana and other chains.

‍Knowing what we know, and how desperate parts of the crypto market are for outrageous tokens and leveraged degen trading, we must naturally ask how Bitcoin can fix this. Or, rather, how smart Bitcoin policies can fix this.

As I have written for several years, we as Bitcoin advocates should promote sound policies that will encourage innovation and increase economic inclusion across all income groups, all the while protecting consumers from harm. We want to avoid blowouts like FTX, Celsius, and even stablecoins projects like TerraUSD – not only because they defraud bitcoiners, but because they sully the reputation of our entire sector of technological innovation.

Because Bitcoin represents scarcity, decentralization, and complete transparency, there is much we can learn from Satoshi’s innovation when we’re dealing with next-level crypto-offspring.

The Smart Bitcoin Policies to Stop Crypto Scams

‍To begin, US federal, state, and local agencies should update their technological stack to rigorously identify and prosecute fraud and abuse in crypto projects. Fraudulent claims, fake token whitepapers, and deceptive tactics are already illegal under existing law. Our agencies should be empowered to enforce existing law and weed out the bad actors.

Whether that means better training or tools, law enforcement should receive the necessary upgrades to prosecute and identify the real fraudulent crime that happens to take place in crypto protocols. Much of this behavior is just being used in a new medium. It’s not crazy to think that cops should upgrade their tech stack to understand how it’s happening now.

Second, our policies on money transmission licenses and regulation for crypto exchanges should be streamlined and made easier, rather than more difficult. Let competition provide the best places for people to buy their bitcoin. As much as privacy advocates abhor centralized platforms and exchanges, they still implement better security and educational practices to inform users than a shady service hosted in China will provide.

By simplifying the rules and restrictions on bitcoin exchanges, especially by allowing them to consider their custodied bitcoin as assets rather than liabilities as was done by rescinding SAB 121, it means that more Americans will have the opportunity to have excellent experiences when purchasing their coins online.

Third, regulators must not pigeonhole bitcoin and its crypto-offspring only as investments fit for taxing, but rather as technological tools that empower consumers and foster innovation. Too much discussion about bitcoin policies hinges on the tax rate or how much it will bring to state coffers, rather than by how much it can make one’s life better by removing the red tape to safeguard wealth.

By recognizing the ultimate power of bitcoin self-custody without needing to trust third parties or intermediaries, it means we finally view this technology as an extension of our own free speech and freedom of association.

And lastly, we must focus on removing the barriers to using bitcoin as an ordinary means of payment. The Keep Your Coins Act restricts federal agencies from stopping individuals from using bitcoin how they see fit, as well as protecting self-custody. That, plus de minimis exemption rules that allow us to spend bitcoin as any other asset, mean we can use digital money as intended.

We know that memecoins and rugpulls will continue to happen no matter what, this is almost human nature. But at the same time, embracing smart bitcoin policies will ensure that consumers and users have the best tools and protections available to use the technology if they want.

Originally published at the Bitcoin Policy Institute.

@ 3c7dc2c5:805642a8

🧠Quote(s) of the week:

“National debt is immoral and destructive, silently undermining the basis of the state; it delivers the present generation to the execration of posterity.” - Napoleon

🧡Bitcoin news🧡

I was a bit under the weather the last couple of days so it took me a longer to write the Weekly Recap, anyway...here we go:

On the 11th of March:

➡️European Union claims President Trump's support for crypto could harm Europe's "monetary sovereignty and financial stability." The EU could be educating European people on Bitcoin, they could adapt sound money early, join the Bitcoin race early, and make the lives of all Europeans better. Instead, they choose to lie and make all Europeans miss the boat. I have no words for this. Freaking dinosaurs!

President Trump's support for Bitcoin threatens their "monetary sovereignty and financial stability" -> translation: people might choose freedom over their broken monetary system.

Remember Christine Lagarde’s famous quote on Bitcoin: “There has to be regulation. This has to be applied and agreed upon … at a global level because if there is an escape, that escape will be used.”

It’s a revealing statement, highlighting how Bitcoin offers an “escape route” from traditional financial systems—a route that could unlock greater decentralization and freedom.

➡️Wicked: Bitcoin's 4-Year CAGR has dropped below 10% for the first time ever.

➡️Texas introduces HB 4258, aiming to allocate up to $250M of state funds to Bitcoin and digital assets, and allowing local governments to invest up to $10M.

➡️Bitwise has launched a "Bitcoin Standard Corporations ETF" that includes +70 companies holding Bitcoin as a treasury reserve asset.

➡️Tether CEO Paolo Ardoino: The US Strategic Bitcoin Reserve announcement is a “holy sh*t” moment for the rest of the world, realizing they’re late and don’t have enough Bitcoin.

On the 12th of March:

➡️US Government should issue $2 TRILLION of Bitcoin-backed Bonds to buy $200B of Bitcoin - Newmarket Capital CEO Bit Bonds in a nutshell: - 90% goes to government funding, 10% to buying bitcoin - 1% interest annually for 10 years - 100% of BTC upside paid up to 4.5% compounded annual return - Remaining BTC upside split 50/50 with the government

➡️The Kingdom of Bhutan builds a gorgeous airport thanks to Bitcoin mining profits using hydro-electricity.

➡️Deutsche Bank says a US strategic Bitcoin reserve "could set international standards.

➡️Bitcoin dropped 72% in 2018 ($3,740.50 bottom) due to the USA - China trade war and 2.9% inflation...

➡️Rumble just bought another $27m Bitcoin.

On the 13th of March:

➡️'FIVE years ago today, Bitcoin crashed more than 50% in ONE day, from $7,900 to $3,800 in hours. We're up 21X ever since. Zoom out, DCA Bitcoin, and enjoy the ride. We are just getting started.' - CarlBMenger

➡️78% of all ETH/BTC trading days are now in the red... REKT.

➡️While Retail Paper Hands are selling their precious coins, whales bought them. Over 65K Bitcoin net-accumulated in the past 30 Days, excluding Miners and Exchanges.

➡️New peer-reviewed research study finds Bitcoin mining has the potential to significantly enhance the sustainability of the energy supply chain by using wasted resources and creating new business opportunities that align economic incentives with sustainability goals.

It's one of 15 pieces of peer-reviewed research showing Bitcoin has significant environmental benefits.

You can find the full list here: https://x.com/DSBatten/status/1899951222779789420

➡️The Bitcoin Act to buy 1 MILLION Bitcoin is under consideration by Congress.

➡️Bitcoin ETF inflows have fallen to $35B from a $40B peak, yet with $115B in AUM, over 95% of capital is holding firm despite a 25% price drop.

➡️Construction of the Vega 205 megawatt Bitcoin mine in Texas is nearing completion. Hut 8 is installing dry coolers for the direct-to-chip liquid cooling system while finishing up the side panels, insulation, and roof.

➡️Fast food giant Steak 'n Shake posted this picture of a Bitcoin spaceship.

➡️Altcoin holders are deep in the red, with some tokens nearing 100% at a loss. I am not surprised, the house (shitcoin casinos) always wins. https://i.ibb.co/G44T01Yy/Gl-ubpfb-YAAfa-S9.jpg

On the 14th of March:

➡️Russia is using Bitcoin and Tether to pay for oil trades with China and India - Reuters

➡️Kentucky Senate passes bill that will protect Bitcoin self-custody rights with 0 votes against it. The bill now heads to the Governor's desk.

➡️Brazil bill seeks to legalize the use of Bitcoin to pay salaries and benefits.

On the 15th of March:

➡️'Senator Lummis's proposed BITCOIN Act lays out how America would revalue its gold certificates to buy 1 million Bitcoin over 5 years.

1.Within 180 days of enactment, Federal Reserve banks must return all gold certificates to the U.S. Treasury.

2.Within 90 days of receiving the last one, the Treasury will issue new certificates reflecting gold’s market price.

3.Federal Reserve banks must pay the Treasury the difference if the new certificates are worth more.

4.This extra cash goes to the government fund within 90 days.' - BitcoinNews

https://i.ibb.co/d4JvzXzs/Gm-Gexy-Nbc-AE7-Tpu.jpg

➡️DOGE’S FORT KNOX GOLD AUDIT COULD TAKE 18 MONTHS A full audit of Fort Knox’s gold reserves would be a massive undertaking, with JM Bullion estimating it would take at least 18 months to complete. - Requires 20 personnel - Uses 18 high-quality scales & XRF scanners - Needs 2 boring drills & 18 item carts The effort aims to bring long-overdue transparency to U.S. gold holdings—a process that hasn’t been fully conducted in decades. That's cute, I can audit the entire Bitcoin supply from my home in less than a minute.

On the 17th of March:

➡️'80 public companies are now buying bitcoin. Two years ago there were 33. Two years from now there will be...?' -River (foto) With 55,214 publicly traded companies worldwide, that's a little over one in a thousand. It's so early! https://i.ibb.co/FLZKfv1X/Gm-QKCGob0-AAd-LNo.jpg

➡️Bitcoin reserves held by the 14 biggest North American mining companies exceeded 101,000 BTC for the first time in February.

➡️'Strategy has acquired 130 BTC for ~$10.7M at ~$82,981 per bitcoin and has achieved a Bitcoin Yield of 6.9% YTD 2025. As of 3/16/2025, we hodl 499,226 Bitcoin acquired for ~$33.1 billion at ~$66,360 per Bitcoin.' - Saylor

💸Traditional Finance / Macro:

On the 11th of March:

👉🏽Nasdaq 100 futures erase premarket gain and turn negative, now down -12.5% since February 19th.

On the 13th of March:

👉🏽The S&P 500 just CLOSED in correction territory and the Nasdaq 100 is 7% away from its first bear market since 2022. Over the last 16 trading days, the S&P 500 has erased an average of -$340 billion PER trading day. Although this sounds alarming whatsoever, it really isn't. The S&P is only down ~10%. It also fell 10% in 2023 and last July. No one even remembers now. Get a grip.

🏦Banks:

👉🏽 no news

🌎Macro/Geopolitics:

On the 11th of March:

👉🏽President Trump announces ADDITIONAL 25% tariffs on Steel and Aluminum coming to the US from Canada. This brings tariffs on these goods up to a new high of 50%.

👉🏽European Commission to use 10 trillion Euros of citizens’ savings for EU defense. The European Commission estimates the total level of unused savings of EU citizens at 10 trillion Euros, and it intends to find ways to mobilize this money to finance its plans to militarise Europe and support the European military-industrial complex, according to a statement by the European Commissioner for Financial Services and the Savings and Investment Union Maria Luís Albuquerque, distributed by the EC press service, TASS reports.

https://i.ibb.co/Xr28KPbR/Glx-Gzzc-XAAAXn-ZI.png

"We'll turn private savings into much-needed investment". 1. All savings are invested in the economy. 2. She means they will leverage your deposits to finance more government spending. Be scared, and what exactly are "unused savings" per se? Do you understand the predicament you are in yet, or what our children will be in?

It is the best advert you will see for self-custody Bitcoin. https://i.ibb.co/PZnKQdqF/Glwl-Nyc-WQAA-AIE.jpg

👉🏽Last week I already mentioned that the ECB confirmed launching the digital euro in October. That's the deadline. Why is Lagarde insisting on this? Is the digital euro in the interest of the citizens or the interest of the government and the implementation of its policies?

The ECB says it will limit the amount of money people can store in digital euros to, in their words, "prevent excessive outflows of deposits from banks." It's never a good sign when you have to lock people in...

https://i.ibb.co/s9v7n1BS/Gm-Liap-Ob-QAA9j0g.jpg

Now the two topics above are just mental, it is crazy to read the following tweet by the ECB: "Did you know that 60% of Europeans with low financial literacy are women? But what is financial literacy? Why is it important? And what does it have to do with central banks?"

Lagarde and Von der Leyen are two of them, FFS!

On the 12th of March:

👉🏽For my Dutch readers/followers. How is your energy bill? The average energy bill for a Dutch household increased by €18 in January, reaching €2,703 per year. The share of taxes and VAT in this amount is €1,457. Energy costs are increasingly passed on to households through products and services. That's what you call inflation and the government is, of course, very happy with the very expensive imported gas because the taxes on it are a goldmine. I fully understand why we are doing that because we don't have a huge gas field in our country, right?

https://i.ibb.co/vC4wzSKp/Glyf9-DSXMAALTc-Q.png

Just to explain it in simple words: 50% of your energy bill is taxes. That is just criminal.

👉🏽'The Federal Deficit for Feb '25 ($307B) and before you get lathered up over the edge trimming at DOGE if you aren't willing to cut (not reduce growth - cut) what is in red you will never put a dent in what is in purple.' - Blacklion $307 billion was added to the US federal deficit last month, which was bigger than all tax revenue, widening the deficit to 7.23% of GDP.

If government spending halted, we'd be plunged into a decade-long recession. This addiction will take years, if not decades, to sober up from. Nothing stops this train, NOTHING!

https://i.ibb.co/ZRsm5nCM/Gl2-i9-WUAAw-V5w.jpg

On the 13th of March:

👉🏽Gold trades above $3k for first time ever: $3,000.40. As the S&P 500 has erased $5+ trillion, gold is now set to cross above a record $20 TRILLION in market cap. Gold has more than QUADRUPLED the S&P 500's return over the last 12 months. Gold is telling us something. Nothing says Sovereign Debt Crisis like gold pressing toward new ATH. In the past Bitcoin always followed with a lag and harder.

On the 14th of March:

👉🏽German debt deal compromise foresees €100 bln for climate and transformation fund - Source familiar with talks

ZeroHedge: 'GERMAN DEBT DEAL TO EXEMPT DEFENCE SPENDING FROM DEBT BRAKE ABOVE 1% OF GDP BUT INCLUDES EXPANDED DEFINITION OF DEFENCE SPENDING, SOURCE SAYS.

In other words, "defense against Russia" is just a pretext to flood the economy with a new debt-funded fiscal stimulus, just like Covid.'

As I mentioned above,  financial literacy at the ECB and EU Commission.

Von der Leyen: 'We are presenting a new EUR 4.7 billion Global Gateway investment package for South Africa. For projects that support a just energy transition. For connectivity – both physical and digital. And for vaccines, produced in Africa, for Africa.'

Africa is not a member of the EU. So they should stop wasting (spending) our money, 4.7 billion of European taxpayers.

The people, Von der Leyen, who want to "mobilize" the €10T in private citizens' savings, and who are overseeing €13.8T in combined government debt, seem to be as excited as ever about subsidizing questionable regimes all around the world. You don't believe me...I have another example.

Now for the next example, I don't want to make it political but for fuck sake.

'The EU and its partners just pledged €5.8 billion for Syria and its neighbors. This will support Syria at a crucial time of transition and address the dire needs on the ground. This is a chance for the people of Syria to seize the moment and shape their own destiny.' - EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy / Vice-President of the European Commission, Kaja Kallas

No matter your view on the Syria situation sending money to Syria now while supporting the current regime who kill Christians and Alawites. I am an atheist so couldn't care less if we are talking about Christians, Alawites, Muslims, or another religion, people in Syria are getting slaughtered at the moment.

Are these our European values?

€5.8 billion in taxpayer money disappears into Syria again, while Europeans struggle with skyrocketing costs, unaffordable groceries, and failed migration policies. The EU never learns: billions are sent to corrupt regimes while our own people are left behind. Giving Syria a ‘chance’ to determine its own future? That money will end up in the pockets of dictators and militants, just like always. Europe must stop this wasteful spending and focus on its own citizens first.

So 4.7 billion to South Africa and 5.8 billion to Syria, that's 10.5 billion wasted tax payer's money already. Again, hello financial literacy!

Just remember Ursula von der Leyen has previously disregarded defense procurement rules in Germany—the McKinsey affair.

She also committed plagiarism.

In Brussels, lawsuits are ongoing against her regarding the infamous €35 billion SMS-Pfizer deal.

Next example: Christine Lagarde says ‘impossible’ for ECB to always guarantee 2% inflation.

Potential price pressure from the trade war and debt-fuelled borrowing add to the uncertainty, warns the central bank president. Don’t forget, that Macron appointed her. It is all so obvious…

Lex Hoogduin: "This is how a politician makes a turn towards an inflation rate that is, on average, too high and a policy that is too loose, I fear. She has listened carefully to Macron and is executing this in an extremely sophisticated manner—just as she is pushing through the CBDC."

Long-term global inflation chart. WTF happened in 1971? https://i.ibb.co/YYj1kDR/Gm-EHbfk-WAAAm-Sx-P.jpg

Another example:

ECB's Villeroy (a man, full disclosure): The EU has the resources to retaliate against Trump's threatened tariffs on wine and liquor. Now ask yourself, why is a central banker commenting on a trade war? Is that within their mandate? I have the answer: NO!

And it is not only the EU Commission or the ECB. France wants to boost defense spending, but with higher taxes and more debt ruled out as options, Macron’s government is desperately looking for solutions.

Meanwhile, France: - High public debt (112% of GDP) - Large budget deficit (6.2% of GDP) - Ambitious plans for additional spending - Rising interest rates

What could possibly go wrong?

Anyway, I can give example after example but the only thing you need to know we are in a debt rat race without brakes.

If things go wrong, all EU member states will pay the price. And the collateral?

You!

Got Bitcoin?

On the 16th of March:

👉🏽'US interest payments are set to rise even higher: US interest expense on national debt hit a record $1.2 trillion over the last 12 months. To put this into perspective, defense spending was $900 billion during the same period. If rates remain FLAT, interest payments are set to hit $1.5 trillion by the end of the year, doubling in just 4 years.

Even if the Fed cuts rates by 100 basis points, interest costs will still hit ~$1.3 trillion in 2025.

This all assumes the economy will avoid a recession or any material economic slowdown.

This is a crisis.' -TKL

🎁If you have made it this far I would like to give you a little gift:

'A long but thoughtful analysis and opinion on the current volatility and pricing of Bitcoin. We’re in the midst of a technological, monetary, fiscal & currency shift. This is more than an investment idea. The unbanked around the world might soon find freedom as a result.'

https://x.com/JoeConsorti/status/1900285521084965204

After that, kick back, relax, and enjoy: Bitcoin Mastermind Q1 2025 with Joe Carlasare, Jeff Ross, & American HODL.

'A deep dive into the dollar’s weakness, Bitcoin bonds, regulatory updates, and market liquidity trends. Plus, an analysis of major economic shifts, technical buy signals, and the outlook for global assets.'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzgXe-42PI0

Credit: I have used multiple sources!

My savings account: Bitcoin The tool I recommend for setting up a Bitcoin savings plan: PocketBitcoin especially suited for beginners or people who want to invest in Bitcoin with an automated investment plan once a week or monthly.

Use the code SE3997

Get your Bitcoin out of exchanges. Save them on a hardware wallet, run your own node...be your own bank. Not your keys, not your coins. It's that simple. ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀

Do you think this post is helpful to you? If so, please share it and support my work with a zap.

▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃

⭐ Many thanks⭐

Felipe - Bitcoin Friday!

▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃

@ 2e8970de:63345c7a

Trip speed in the zone:

The more detailed view on entereing/leaving/within/outside the zone:

Reminder on New Yorks Congestion priced zone:

source: https://www.nber.org/papers/w33584

short faq on the most frequent points:

Government central planning!!!11

Maybe. But then so are all other free roads payed for by taxpayers

Isn't this targeting poor people?

In other citys this might be worth discussing. In NY it's pretty clear most people just take the subway and owning a car is a luxury.

This will destroy local businesses

Foot traffic went up. Broadway ticket sales are up.

Trip speed? How is this a good indicator?

Well, considering how much traffic jams there were before, we consider it a win. Honking complaints are also down.

Doesn't the congestion priced zone effect the "outside CBD? Is that still a good control?

Fair point.

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/917929

@ 65886e63:118f7ab8

"When software developers aim at the cognitive aspects of education without understanding the social aspects, they miss the dartboard entirely." https://open.substack.com/pub/danmeyer/p/do-kids-want-a-personalized-netflix?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=b4wcg

@ 7776c32d:45558888

Letter from a Palestinian Political Prisoner in Louisiana, dictated over the phone from ICE Detention.

March 18, 55 years after UNIX epoch

My name is Mahmoud Khalil and I am a political prisoner. I am writing to you from a detention facility in Louisiana where I wake to cold mornings and spend long days bearing witness to the quiet injustices underway against a great many people precluded from the protections of the law.

Who has the right to have rights? It is certainly not the humans crowded into the cells here. It isn't the Senegalese man I met who has been deprived of his liberty for a year, his legal situation in limbo and his family an ocean away. It isn't the 21-year-old detainee I met, who stepped foot in this country at age nine, only to be deported without so much as a hearing.

Justice escapes the contours of this nation's immigration facilities.

On March 8, I was taken by DHS agents who refused to provide a warrant, and accosted my wife and me as we returned from dinner. By now, the footage of that night has been made public. Before I knew what was happening, agents handcuffed and forced me into an unmarked car. At that moment, my only concern was for Noor's safety. I had no idea if she would be taken too, since the agents had threatened to arrest her for not leaving my side. DHS would not tell me anything for hours - I did not know the cause of my arrest or if I was facing immediate deportation. At 26 Federal Plaza, I slept on the cold floor. In the early morning hours, agents transported me to another facility in Elizabeth, New Jersey. There, I slept on the ground and was refused a blanket despite my request.

My arrest was a direct consequence of exercising my right to free speech as I advocated for a free Palestine and an end to the genocide in Gaza, which resumed in full force Monday night. With January's ceasefire now broken, parents in Gaza are once again cradling too-small shrouds, and families are forced to weigh starvation and displacement against bombs. It is our moral imperative to persist in the struggle for their complete freedom.

I was born in a Palestinian refugee camp in Syria to a family which has been displaced from their land since the 1948 Nakba. I spent my youth in proximity to yet distant from my homeland. But being Palestinian is an experience that transcends borders. I see in my circumstances similarities to Israel's use of administrative detention imprisonment without trial or charge to strip Palestinians of their rights. I think of our friend Omar Khatib, who was incarcerated without charge or trial by Israel as he returned home from travel. I think of Gaza hospital director and pediatrician Dr. Hussam Abu Safiya, who was taken captive by the Israeli military on December 27 and remains in an Israeli torture camp today. For Palestinians, imprisonment without due process is commonplace.

I have always believed that my duty is not only to liberate myself from the oppressor, but also to liberate my oppressors from their hatred and fear. My unjust detention is indicative of the anti-Palestinian racism that both the Biden and Trump administrations have demonstrated over the past 16 months as the U.S. has continued to supply Israel with weapons to kill Palestinians and prevented international intervention. For decades, anti-Palestinian racism has driven efforts to expand U.S. laws and practices that are used to violently repress Palestinians, Arab Americans, and other communities. That is precisely why I am being targeted.

While I await legal decisions that hold the futures of my wife and child in the balance, those who enabled my targeting remain comfortably at Columbia University. Presidents Shafik, Armstrong, and Dean Yarhi-Milo laid the groundwork for the U.S. government to target me by arbitrarily disciplining pro-Palestinian students and allowing viral doxing campaigns - based on racism and disinformation - to go unchecked.

Columbia targeted me for my activism, creating a new authoritarian disciplinary office to bypass due process and silence students criticizing Israel. Columbia surrendered to federal pressure by disclosing student records to Congress and yielding to the Trump administration's latest threats. My arrest, the expulsion or suspension of at least 22 Columbia students some stripped of their B.A. degrees just weeks before graduation and the expulsion of SWC President Grant Miner on the eve of contract negotiations, are clear examples.

If anything, my detention is a testament to the strength of the student movement in shifting public opinion toward Palestinian liberation. Students have long been at the forefront of change leading the charge against the Vietnam War, standing on the frontlines of the civil rights movement, and driving the struggle against apartheid in South Africa. Today, too, even if the public has yet to fully grasp it, it is students who steer us toward truth and justice.

The Trump administration is targeting me as part of a broader strategy to suppress dissent. Visa-holders, green-card carriers, and citizens alike will all be targeted for their political beliefs. In the weeks ahead, students, advocates, and elected officials must unite to defend the right to protest for Palestine. At stake are not just our voices, but the fundamental civil liberties of all.

Knowing fully that this moment transcends my individual circumstances, I hope nonetheless to be free to witness the birth of my first-born child.

@ 044da344:073a8a0e

Journalismus nach Corona

Medienrealität, 17. April 2020, und Rubikon ("Das Ende einer Ära"), 17. April 2020

Diese Krise, da ist sich Heribert Prantl sicher, „bringt einen auf verrückte Gedanken“ – auf Dinge, „die man vorher nie gedacht hat und die man auch nie denken wollte“. So verrückt ist das gar nicht, was Prantl da zu Ostern geschrieben hat. In Kurzform: Kliniken sind kein Geschäftsmodell. Sonst zahlen am Ende die Kranken. Und: Das Gesundheitswesen ist wie die Wasserversorgung. Wir brauchen beides und dürfen deshalb weder das eine noch das andere „durchkommerzialisieren“ (Prantl 2020). Womit wir bei den Medien wären. Vielleicht hält das ja sogar Heribert Prantl für verrückt: ein Journalismus, der der Gesellschaft dient und nicht dem Staat oder dem Kapital.

Für die Medienforschung heißt das: zurück zu ihren Wurzeln. Karl Bücher, der Gründervater der akademischen Journalistenausbildung in Deutschland, war sich am Ende eines langen Lebens sicher, dass die Presse „ein öffentliches Institut“ sein muss, genau „wie Straßenbahnen, Gasanstalten, Elektrizitätswerke“ (Bücher 1926: 424). Dieser Bücher, ein weltberühmter Ökonom, hat das so ähnlich gesehen wie Heribert Prantl beim Gesundheitswesen: „Die Redaktion soll ihrer Natur nach die höchsten Interessen der Menschheit verfolgen“ – könne das aber nicht, solange sie Rücksicht nehmen muss auf „Privatinteressen“ (Bücher 1926: 397, 426). Anzeigenkunden, Leserwünsche, Profit.

Karl Bücher war vorbereitet auf die Chance, die jede Krise bietet. Er hat schon im Weltkrieg öffentlich über das Nachrichtenmonopol der großen Agenturen geschimpft und über den „Tiefstand“ des Zeitungswesens (vgl. Meyen 2002). Als die bayerische Räteregierung ihn dann Anfang 1919 um einen Gesetzentwurf bittet, will er dem Übel an die Wurzel und schlägt zehn Paragrafen vor, die auf eine Enteignung hinauslaufen und auf ein Ende des Wettbewerbs. Keine Anzeigen mehr an private Verleger. Dafür ein Lokalblatt pro Ort, herausgegeben von der Gemeinde, kostenfrei für jeden, finanziert über das, was Unternehmen und Behörden bekanntgeben wollen. In dem Aufsatz, den Bücher später nachgeliefert hat, beruft er sich unter anderem auf Ferdinand Lassalle. Sinngemäß: weg von einer „öffentlichen Meinung“, die vom „Kapital“ geprägt wird sowie von der „privilegierten großen Bourgeoisie“, hin zu einer „freien Tagespresse“, die „schwebende politische Fragen“ erörtert (Bücher 1926: 396).

Verrückt? Wer weiß, was Karl Bücher geschrieben hätte über den Corona-Journalismus der Gegenwart. Er hat schon vor einhundert Jahren nicht nachvollziehen können, warum die Redaktionen sich mit „Nichtigkeiten“ abgeben, gegen Polizeireporter gewettert und die Lokalnachrichten für eine „geistlose Chronik“ gehalten. Die Nähe zur Politik hat er entweder nicht gesehen oder nicht verstanden, dass das ein Problem sein könnte, weil er selbst zur Elite gehörte. Vermutlich wäre er trotzdem zufrieden mit einigen seiner Erben – mit Otfried Jarren (2020) zum Beispiel, der das öffentlich-rechtliche Fernsehen sehr früh kritisiert hat („Systemmedium“, „besondere Form der Hofberichterstattung“), mit Hektor Haarkötter („Geht’s auch mal wieder kritisch?“) oder mit Klaus Meier und Vinzenz Wyss (2020), die höflich bleiben und dankbar sind, ohne dabei die vielen Defizite zu übersehen. Der „Umgang mit Zahlen“, der Fokus auf Einzelfälle und auf „Virologen als unfehlbare Medienstars“, kaum Transparenz, wenig Vielfalt.

Wissenschaftler sein und öffentlich für seine Überzeugungen zu kämpfen: Das waren für Karl Bücher zwei Seiten derselben Medaille. Ihm hätte deshalb auch gefallen, wie Vinzenz Wyss (2020), ein Kollege aus der Schweiz, die Medienrealität an dem misst, was die Gesellschaft vom Journalismus erwarten darf. Ja, sagt Vinzenz Wyss, es gibt tolle Stücke, mit viel Aufwand produziert. Das große Aber: die „Newsmedien“ – also das, was das Publikum nicht ignorieren kann. Das muss hier nicht im Detail wiederholt werden. Zahlen ohne Erhebungskontext. Die „Zahlenfixierung“ überhaupt, kombiniert mit fehlender Distanz zur Macht und dem Unwillen, die eigenen Grenzen zu thematisieren. Zweimal O-Ton Vinzenz Wyss: „Ich bin fast ein bisschen empört, wie stark Journalisten in dieser Krise Wissenschaftler als Wahrsager darstellen“. Und: „Wenn die Exekutive dominiert und die parlamentarische Debatte verstummt, muss der Journalismus besonders wachsam sein“.

Vinzenz Wyss ist am Ende gar nicht weit weg von Heribert Prantl und Karl Bücher. „Wir sehen jetzt, wie wichtig der Journalismus ist“, sagt er. Und wir sehen auch, „wie schwach das Immunsystem derjenigen Medien ist, die sich vorwiegend über Werbegelder finanzieren“.

Es ist nicht schwer, das weiterzudenken. Corona zeigt: Die digitalen Plattformen mögen wichtig sein, die Realität aber wird nach wie von den Leitmedien gesetzt. Die Macht liegt bei denen, die es schaffen, ihre Version der Wirklichkeit in der Tagesschau zu platzieren, in der Süddeutschen Zeitung, im Spiegel, in der Zeit, in der Bild-Zeitung. Wir haben gesehen, was passiert, wenn die Pressemitteilungen der Regierung zur Medienrealität werden, die großen Leitartikler mit den Politikern heulen und ihre kleinen Gefolgsleute jeden Abweichler im Netz als Verschwörer und Gesundheitsfeind brandmarken. Zustimmungsraten wie in Nordkorea.

Es gibt einen Aufsatz von Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann (1973) mit dem feinen Titel „Kumulation, Konsonanz und Öffentlichkeit“. Sie könne einfach nicht glauben, schreibt Noelle-Neumann vor fast einem halben Jahrhundert, dass Medien keine Wirkung haben sollen oder nur so schwache, wie sie die Forschung bisher nachgewiesen hat. Das neue Paradigma, das sie mit diesem Text etablieren will, klingt im Titel an. Noelle-Neumann sagt: Ihr habt „die Omnipräsenz“ der Medien vergessen und ihre „kumulative Wirkung als Folge der Periodizität“. Starrt nicht nur auf die Empfänger der Botschaft, sondern schaut euch auch die Kommunikatoren an, „deren berufliches Verhalten Ähnlichkeit erzeugt“. Und vergesst den „Faktor Öffentlichkeit“ nicht. Noelle-Neumann meint damit die „kritische Instanz“ soziale Kontrolle, die jeder spürt, der von dem abweicht, was die anderen für die Meinung der Mehrheit halten müssen.

Als Noelle-Neumann diesen Text geschrieben hat, war es üblich, dass sich die Spitzenleute der Parteien im Bundestag angebrüllt haben. Damals genügte es, die vier wichtigsten Blätter im Land zu untersuchen, wenn man das politische Spektrum abbilden wollte. Wie würde man das heute machen, wenn die Opposition schweigt und überall das gleiche steht – vor allem nichts anderes als in den Bulletins der Staatskanzleien? Das ist ungerecht, ich weiß. Die Redaktionen können schon lange nicht mehr so arbeiten, wie es nötig wäre, und produzieren trotzdem immer wieder Perlen. Tolle Gäste bei Markus Lanz, nur als Beispiel. Trotzdem. Kumulation, Konsonanz, Öffentlichkeit. Corona-Tote auf allen Kanälen und Journalisten, die Schiedsrichter spielen im Streit der Experten. Wenn es nicht so ernst wäre, könnte man nach dem Videobeweis rufen und fragen, woher die Pfeifen in ihren „Fakten-Checks“ wissen, dass die staatliche Behörde immer Recht hat. Nach den Wirkungen muss man jedenfalls nicht lange suchen. Ich sehe in München Menschen, die sich angeekelt abwenden, wenn ihnen zwei Jogger entgegenkommen, und höre, wie Türsteher im Supermarkt angeblafft werden, die keine Maske tragen.

Heribert Prantl hat beschrieben, was im Bereich der Medizin falsch gelaufen ist seit Mitte der 1980er Jahre, und dabei Ross und Reiter genannt. Der Bundestag, der erst Krankenhäusern erlaubte, Gewinne zu machen, und dann unter Rot-Grün ein Vergütungssystem einführte, das alles dem Diktat des Geldes unterwarf. Die Troika, die ganz Südeuropa zwang, das Gesundheitswesen zu kastrieren, „um am Tropf Europas zu bleiben“. Auch im Journalismus ist das alles kein Geheimnis. Homogene Redaktionen, dominiert von Akademiker-Männern, die viel zu nah dran sind an den Entscheidern und die Welt auch deshalb kaum anders sehen können, weil sie aus dem gleichen Milieu kommen, auf den gleichen Schulen waren und dort verinnerlicht haben, was „richtig“ ist und was „falsch“.

Wo es um Geld geht (wie in kommerziellen Verlagen), werden diese Redaktionen vom Imperativ der Aufmerksamkeit regiert und von einem Sparzwang, der die Abhängigkeit von offiziellen Quellen noch größer macht, als sie ohnehin schon immer war. Und wo es um die Gunst der Politik geht (wie im öffentlich-rechtlichen Rundfunk und auch bei den Privaten, die ja immer eine Lizenz brauchen), bestimmen die Parteien, wer Chefin oder Chef sein darf, und haben mit Aufsichtsbehörden und Kontrollgremien einen zusätzlichen Hebel, wenn irgendetwas nicht nach Plan läuft. Ein kleines Beispiel aus Bayern, passend zum Thema: Ein Lokalradio hat es doch tatsächlich gewagt, drei lange Gespräche mit Experten zu senden, die der Söder-Linie widersprechen: Wolfgang Wodarg, Karin Mölling und Stefan Hockertz. Normalerweise läuft so ein Programm unter dem Radar. Wer hört schon Lokalradio? An den Interviews ist auch nicht viel auszusetzen. Die Journalistin fragt nach und zeigt, dass sie sich auskennt. Die Bayerische Landeszentrale für neue Medien hat ihr trotzdem einen Brief geschrieben. Botschaft: Wir hören, was Sie da machen. Wir sehen zwar für den Moment von einer „förmlichen Beanstandung“ ab (kein Wunder, denn es gibt nichts zu beanstanden), aber wir bitten Sie, an die „journalistische Sorgfaltspflicht“ zu denken, „damit derartige problematische Sendungen zukünftig ausbleiben“. Bei Noam Chomsky heißt das „Flak“. Die Macht schießt zurück, wenn allen Filtern zum Trotz doch etwas durchrutscht, was unter der Decke bleiben soll (vgl. Herman/Chomsky 1988).

Das ist tatsächlich verrückt. Der Journalismus will uns weismachen, dass er unabhängig ist, neutral und objektiv, dass er immer auf Distanz bleibt zu den Herrschenden und nach Vielfalt strebt. Ein Wolkenkuckucksheim, das ganz am Anfang stehen muss, wenn es um eine Zukunft nach Corona geht. Der Journalismus braucht einen neuen Kompass, der auf uns zeigt, auf die Gesellschaft, und nicht auf das Geld, auf den Staat und auf seine Verweser. Wir brauchen Redaktionen, die den „Auftrag Öffentlichkeit“ (Horst Pöttker) ernst nehmen. Wieder in Kurzform: alle Themen, alle Perspektiven. Wenn das dann unbedingt noch kommentiert werden muss: meinetwegen. Aber eigentlich will ich nicht wissen, wie Kurt Kister oder Claus Kleber die Welt sehen, sondern erfahren, was in der Welt so läuft, und mir dann selbst eine Meinung bilden.

Wie dieser Kompass sonst aussehen könnte, habe ich im Sommer skizziert, lange vor Corona (vgl. Meyen 2019). Ganz oben auf meiner Liste: Transparenz (offenlegen, wie die Inhalte entstehen und wie sie verbreitet werden), Perspektivenvielfalt (ein Punkt, der bei der Rekrutierung für den Beruf beginnt) und Reflexion (wer schreibt oder sendet hier und wem könnte das am Ende nutzen).

Entstanden ist diese Liste nach einer Serie von Interviews mit Menschen, die es wissen müssen, weil sie „irgendwas mit Medien“ machen. Ich habe mir damals nicht wirklich vorstellen können, dass man in den Redaktionen gar nicht darüber spricht, wozu die Gesellschaft Journalisten braucht. Dass man dort „Parolen“ wie „vierte Gewalt“ (Henriette Löwisch, Leiterin der Deutschen Journalistenschule München) lange einfach nur nachgeplappert hat. Nach Corona denke ich: Wir müssen tatsächlich zurück auf „Los“. Wir müssen mit der Ausbildung anfangen und aufhören, das Volontariat als Königsweg in den Beruf zu feiern. Von den Alten lernen, heißt gehorchen lernen. Der Journalismus der Zukunft darf nicht in kommerziellen Verlagen geformt werden und auch nicht in öffentlich-rechtlichen Rundfunkanstalten, solange diese jeder Politik folgen.

Vermutlich wissen viele Deutsche gar nicht mehr, welchen Schatz sie da haben: Fernseh- und Radioprogramme, die kein Geld verdienen müssen und denen dienen dürfen, die sie bezahlen – uns. Nur: Wir haben dort nichts zu sagen. Auch das ist verrückt: In den Gremien kontrollieren Politiker die, die eigentlich dazu berufen wären, die Politik zu kontrollieren. Verkehrte Welt. Der Journalismus nach Corona braucht Publikumsräte und Redaktionen, die im Wortsinn „frei“ sind, weil sie feste Arbeitsverträge mit guten Einkommen haben und deshalb nicht von den Launen ihrer Chefs oder der Regierenden abhängen. Wer wie ich in der DDR aufgewachsen ist, der weiß: Die Herrschenden werden immer und überall versuchen, das zu kontrollieren, was über sie in der Öffentlichkeit gesagt wird. Journalismus braucht deshalb „Schutzmauern“ (David Goeßmann), zum Beispiel Redaktionsstatute.

Wem das alles zu viel Vision ist und zu wenig Wirklichkeit: Auch im Journalismus gibt es längst „konkrete Utopien“ – Inseln, auf denen es nicht um „Profit und Kapitalakkumulation“ geht und wo Menschen freiwillig zusammenarbeiten, um staatliche und wirtschaftliche Macht zu zähmen. Erik Olin Wright (2017), der das Konzept der „konkreten Utopien“ entwickelt hat, wollte keine Revolution und auch keine Reformen. Als Modelle gestorben, sagt er. Sein Vorschlag: „im Hier und Jetzt“ so handeln, dass die Alternative wahrscheinlicher wird. In „den Räumen und Rissen“ des Kapitalismus „Institutionen, Verhältnisse und Praktiken“ entwickeln, die „die Welt, wie sie sein könnte, vorwegnehmen“. Vielleicht ist das ja ein Anfang: digitale Plattformen stärken, die den Journalismus liefern, den wir uns wünschen. Ich bin sicher: Heribert Prantl würde das gefallen.

Literatur

Karl Bücher: Zur Frage der Pressreform. In: Gesammelte Schriften. Tübingen: H. Laupp’sche Buchhandlung 1926, S. 391-429

Hektor Haarkötter: Geht’s auch mal wieder kritisch? In: Menschen machen Medien, 1. April 2020

Edward S. Herman, Noam Chomsky: Manufacturing Consent.The Political Economy of the Mass Media. New York: Pantheon 1988

Otfried Jarren: Im Krisenmodus. Das öffentlich-rechtliche Fernsehen in Zeiten von Corona. In: epd medien vom 27. März 2020

Klaus Meier, Vinzenz Wyss: Journalismus in der Krise: die fünf Defizite der Corona-Berichterstattung. In: meedia, 9. April 2020

Michael Meyen: Die Leipziger zeitungskundlichen Dissertationen. In: Erik Koenen, Michael Meyen (Hrsg.): Karl Bücher. Leipziger Hochschulschriften 1892 bis 1930. Leipzig: Universitätsverlag 2002, S. 135-200

Michael Meyen: (Erste) Thesen zur Medienzukunft. In: Michael Meyen (Hrsg.): Medienrealität 2019.

Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann: Kumulation, Konsonanz und Öffentlichkeitseffekt. Ein neuer Ansatz zur Analyse der Wirkung der Massenmedien. In: Publizistik 18. Jg. (1973), S. 26–55

Heribert Prantl: Bittere Medizin. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung vom 11. April 2019, S. 4 (unter anderem Titel hinter der Bezahlschranke)

Erik Olin Wright: Reale Utopien. Wege aus dem Kapitalismus. Berlin: Suhrkamp 2017.

Vinzenz Wyss: „Journalisten dürfen Kritik nicht dünnhäutig abschmettern“. In: persoenlich.com vom 10. April 2020.

Vom Kampf um die Öffentlichkeit

Medienrealität, 13. Mai 2020, und Rubikon, 14. Mai 2020

Ein Gespenst geht um in Deutschland: die Verschwörungstheorie. Dubiose Kanäle im Internet, so liest und hört man es jetzt allerorten, haben erst die öffentliche Debatte vergiftet und treiben jetzt unbescholtene Bürger auf die Straße und damit in die Hände von Rattenfängern aller Couleur – mit ungeahnten Folgen für die politische Kultur und den Gesundheitszustand der Bevölkerung. Die Diffamierung von Demonstranten hat hierzulande Tradition. Und die Geschichte lehrt: Es muss nicht immer gut ausgehen für die, die gerade an der Macht sind.

„Was trieb Frau A.K. ins Stadtzentrum?“: Dieser Artikel, erschienen in der Wochenendausgabe der Leipziger Volkszeitung vom 24./25. Juni 1989, war eine Warnung an alle, die sich seit einigen Wochen jeden Montagabend an der Nikolaikirche trafen. Bleibt zu Hause, liebe Leute. Genießt die „Vorzüge“, „die unsere Gesellschaft den Bürgern und insbesondere den Familien zukommen lässt“. Hört auf, den „BRD-Ratgebern“ zu lauschen und „die öffentliche Ordnung zu stören“.

Diese „Frau A.K. aus Wurzen“, die Chefredakteur Rudi Röhrer da anspricht (allerdings im Schutz eines Pseudonyms), ist ein Kind der DDR. Drei Jahre Lehre im Wunschberuf, ein Jahr daheim nach der zweiten Geburt. Eine junge Frau, die allen Grund zu haben scheint, an so einem Montagabend „einen neuen Film“ zu sehen oder „in einer Eisbar den Feierabend zu genießen“. Und jetzt das. Eine „Unruhestifterin“, die sich „in voller Absicht über die bei uns gültigen Normen des Zusammenlebens und über Rechtsnormen“ hinwegsetzt und so zu einer Handlangerin wird – „von jenen Kräften in der BRD, die unsere sozialistische DDR von innen heraus“ so lange reformieren wollen, bis von ihr nichts mehr übrigbleibt. Lasst euch nicht täuschen, liebe Leserinnen und Leser. Forderungen wie „mehr Meinungspluralismus, mehr Offenheit, mehr Erneuerung, mehr Reisen“ machen „aus Provokateuren keine Unschuldsengel“. Damit die Warnung auch wirklich ankommt, lässt der Chefredakteur „Leipziger Bürger“ nach „Ordnung, Ruhe und Sicherheit“ rufen. Tenor: Bietet diesem „Treiben“ endlich Einhalt, „ohne Ansehen der Person“.

Vermutlich ist das alles zu lange her und zudem in einem Landstrich passiert, der den Edelfedern in Hamburg oder München bis heute fremd geblieben ist. Gleich zehn Reporterinnen und Reporter (eine Frau und neun Männer) hat Der Spiegel aufgeboten, um über die Corona-Demonstrationen am zweiten Maiwochenende zu berichten (Wut und Wahnsinn_SPIEGEL 20). Drei Seiten unter der Überschrift „Wut und Wahnsinn“, dazu eine Fotostrecke mit dem Kommentar „Sie fühlen sich einzigartig, weil sie vermeintlich etwas erkannt haben, das die breite Masse übersieht“. Das Wort „berichten“ trifft es dabei nicht ganz. Rudi Röhrer, der Mann, der einst gegen „Frau A.K. aus Wurzen“ hetzte, hätte das auch nicht für sich in Anspruch genommen. Die Unterzeile im Spiegel: „Verschwörungsideologen, extreme Rechte wie Linke nutzen die Unsicherheit der Bürger und vergiften die Debatte“.

Ganz so einfach kann man das Damals natürlich nicht mit dem Heute vergleichen. Das Westfernsehen sendet inzwischen landesweit. Und dass dort Meinungspluralismus gefordert oder gar gelebt wird, scheint auch schon eine Weile her zu sein. Damals wie heute geht es aber um Delegitimation und Eindämmung. Übersetzt: so wenig Menschen wie möglich auf der Straße. Und die, die trotzdem gehen, sollen selbst schuld sein an dem, was mit ihnen passiert. Der Spiegel schafft das, indem er sein Reporterteam Dinge zusammenbauen lässt, die nicht zusammengehören. Der Text beginnt mit Pegida und Lutz Bachmann (also mit dem Bösen schlechthin), schwenkt dann zu den Protesten gegen „Corona-Beschränkungen der Politik“ und rührt in diesem Topf schließlich alle zusammen, vor denen man sich zu fürchten hat: „Rechtsextremisten, Impfgegner, Antisemiten, Verschwörungsideologen, Linksradikale, Alt-Autonome und Esoteriker“. Huuuh.

Journalismus soll informieren. Journalismus soll Wählerinnen und Wählern erlauben, sich selbst eine Meinung zu bilden. Der Spiegel traut uns das nicht zu. Auf genau acht Zeilen geht es um das, was Menschen in Berlin, Stuttgart, München auf die Straße getrieben hat. Der Job weg, das Restaurant zu, Probleme mit den Kids. Zusammengefasst: „Sie halten die Einschränkungen für unverhältnismäßig, protestieren ‚gegen staatliche Willkür‘, für die ‚Wiederherstellung der Grundrechte‘ oder die Rettung des Stuttgarter Nachtlebens“. Zweimal Anführungszeichen (Botschaft: von wegen Willkür, von wegen Einschränkung der Grundrechte) und zum Schluss der Schubs ins Lächerliche. Diese Rumtreiber und ihre Bars. Da hätte Rudi Röhrer von der* Leipziger Volkszeitung* noch etwas lernen können.

Wie man „gut“ und „böse“ auseinanderhält, wusste er sicher schon. Hier „zahlreiche führende Ärzte und Virologen wie Christian Drosten von der Charité“ (Zahlreich! Führend!) und eine Sozialpsychologin, „die zu Verschwörungserzählungen promoviert und darüber gerade ein Buch geschrieben hat“ (Wissenschaft!). Dort ein „Berliner Dramaturg und Journalist“, der „sich mit kapitalismuskritischen Theateraufführungen einen Namen gemacht“ und jetzt auch stadtbekannte NPD-Funktionäre anzieht, oder ein „pro-russischer Journalist“, der sich „ständig“ von RT Deutsch und Sputnik interviewen lässt („Kreml-Propagandisten“). Merke: Was diese Menschen sagen, ist völlig egal. Das Etikett hilft uns, das Angebot zu sortieren.

Das Konzept „Verschwörungstheorie“ kannten die DDR-Propagandisten so nicht. Es gab nur einen Gegner, und den konnte man genau wie seine Jünger leicht als „Klassenfeind“ abstempeln. Heute ist die Welt komplexer. Heute gibt es das Internet und mit ihm Plattformen, die das Deutungsmonopol der Herrschenden auf ganz andere Weise herausfordern als einst die Programme aus der Bundesrepublik, die sich ganz zwangsläufig mehr mit dem eigenen Land beschäftigt haben als mit dem schmuddeligen Nachbarn im Osten. Wer heute gegen „Verschwörungstheorien“ kämpft, kämpft um die Macht – um Definitionsmacht: Wer darf sagen, was wir „wissen“ und für richtig halten sollen?

Vor 30 Jahren war das keine Frage. Vor 30 Jahren durften nur wenige öffentlich sprechen. Was „da draußen“ passiert, wie wir beschreiben, was da gerade passiert, und wie wir uns folglich einrichten in dieser Welt: In der guten, alten Zeit war das Sache der Massenmedien und damit der Journalisten. Wer Zugang zum Fernsehen hatte oder zur Presse, der konnte beeinflussen, was als Realität durchging. Es gab nur diese eine. Es gab nur das, was in der Zeitung stand, und das, was über den Bildschirm lief. Das Wörtchen „und“ täuscht dabei noch. Meist stand das in der Zeitung, was vorher über den Bildschirm gelaufen war. Oder umgekehrt.

Der britische Medienforscher Nick Couldry (2012) nennt das den „Mythos vom mediatisierten Zentrum“. Eigentlich ist das ein doppelter Mythos. Punkt eins: die Behauptung, es gebe so etwas wie eine ‚Wahrheit‘ oder ein ‚natürliches Zentrum‘ der Werte und Lebensstile. Punkt zwei: Der Weg zu diesem Zentrum führt nur über die Medien. Der Kern unseres Lebens: Das ist das, worüber die Massenmedien angeblich berichten. Für Couldry ist dieser Mythos die Wurzel aller Medienwirkungen. Presse, Funk und Fernsehen definieren, was ist und was sein darf, und sorgen so dafür, dass die Realität der Massenmedien in Alltagshandeln und Weltanschauungen übernommen wird. Medien ordnen die Welt. Medien liefern die Kategorien, mit denen wir die Welt beschreiben. Politiker und Journalisten füttern den „Mythos vom mediatisierten Zentrum“, weil sie von ihm leben. Corona ist ein Festmahl. Ein Virus, das gefährlich ist, das unseren Alltag verändert. Wie genau, sagen uns die Nachrichten.

Und damit zum Wort Verschwörung, das im Spiegel gekoppelt wird mit den Begriffen Theorie, Portal, Ideologe, Erzählung, Mythos. Es ist das Wort zur Krise überhaupt. Zwanzigmal allein in diesem Artikel. Da bleibt kein Platz für Inhalte, Erklärungen oder gar eine Definition. Man erfährt nur (von der schon erwähnten Expertin), dass in der Welt der Verschwörer „böse Hintermänner Schuld an der Situation sind“ und (aus dem Mund eines Innenministers) dass diese Menschen glauben („bis weit in die Mitte der Gesellschaft“!), „die Pandemie“ sei „bewusst herbeigeführt“ worden, „um das Volk zu kontrollieren“ (von Bill Gates oder anderen „vermeintlich finsteren Mächten“).

Es kann gut sein, dass manche der Demonstranten das so sehen. Es kann gut sein, dass einige Bill Gates nicht nur „vermeintlich“ für eine „finstere Macht“ halten und der Politik nicht zutrauen, frei von Lobbyisten nur nach ihrem Gewissen und zum Wohle aller zu entscheiden. Gründe genug hätten solche Zweifler. NSU und NSA, Ramstein und die Drohnen, die Bankenrettung im Namen des Gemeinwohls. Nur so als Beispiele. Aber darum geht es an dieser Stelle nicht. Es geht um die Frage, warum Der Spiegel und mit ihm die anderen Leitmedien plötzlich überall Verschwörungen sehen. Nick Couldry würde sagen: Der „Mythos vom mediatisierten Zentrum“ wankt. Fake News, Hate Speech, Menschen mit „kruden Thesen“: Das gibt es alles, keine Frage. Vermutlich gibt es sogar Minister und Redakteure, die sich ernsthaft sorgen um ihre Schäfchen. Zuallererst aber hilft das Schlagwort „Verschwörungstheorie“ denen, die an der Macht sind, und ihren traditionellen Sprachrohren. Das stimmt auch deshalb, weil dieses Schlagwort ablenkt von den Problemen, über die man eigentlich sprechen müsste. Über die Qualität des Journalismus in dieser Krise zum Beispiel (vgl. Meyen 2020) oder über all das, was sonst noch so auf den Transparenten steht. Das SED-Blatt Leipziger Volkszeitung hat im Sommer 1989 immerhin vier Punkte genannt, auf die „Frau A.K. aus Wurzen“ sich berufen konnte. Meinungspluralismus, Offenheit, Erneuerung, Reisen. Rudi Röhrer, der Chefredakteur, hat das zwar sofort in den Schmutz gezogen (Provokateur bleibt Provokateur), aber die geneigte Leserin konnte in sich gehen und das mit Babyjahr und Eisbar verrechnen.

Der Spiegel dagegen opfert eine seiner drei Seiten für die „drei Medien, die von Anfang an besonders aktiv über die ‚Hygienedemos‘ berichteten“: Rubikon („Querfront-Magazin“, „eine Art Hausmedium der Protestler“), RT Deutsch und Sputnik („deutschsprachigen Ableger eines staatlichen russischen Medienunternehmens“). Dazu kommen Links zu KenFM („Verschwörungsportal“, „Fake-News-Verbreiter“) und Weltnetz.tv („systematische Verbindungen zur Linkspartei“). Was genau man auf all diesen Portalen findet oder wie die Kolleginnen und Kollegen dort arbeiten (wie überall: viele ausgezeichnet und manche nicht ganz so gut), ist dem Reporterkollektiv egal. Auf die Botschaft kommt es an: Geht nicht ins Stadtzentrum. Und vor allem: Hört nicht auf die Signale aus dem Netz.

Im Spiegel lässt sich der Dreiklang studieren, den die Rudi Röhrers der Gegenwart singen: Etikettierung von Personen (was schneller geht, als sich mit Inhalten zu beschäftigen), Kontaktschuld (Sie veröffentlichen auf einer Plattform, auf der auch jemand unterwegs ist, dem man irgendetwas anhängen kann oder will) und implizite Verknüpfung. Man schreibt über Rubikon oder KenFM und lässt nebenbei ein paar wirklich „krude Thesen“ fallen. Im Spiegel: 5G und eine „Biowaffe“. In der Süddeutschen Zeitung, für die Willi Winkler eine Seite 3 zu den Demos gefüllt hat: Angela Merkel als „natürliche Tochter Adolf Hitlers“ („Sie wurde, falls Sie‘s nicht wussten, mit dem vorsichtshalber tiefgefrorenen Sperma des 1945 tragisch hingeschiedenen Führers gezeugt“). Ja. Was will man da noch machen. Das ist wie bei „Frau A.K. aus Wurzen“, die einfach kein Eis essen wollte.

Der Stempel „Verschwörungstheorie“ ist ein Generalangriff der Herrschenden auf den öffentlichen Debattenraum. Über Verschwörungstheorien muss man nicht reden und mit ihren Anhängern auch nicht. Verschwörungstheorien sind, so sagt es Michael Butter, einer der Wissenschaftler im Streitwagen der Macht, „falsch“. Immer. „Noch nie“ habe sich „eine Verschwörungstheorie im Nachhinein als wahr herausgestellt“ (Butter 2018: 37). Dass das Unsinn ist, sollte jeder Forscher wissen. Ob etwas „wahr“ oder „falsch“ ist, zeigt die Empirie. Ich kann zwar das eine hoffen oder das andere, um aber sicher zu sein, muss ich ins Feld. Ich muss Pro und Contra abwägen, sachlich, ohne Emotionen und ohne jedem gleich jede Kompetenz abzusprechen, der die Welt anders sieht als ich.

Es gibt ein feines Kriterium, mit dem sich die Qualität von Journalismus einschätzen lässt: publizistische Vielfalt (vgl. Rager/Weber 1992). Dieses Kriterium wurzelt im Pluralismusmodell: In der Gesellschaft gibt es viele und zum Teil gegensätzliche Meinungen und Interessen, die prinzipiell gleichberechtigt sind (die Interessen von Einzelpersonen und Außenseitern genauso wie die Interessen, die in Parteien oder Verbänden organisiert sind). Feld der Verständigung ist die Öffentlichkeit, wobei ein Ausgleich nur möglich scheint, wenn die verschiedenen Interessen in den Leitmedien artikuliert werden können – ohne dass die (Ab-)Wertung gleich mitgeliefert wird wie in vielen der „Fakten-Checks“, die gerade wie Pilze aus dem Boden schießen.

Was macht Der Spiegel? Er denunziert die Nachfahren von „Frau A.K. aus Wurzen“ und ruft nach Zensur. „Personalnot“ bei Facebook, Twitter, Google. Man kommt dort mit dem Löschen einfach nicht mehr hinterher. Die „automatisierten Filter“? „Fehleranfällig“. Schlimmer noch: Die Verschwörer weichen aus auf „freiere“ Plattformen (tatsächlich in Anführungszeichen) wie Bitchute und Telegram, wo die „Verschwörungsideologen“ (leider, leider) immer noch „ungehindert“ schwadronieren können – „bis sie sich das nächste Mal auf den Straßen wiedersehen. Inmitten von ganz normalen Bürgern“.

Die Leipziger Volkszeitung von Rudi Röhrer wusste sich am Ende gar nicht mehr zu helfen (vgl. Reichert 2000: 108). Am 5. Oktober 1989 hat sie unter der Überschrift „Nicht nur zusehen“ einen Kampfgruppenkommandeur gegen „nichtgenehmigte Demonstrationen“ hetzen lassen und einen Tag später in einem „Leserbrief“ unverhohlen gedroht: „Wir sind bereit und willens, das von uns mit unserer Hände Arbeit Geschaffene wirksam zu schützen, um diese konterrevolutionären Aktionen endgültig und wirksam zu unterbinden. Wenn es sein muss, mit der Waffe in der Hand!“ Innenminister und Polizisten denken im Moment laut darüber nach, wie die nächsten Demos laufen könnten. Die Leipziger haben sich damals nicht abschrecken lassen.

Literatur

Michael Butter: „Nichts ist, wie es scheint“. Über Verschwörungstheorien. Berlin: Suhrkamp 2018

Nick Couldry: Media, Society, World. Social Theory and Digital Media Practice. Cambridge: Polity Press 2012

Michael Meyen: Journalismus nach Corona. In: Michael Meyen (Hrsg.): Medienrealität 2020.

Günther Rager, Bernd Weber: Publizistische Vielfalt zwischen Markt und Politik. Eine Einführung. In: Günther Rager, Bernd Weber (Hrsg.): Publizistische Vielfalt zwischen Markt und Politik. Mehr Medien – mehr Inhalte? Düsseldorf: Econ 1992, S. 7-26

Steffen Reichert: Transformationsprozesse: Der Umbau der LVZ. Münster: Lit 2000

Die maskierte Öffentlichkeit

Medienrealität, 19. Oktober 2020, und Rubikon, 23. Oktober 2020

Die Regierenden haben die Öffentlichkeit gekapert und sich damit selbst jedes Korrektiv genommen. Nach den Leitmedien werden jetzt auch Seminarräume und Stadien, Kneipen und Bürgersteige zu Bühnen der politischen Inszenierung. Das Schicksal der DDR lehrt: Wer die Kommunikationskanäle schließt, verhindert mit den Debatten auch Innovationen und wird spätestens dann bestraft, wenn die Lebenswelt nicht mehr funktioniert.

Öffentlichkeit: Das ist ein Ort der Begegnung, der für die Politik ganz ähnlich funktioniert wie der Markt für die Wirtschaft (vgl. Gerhards/Neidhardt 1990). Was immer der Staat sich ausdenkt, muss vor der Bürgerschaft bestehen. Das heißt auch: Wir müssen darüber sprechen können. Rede, Gegenrede. Alles auf den Tisch. Normalerweise überlassen wir dieses Gespräch Organisationen und Auserwählten. Parteien, Gewerkschaften, Verbände. Der Präsident der Ärztekammer sagt dies, die Professorin das und die CSU etwas ganz anderes. Zu sehen oder zu hören in Presse, Funk und Fernsehen.

Diese Medienrealität beobachten wir aus drei Gründen. Wir wollen erstens wissen, wer die Macht hat. Wer hat es geschafft, sich selbst, seine Themen und seine Deutungen in die Öffentlichkeit zu bringen? Macht ist heute Definitionsmacht (vgl. Beck 2017). Macht hat, wer einen „Grenzwert“ festsetzen kann und einen „Schwellenwert“, die dann zu einer Realität werden, der sich auch deshalb niemand entziehen kann, weil Kritiker entweder gar nicht gehört oder diffamiert werden. Das führt direkt zu Grund zwei: Wir nehmen an, dass sich die anderen, die Menschen um uns herum, an der Medienrealität ausrichten werden. Also müssen wir diese Realität kennen. Sonst sind wir überrascht, dass der Sitznachbar im ICE austickt, wenn die Maske verrutscht. Drittens aber, und das ist für die Argumentation hier am wichtigsten, drittens wollen wir auf Nummer sicher gehen. Ist das, was wir selbst denken und für wichtig halten, wirklich präsent in der großen Arena? Kennt die Politik unsere Sorgen und Nöte, wenn sie über Sperrstunden entscheidet?

Die Öffentlichkeitstheorie beschreibt ein Wechselspiel zwischen drei Ebenen. Ganz oben stehen dabei die Leitmedien. Wer oder was hier nicht erscheint, bleibt unsichtbar. Auf den beiden Ebenen darunter aber, in Versammlungen und im Alltag, bei den vielen zufälligen Begegnungen hier und dort, kommen wir ins Spiel. Hier können wir die Medienrealität und uns selbst auf die Probe stellen. Sehe nur ich die Dinge so oder gibt es Gleichgesinnte? Können wir uns vielleicht sogar zusammentun und eine Demonstration organisieren, eine Mahnwache, eine Petition – etwas, was erst von den Redaktionen wahrgenommen werden muss und dann auch von der Politik?

Und damit zu den Masken. Mona Pauly hat das in einem Beitrag für die Freitag-Community auf den Punkt gebracht. Zusammengefasst: Die Politik braucht Bilder. Wie produziere ich Angst und das Gefühl, bedroht zu sein, wenn die Betten in den Kliniken leer sind und man auch kaum Kranken- oder gar Sterbegeschichten erzählen kann, die vom Normalen abweichen und damit die Medienlogik bedienen würden? Genau. Die Masken sind überall. Beim Bäcker und im Supermarkt sowieso. Jetzt auch im Kinosaal, auf den Bürofluren, im Klassenzimmer. Und damit in der Zeitung und in der Tagesschau. Selbst die paar Fans, die hin und wieder in die Stadien dürfen und dort so weit auseinandersitzen, dass sie sich kaum hören können, tragen Masken. Im Freien wohlgemerkt und bitte nicht durchsichtig. Die Bilder. Und jeder Kommentator rügt die Nachlässigen, wenn die Kamera bei ihren Fahrten durch das Rund doch noch eine Nasenspitze entdeckt. Selbst diese Fußballkommentatoren sind maskiert. Allein, hoch oben unter dem Stadiondach. Vielleicht vergessen sie sonst, den Besorgten neues Futter zu liefern.

Die Öffentlichkeit wird so erstickt. Die Maske ist kein „Instrument der Freiheit“ (Markus Söder), sondern ihr Tod. Es gibt keine Gegenrede mehr, nicht einmal beim Spaziergang durch die Stadt. Die Leitmedien transportieren Bilder der Zustimmung (maskierte Menschen überall), erzwungen von der Exekutive und durchgesetzt per Bußgeldkatalog. Und die beiden anderen Öffentlichkeitsebenen sind de facto ausgeschaltet. Wie will ich im Bus, auf der Straße oder im Geschäft mit jemandem ins Gespräch kommen, der nicht zu meiner Blase gehört? Wie will ich den erkennen, der irgendeine Bemerkung genauso blöd oder genauso gut findet wie ich? Selbst im Museum (Abstand! Maske!) oder in der Gaststätte geht das nicht mehr. Keine Fremden mehr am gleichen Tisch. Überhaupt nur noch fünf Personen, die sich am besten schon kennen sollten. Alles andere verhindern das Plexiglas zwischen den Tischen und die Masken auf dem Weg zum Klo. Selbst die Toilettenwand dürfte so als Ort der Öffentlichkeit verschwinden. Und der Zapfhahn wird einfach zugedreht, wenn es abends spannend werden könnte.

Wahrscheinlich muss ich das für die Versammlungsöffentlichkeit gar nicht mehr im Detail ausführen. Die Regierenden haben die Sportarenen entvölkert, Veranstaltungen jeder Art bis zur Unkenntlichkeit verkleinert und Demos entweder kriminalisiert oder ihnen per Verordnung jede Wucht genommen. Teilnehmerzahl, Abstand, Maskenzwang. Und wenn trotzdem viele Menschen zusammenkommen wie im August gleich zweimal in Berlin, dann schaffen es die PR-Leute der Regierung, so starke Frames zu setzen, dass nichts von den Motiven der Protestierenden oder von ihren Forderungen auf der Ebene der Leitmedien ankommt.

Das Internet, natürlich. Blogs, Telegram- und WhatsApp-Gruppen, die Plattformen für den Gegendiskurs. Hier findet sich all das, was früher Encounter und Versammlungen ausgemacht hat. Für den Einzelnen findet sich hier heute sogar viel mehr, weil ein Klick viel weniger kostet als jeder Gang ins Freie. Die Grenze zu den Leitmedien ist heute aber viel höher als früher. Wer es in den großen Redaktionen wagt, Experten zu zitieren oder gar einzuladen, die vorher bei RT Deutsch waren, bei KenFM oder Rubikon, riskiert seine berufliche Reputation. Die Kollegin und der Kollege waren schon immer die besten Kunden des Journalisten. Heute sind diese Kunden auf Twitter, verfolgen dort alles, was von ihrer eigenen Haltung abweicht, und erzeugen so einen Resonanzraum, der schon deshalb nichts mit der guten, alten Versammlungsöffentlichkeit zu tun hat, weil der Zugang exklusiv ist und man eigentlich nur Ja oder Nein rufen kann, möglichst laut, versteht sich.

Damit das nicht falsch verstanden wird: Es gibt in den Redaktionen Menschen, die den Auftrag Öffentlichkeit ernst nehmen. Beim WDR zum Beispiel, der in der Sendung „Meine Meinung“ unter der Überschrift „Lockern oder Verschärfen?“ Pro und Contra aufeinanderprallen ließ. Oder Alexei Makartsev, der gerade Sucharit Bhakdi für die Badischen Neuesten Nachrichten interviewt hat, sehr gut informiert und ohne Schaum vor dem Mund. Auf der Ebene der Leitmedien aber, da wo die Realität geschaffen wird, die niemand ignorieren kann, wird das übernommen, was die Politik und Behörden wie das RKI der Bevölkerung gern weismachen möchten. Uwe Krüger (2016: 105), ein Medienforscher aus Leipzig, hat das in einem anderen thematischen Zusammenhang „Verantwortungsverschwörung“ genannt. Der Journalist weiß, was gut ist und was schlecht (so ziemlich das gleiche, was die Regierenden gut oder schlecht finden), und er glaubt, dass er Einfluss auf die Menschen hat. Also nichts gegen die Maskenpflicht. Dass es dazu genug zu sagen geben würde, kann man gerade bei Oliver Märtens (2020) lesen, der nach einer aufwändigen Durchsicht der Forschungsliteratur von „Körperverletzung im Amt“ spricht.

Der DDR mag man alle möglichen Gebrechen nachsagen, untergegangen aber ist sie, weil die Kommunikation zwischen Regierenden und Regierten gestört war und die wirklich wichtigen Fragen nur in „internen Öffentlichkeiten“ diskutiert werden konnten – in Räumen, die für Beobachter aus dem Westen nicht zugänglich waren und deshalb von Herrschenden wie Beherrschten als Öffentlichkeitsersatz genutzt wurden (vgl. Meyen 2011). Dieses System aus Eingaben, Leserbriefen, Parteiversammlungen und Expertentreffen hatte durch die Brille der Macht zwei Vorteile. Man hat Kritiker oft allein durch Zuwendung besänftigt – und diese Kritiker konnten nicht sehen, wer sonst noch auf ihrer Seite steht. Geändert hat sich das erst, als sie Erkennungszeichen in die Öffentlichkeit getragen haben (etwa: weiße Gardinenfetzen an der Autoantenne, um den Wunsch nach Ausreise zu signalisieren) und die Probleme auch sonst buchstäblich für jeden „öffentlich“ wurden (etwa: die Luftverschmutzung). Mona Pauly hat in ihrem Beitrag für die Freitag-Community „eine grüne Maske als Protest“ vorgeschlagen. Die Bilder stören, irgendwie. Gegen Atemnot und Beklemmung hilft das nicht. In der DDR hat es außerdem sehr, sehr lange gedauert, bis solche Zeichen ganz oben angekommen sind. Und wer weiß, ob das ohne das Westfernsehen überhaupt funktioniert hätte.

Literatur

Ulrich Beck: Die Metamorphose der Welt. Berlin: Suhrkamp 2017

Jürgen Gerhards, Friedhelm Neidhardt: Strukturen und Funktionen moderner Öffentlichkeit: Fragestellungen und Ansätze. Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin 1990

Uwe Krüger: Mainstream. Warum wir den Medien nicht mehr trauen. München: C.H. Beck 2016

Oliver Märtens: Die Maskenpflicht: Epidemieeindämmung oder Körperverletzung im Amt? Multipolar, 18. Oktober 2020

Michael Meyen: Öffentlichkeit in der DDR. Ein theoretischer und empirischer Beitrag zu den Kommunikationsstrukturen in Gesellschaften ohne Medienfreiheit. In: Studies in Communication / Media 1. Jg. (2011), S. 3-69

@ 266815e0:6cd408a5

How to create a nostr app quickly using applesauce

In this guide we are going to build a nostr app that lets users follow and unfollow fiatjaf

1. Setup new project

Start by setting up a new vite app using pnpm create vite, then set the name and select Solid and Typescript

```sh ➜ pnpm create vite │ ◇ Project name: │ followjaf │ ◇ Select a framework: │ Solid │ ◇ Select a variant: │ TypeScript │ ◇ Scaffolding project in ./followjaf... │ └ Done. Now run:

cd followjaf pnpm install pnpm run dev ```

2. Adding nostr dependencies

There are a few useful nostr dependencies we are going to need. nostr-tools for the types and small methods, and rx-nostr for making relay connections

sh pnpm install nostr-tools rx-nostr

3. Setup rx-nostr

Next we need to setup rxNostr so we can make connections to relays. create a new src/nostr.ts file with

```ts import { createRxNostr, noopVerifier } from "rx-nostr";

export const rxNostr = createRxNostr({ // skip verification here because we are going to verify events at the event store skipVerify: true, verifier: noopVerifier, }); ```

4. Setup the event store

Now that we have a way to connect to relays, we need a place to store events. We will use the EventStore class from applesauce-core for this. create a new src/stores.ts file with

The event store does not store any events in the browsers local storage or anywhere else. It's in-memory only and provides a model for the UI

```ts import { EventStore } from "applesauce-core"; import { verifyEvent } from "nostr-tools";

export const eventStore = new EventStore();

// verify the events when they are added to the store eventStore.verifyEvent = verifyEvent; ```

5. Create the query store

The event store is where we store all the events, but we need a way for the UI to query them. We can use the QueryStore class from applesauce-core for this.

Create a query store in src/stores.ts

```ts import { QueryStore } from "applesauce-core";

// ...

// the query store needs the event store to subscribe to it export const queryStore = new QueryStore(eventStore); ```

6. Setup the profile loader

Next we need a way to fetch user profiles. We are going to use the ReplaceableLoader class from applesauce-loaders for this.

applesauce-loaders is a package that contains a few loader classes that can be used to fetch different types of data from relays.

First install the package

sh pnpm install applesauce-loaders

Then create a src/loaders.ts file with

```ts import { ReplaceableLoader } from "applesauce-loaders"; import { rxNostr } from "./nostr"; import { eventStore } from "./stores";

export const replaceableLoader = new ReplaceableLoader(rxNostr);

// Start the loader and send any events to the event store replaceableLoader.subscribe((packet) => { eventStore.add(packet.event, packet.from); }); ```

7. Fetch fiatjaf's profile

Now that we have a way to store events, and a loader to help with fetching them, we should update the src/App.tsx component to fetch the profile.

We can do this by calling the next method on the loader and passing a pubkey, kind and relays to it

```tsx function App() { // ...

onMount(() => { // fetch fiatjaf's profile on load replaceableLoader.next({ pubkey: "3bf0c63fcb93463407af97a5e5ee64fa883d107ef9e558472c4eb9aaaefa459d", kind: 0, relays: ["wss://pyramid.fiatjaf.com/"], }); });

// ... } ```

8. Display the profile

Now that we have a way to fetch the profile, we need to display it in the UI.

We can do this by using the ProfileQuery which gives us a stream of updates to a pubkey's profile.

Create the profile using queryStore.createQuery and pass in the ProfileQuery and the pubkey.

tsx const fiatjaf = queryStore.createQuery( ProfileQuery, "3bf0c63fcb93463407af97a5e5ee64fa883d107ef9e558472c4eb9aaaefa459d" );

But this just gives us an observable, we need to subscribe to it to get the profile.

Luckily SolidJS profiles a simple from method to subscribe to any observable.

To make things reactive SolidJS uses accessors, so to get the profile we need to call fiatjaf()

```tsx function App() { // ...

// Subscribe to fiatjaf's profile from the query store const fiatjaf = from( queryStore.createQuery(ProfileQuery, "3bf0c63fcb93463407af97a5e5ee64fa883d107ef9e558472c4eb9aaaefa459d") );

return ( <> {/ replace the vite and solid logos with the profile picture /}

{fiatjaf()?.name}

  {/* ... */}

); } ```

9. Letting the user signin

Now we should let the user signin to the app. We can do this by creating a AccountManager class from applesauce-accounts

First we need to install the packages

sh pnpm install applesauce-accounts applesauce-signers

Then create a new src/accounts.ts file with

```ts import { AccountManager } from "applesauce-accounts"; import { registerCommonAccountTypes } from "applesauce-accounts/accounts";

// create an account manager instance export const accounts = new AccountManager();

// Adds the common account types to the manager registerCommonAccountTypes(accounts); ```

Next lets presume the user has a NIP-07 browser extension installed and add a signin button.

```tsx function App() { const signin = async () => { // do nothing if the user is already signed in if (accounts.active) return;

// create a new nip-07 signer and try to get the pubkey
const signer = new ExtensionSigner();
const pubkey = await signer.getPublicKey();

// create a new extension account, add it, and make it the active account
const account = new ExtensionAccount(pubkey, signer);
accounts.addAccount(account);
accounts.setActive(account);

};

return ( <> {/ ... /}

  <div class="card">
    <p>Are you following the fiatjaf? the creator of "The nostr"</p>
    <button onClick={signin}>Check</button>
  </div>

); } ```

Now when the user clicks the button the app will ask for the users pubkey, then do nothing... but it's a start.

We are not persisting the accounts, so when the page reloads the user will NOT be signed in. you can learn about persisting the accounts in the docs

10. Showing the signed-in state

We should show some indication to the user that they are signed in. We can do this by modifying the signin button if the user is signed in and giving them a way to sign-out

```tsx function App() { // subscribe to the currently active account (make sure to use the account$ observable) const account = from(accounts.active$);

// ...

const signout = () => { // do nothing if the user is not signed in if (!accounts.active) return;

// signout the user
const account = accounts.active;
accounts.removeAccount(account);
accounts.clearActive();

};

return ( <> {/ ... /}

  <div class="card">
    <p>Are you following the fiatjaf? ( creator of "The nostr" )</p>
    {account() === undefined ? <button onClick={signin}>Check</button> : <button onClick={signout}>Signout</button>}
  </div>

); } ```

11. Fetching the user's profile

Now that we have a way to sign in and out of the app, we should fetch the user's profile when they sign in.

```tsx function App() { // ...

// fetch the user's profile when they sign in createEffect(async () => { const active = account();

if (active) {
  // get the user's relays or fallback to some default relays
  const usersRelays = await active.getRelays?.();
  const relays = usersRelays ? Object.keys(usersRelays) : ["wss://relay.damus.io", "wss://nos.lol"];

  // tell the loader to fetch the users profile event
  replaceableLoader.next({
    pubkey: active.pubkey,
    kind: 0,
    relays,
  });

  // tell the loader to fetch the users contacts
  replaceableLoader.next({
    pubkey: active.pubkey,
    kind: 3,
    relays,
  });

  // tell the loader to fetch the users mailboxes
  replaceableLoader.next({
    pubkey: active.pubkey,
    kind: 10002,
    relays,
  });
}

});

// ... } ```

Next we need to subscribe to the users profile, to do this we can use some rxjs operators to chain the observables together.

```tsx import { Match, Switch } from "solid-js"; import { of, switchMap } from "rxjs";

function App() { // ...

// subscribe to the active account, then subscribe to the users profile or undefined const profile = from( accounts.active$.pipe( switchMap((account) => (account ? queryStore.createQuery(ProfileQuery, account!.pubkey) : of(undefined))) ) );

// ...

return ( <> {/ ... /}

  <div class="card">
    <Switch>
      <Match when={account() && !profile()}>
        <p>Loading profile...</p>
      </Match>
      <Match when={profile()}>
        <p style="font-size: 1.2rem; font-weight: bold;">Welcome {profile()?.name}</p>
      </Match>
    </Switch>

    {/* ... */}
  </div>

); } ```

12. Showing if the user is following fiatjaf

Now that the app is fetching the users profile and contacts we should show if the user is following fiatjaf.

```tsx function App() { // ...

// subscribe to the active account, then subscribe to the users contacts or undefined const contacts = from( accounts.active$.pipe( switchMap((account) => (account ? queryStore.createQuery(UserContactsQuery, account!.pubkey) : of(undefined))) ) );

const isFollowing = createMemo(() => { return contacts()?.some((c) => c.pubkey === "3bf0c63fcb93463407af97a5e5ee64fa883d107ef9e558472c4eb9aaaefa459d"); });

// ...

return ( <> {/ ... /}

  <div class="card">
    {/* ... */}

    <Switch
      fallback={
        <p style="font-size: 1.2rem;">
          Sign in to check if you are a follower of the fiatjaf ( creator of "The nostr" )
        </p>
      }
    >
      <Match when={contacts() && isFollowing() === undefined}>
        <p>checking...</p>
      </Match>
      <Match when={contacts() && isFollowing() === true}>
        <p style="color: green; font-weight: bold; font-size: 2rem;">
          Congratulations! You are a follower of the fiatjaf
        </p>
      </Match>
      <Match when={contacts() && isFollowing() === false}>
        <p style="color: red; font-weight: bold; font-size: 2rem;">
          Why don't you follow the fiatjaf? do you even like nostr?
        </p>
      </Match>
    </Switch>

    {/* ... */}
  </div>

); } ```

13. Adding the follow button

Now that we have a way to check if the user is following fiatjaf, we should add a button to follow him. We can do this with Actions which are pre-built methods to modify nostr events for a user.

First we need to install the applesauce-actions and applesauce-factory package

sh pnpm install applesauce-actions applesauce-factory

Then create a src/actions.ts file with

```ts import { EventFactory } from "applesauce-factory"; import { ActionHub } from "applesauce-actions"; import { eventStore } from "./stores"; import { accounts } from "./accounts";

// The event factory is used to build and modify nostr events export const factory = new EventFactory({ // accounts.signer is a NIP-07 signer that signs with the currently active account signer: accounts.signer, });

// The action hub is used to run Actions against the event store export const actions = new ActionHub(eventStore, factory); ```

Then create a toggleFollow method that will add or remove fiatjaf from the users contacts.

We are using the exec method to run the action, and the forEach method from RxJS allows us to await for all the events to be published

```tsx function App() { // ...

const toggleFollow = async () => { // send any created events to rxNostr and the event store const publish = (event: NostrEvent) => { eventStore.add(event); rxNostr.send(event); };

if (isFollowing()) {
  await actions
    .exec(UnfollowUser, "3bf0c63fcb93463407af97a5e5ee64fa883d107ef9e558472c4eb9aaaefa459d")
    .forEach(publish);
} else {
  await actions
    .exec(
      FollowUser,
      "3bf0c63fcb93463407af97a5e5ee64fa883d107ef9e558472c4eb9aaaefa459d",
      "wss://pyramid.fiatjaf.com/"
    )
    .forEach(publish);
}

};

// ...

return ( <> {/ ... /}

  <div class="card">
    {/* ... */}

    {contacts() && <button onClick={toggleFollow}>{isFollowing() ? "Unfollow" : "Follow"}</button>}
  </div>

); } ```

14. Adding outbox support

The app looks like it works now but if the user reloads the page they will still see an the old version of their contacts list. we need to make sure rxNostr is publishing the events to the users outbox relays.

To do this we can subscribe to the signed in users mailboxes using the query store in src/nostr.ts

```ts import { MailboxesQuery } from "applesauce-core/queries"; import { accounts } from "./accounts"; import { of, switchMap } from "rxjs"; import { queryStore } from "./stores";

// ...

// subscribe to the active account, then subscribe to the users mailboxes and update rxNostr accounts.active$ .pipe(switchMap((account) => (account ? queryStore.createQuery(MailboxesQuery, account.pubkey) : of(undefined)))) .subscribe((mailboxes) => { if (mailboxes) rxNostr.setDefaultRelays(mailboxes.outboxes); else rxNostr.setDefaultRelays([]); }); ```

And that's it! we have a working nostr app that lets users follow and unfollow fiatjaf.

@ bccf33d8:4b705625

{"title":"nostrbook 创建的五本四书哈哈哈","author":"nostrbook.com","intro":"This is a book from ....很不错","picture":"https://432fds"}

@ bccf33d8:4b705625

{"title":"nostrbook 创建的四本三书哈哈哈","author":"nostrbook.com","intro":"This is a book from ....很不 错","picture":"https://432fds"}

@ bccf33d8:4b705625

关于本书的第一个章节

@ bccf33d8:4b705625

{"title":"nostrbook 创建的一本书另外一本书","author":"nostrbook.com","intro":"This is a book from ....很不错","picture":"https://432fds"}

@ bccf33d8:4b705625

我在测试 createbook标签是否可以被列出来

@ bccf33d8:4b705625

{"title":"nostrbook 创建的一本书","author":"nostrbook.com","intro":"This is a book from ....","picture":"https://nostrbook.com/img/dfsa32432.png"}

@ da0b9bc3:4e30a4a9

Hello Stackers!

Welcome on into the ~Music Corner of the Saloon!

A place where we Talk Music. Share Tracks. Zap Sats.

So stay a while and listen.

🚨Don't forget to check out the pinned items in the territory homepage! You can always find the latest weeklies there!🚨

🚨Subscribe to the territory to ensure you never miss a post! 🚨

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/917523

@ a012dc82:6458a70d

In recent years, the global economy has faced unprecedented challenges, with inflation rates soaring to levels not seen in decades. This economic turmoil has led investors and consumers alike to seek alternative stores of value and investment strategies. Among the various options, Bitcoin has emerged as a particularly appealing choice. This article explores the reasons behind Bitcoin's growing appeal in an inflation-stricken economy, delving into its characteristics, historical performance, and the broader implications for the financial landscape.

Table of Contents

• Understanding Inflation and Its Impacts

• Bitcoin: A New Safe Haven?

• Decentralization and Limited Supply

• Portability and Liquidity

• Bitcoin's Performance in Inflationary Times

• Challenges and Considerations

• The Future of Bitcoin in an Inflationary Economy

• Conclusion

• FAQs

Understanding Inflation and Its Impacts

Inflation is the rate at which the general level of prices for goods and services is rising, eroding purchasing power. It can be caused by various factors, including increased production costs, higher energy prices, and expansive government policies. Inflation affects everyone in the economy, from consumers and businesses to investors and retirees, as it diminishes the value of money. When inflation rates rise, the purchasing power of currency falls, leading to higher costs for everyday goods and services. This can result in decreased consumer spending, reduced savings, and overall economic slowdown.

For investors, inflation is a significant concern because it can erode the real returns on their investments. Traditional investments like bonds and savings accounts may not keep pace with inflation, leading to a loss in purchasing power over time. This has prompted a search for alternative investments that can provide a hedge against inflation and preserve, if not increase, the value of their capital.

Bitcoin: A New Safe Haven?

Traditionally, assets like gold, real estate, and Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS) have been considered safe havens during times of inflation. However, the digital age has introduced a new player: Bitcoin. Bitcoin is a decentralized digital currency that operates without the oversight of a central authority. Its supply is capped at 21 million coins, a feature that many believe gives it anti-inflationary properties. This inherent scarcity is akin to natural resources like gold, which have historically been used as hedges against inflation.

The decentralization of Bitcoin means that it is not subject to the whims of central banking policies or government interference, which are often seen as contributing factors to inflation. This aspect of Bitcoin is particularly appealing to those who have lost faith in traditional financial systems and are looking for alternatives that offer more autonomy and security.

Decentralization and Limited Supply

One of the key features that make Bitcoin appealing as a hedge against inflation is its decentralized nature. Unlike fiat currencies, which central banks can print in unlimited quantities, Bitcoin's supply is finite. This scarcity mimics the properties of gold and is seen as a buffer against inflation. The decentralized nature of Bitcoin also means that it is not subject to the same regulatory pressures and monetary policies that can lead to currency devaluation.

Furthermore, the process of "mining" Bitcoin, which involves validating transactions and adding them to the blockchain, is designed to become progressively more difficult over time. This not only ensures the security of the network but also introduces a deflationary element to Bitcoin, as the rate at which new coins are created slows down over time.

Portability and Liquidity

Bitcoin's digital nature makes it highly portable and divisible, allowing for easy transfer and exchange worldwide. This liquidity and global accessibility make it an attractive option for investors looking to diversify their portfolios beyond traditional assets. Unlike physical assets like gold or real estate, Bitcoin can be transferred across borders without the need for intermediaries, making it a truly global asset.

The ease of transferring and dividing Bitcoin means that it can be used for a wide range of transactions, from large-scale investments to small, everyday purchases. This versatility, combined with its growing acceptance as a form of payment, enhances its utility and appeal as an investment.

Bitcoin's Performance in Inflationary Times

Historically, Bitcoin has shown significant growth during periods of high inflation. While it is known for its price volatility, many investors have turned to Bitcoin as a speculative hedge against depreciating fiat currencies. The digital currency's performance during inflationary periods has bolstered its reputation as a potential safe haven. However, it's important to note that Bitcoin's market is still relatively young and can be influenced by a wide range of factors beyond inflation, such as market sentiment, technological developments, and regulatory changes.

Despite its volatility, Bitcoin has provided substantial returns for some investors, particularly those who entered the market early. Its performance, especially during times of financial instability, has led to increased interest and investment from both individual and institutional investors. As more people look to Bitcoin as a potential hedge against inflation, its role in investment portfolios is likely to evolve.

Challenges and Considerations

Despite its growing appeal, Bitcoin is not without its challenges. The cryptocurrency's price volatility can lead to significant losses, and regulatory uncertainties remain a concern. Additionally, the environmental impact of Bitcoin mining has sparked debate. The energy-intensive process required to mine new coins and validate transactions has raised concerns about its sustainability and environmental footprint.

Investors considering Bitcoin as a hedge against inflation should weigh these factors and consider their risk tolerance and investment horizon. While Bitcoin offers potential benefits as an inflation hedge, it also comes with risks that are different from traditional investments. Understanding these risks, and how they align with individual investment strategies, is crucial for anyone considering adding Bitcoin to their portfolio.

The Future of Bitcoin in an Inflationary Economy

As the global economy continues to navigate through turbulent waters, the appeal of Bitcoin is likely to grow. Its properties as a decentralized, finite, and easily transferable asset make it a unique option for those looking to protect their wealth from inflation. However, the future of Bitcoin remains uncertain, and its role in the broader financial landscape is still being defined. As with any investment, due diligence and a balanced approach are crucial.

The increasing institutional interest in Bitcoin and the development of financial products around it, such as ETFs and futures, suggest that Bitcoin is becoming more mainstream. However, its acceptance and integration into the global financial system will depend on a variety of factors, including regulatory developments, technological advancements, and market dynamics.

Conclusion

The growing appeal of Bitcoin in an inflation-stricken economy highlights the changing dynamics of investment in the digital age. While it offers a novel approach to wealth preservation, it also comes with its own set of risks and challenges. As the world continues to grapple with inflation, the role of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies will undoubtedly be a topic of keen interest and debate among investors and policymakers alike. Whether Bitcoin will become a permanent fixture in investment portfolios as a hedge against inflation remains to be seen, but its impact on the financial landscape is undeniable.

FAQs

What is inflation, and how does it affect the economy? Inflation is the rate at which the general level of prices for goods and services is rising, leading to a decrease in purchasing power. It affects the economy by reducing the value of money, increasing costs for consumers and businesses, and potentially leading to economic slowdown.

Why is Bitcoin considered a hedge against inflation? Bitcoin is considered a hedge against inflation due to its decentralized nature, limited supply capped at 21 million coins, and its independence from government monetary policies, which are often seen as contributing factors to inflation.

What are the risks associated with investing in Bitcoin? The risks include high price volatility, regulatory uncertainties, and concerns over the environmental impact of Bitcoin mining. Investors should consider their risk tolerance and investment horizon before investing in Bitcoin.

How does Bitcoin's limited supply contribute to its value? Bitcoin's limited supply mimics the scarcity of resources like gold, which has traditionally been used as a hedge against inflation. This scarcity can help to maintain its value over time, especially in contrast to fiat currencies, which can be printed in unlimited quantities.

Can Bitcoin be used for everyday transactions? Yes, Bitcoin can be used for a wide range of transactions, from large-scale investments to small, everyday purchases. Its digital nature allows for easy transfer and division, making it a versatile form of currency.

That's all for today

If you want more, be sure to follow us on:

NOSTR: croxroad@getalby.com

X: @croxroadnewsco

Instagram: @croxroadnews.co/

Youtube: @thebitcoinlibertarian

Store: https://croxroad.store

Subscribe to CROX ROAD Bitcoin Only Daily Newsletter

https://www.croxroad.co/subscribe

Get Orange Pill App And Connect With Bitcoiners In Your Area. Stack Friends Who Stack Sats link: https://signup.theorangepillapp.com/opa/croxroad

Buy Bitcoin Books At Konsensus Network Store. 10% Discount With Code “21croxroad” link: https://bitcoinbook.shop?ref=21croxroad

DISCLAIMER: None of this is financial advice. This newsletter is strictly educational and is not investment advice or a solicitation to buy or sell any assets or to make any financial decisions. Please be careful and do your own research.

@ e97aaffa:2ebd765d

Como é difícil encontrar informações sobre o eurodigital, a CBDC da União Europeia, vou colocando aqui, os documentos mais interessantes que fui encontrando:

FAQ: https://www.ecb.europa.eu/euro/digital_euro/faqs/html/ecb.faq_digital_euro.pt.html

Directório BCE: https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/pubbydate/html/index.en.html?topic=Digital%20euro

https://www.ecb.europa.eu/euro/digital_euro/timeline/profuse/html/index.en.html

Documentos mais técnicos:

2025

Technical note on the provision of multiple digital euro accounts to individual end users https://www.ecb.europa.eu/euro/digital_euro/timeline/profuse/shared/pdf/ecb.degov240325_digital_euro_multiple_accounts.en.pdf

2024

Relatório de progresso https://www.ecb.europa.eu/euro/digital_euro/progress/html/ecb.deprp202412.en.html

Technical note on the provision of multiple digital euro accounts to individual end users https://www.ecb.europa.eu/euro/digital_euro/timeline/profuse/shared/pdf/ecb.degov240325_digital_euro_multiple_accounts.en.pdf

The impact of central bank digital currency on central bank profitability, risk-taking and capital https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpops/ecb.op360~35915b25bd.en.pdf

2023

Progress on the investigation phase of a digital euro - fourth report https://www.ecb.europa.eu/paym/digital_euro/investigation/governance/shared/files/ecb.degov230713-fourth-progress-report-digital-euro-investigation-phase.en.pdf

Digital euro - Prototype summary and lessons learned https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/other/ecb.prototype_summary20230526%7E71d0b26d55.en.pdf

Functional and non-functional requirements linked to the market research for a potential digital euro implementation https://www.ecb.europa.eu/euro/digital_euro/timeline/profuse/shared/pdf//ecb.dedocs230113_Annex_1_Digital_euro_market_research.en.pdf

A stocktake on the digital euro https://www.ecb.europa.eu/euro/digital_euro/progress/shared/pdf/ecb.dedocs231018.en.pdf

@ ee9aaefe:1e6952f4

Introduction to Model Context Protocol (MCP)

Model Context Protocol (MCP) serves as a specialized gateway allowing AI systems to access real-time information and interact with external data sources while maintaining security boundaries. This capability transforms AI from closed systems limited to training data into dynamic assistants capable of retrieving current information and performing actions. As AI systems integrate into critical infrastructure across industries, the security and reliability of these protocols have become crucial considerations.

Security Vulnerabilities in Web-Based MCP Services

Traditional MCP implementations operate as web services, creating a fundamental security weakness. When an MCP runs as a conventional web service, the entire security model depends on trusting the service provider. Providers can modify underlying code, alter behavior, or update services without users' knowledge or consent. This creates an inherent vulnerability where the system's integrity rests solely on the trustworthiness of the MCP provider.

This vulnerability is particularly concerning in high-stakes domains. In financial applications, a compromised MCP could lead to unauthorized transactions or exposure of confidential information. In healthcare, it might result in compromised patient data. The fundamental problem is that users have no cryptographic guarantees about the MCP's behavior – they must simply trust the provider's claims about security and data handling.

Additionally, these services create single points of failure vulnerable to sophisticated attacks. Service providers face internal threats from rogue employees, external pressure from bad actors, or regulatory compulsion that could compromise user security or privacy. With traditional MCPs, users have limited visibility into such changes and few technical safeguards.

ICP Canisters: Enabling the Verifiable MCP Paradigm

The Internet Computer Protocol (ICP) offers a revolutionary solution through its canister architecture, enabling what we term "Verifiable MCP" – a new paradigm in AI security. Unlike traditional web services, ICP canisters operate within a decentralized network with consensus-based execution and verification, creating powerful security properties:

• Cryptographically verifiable immutability guarantees prevent silent code modifications
• Deterministic execution environments allow independent verification by network participants
• Ability to both read and write web data while operating under consensus verification
• Control of off-chain Trusted Execution Environment (TEE) servers through on-chain attestation

These capabilities create the foundation for trustworthy AI context protocols that don't require blind faith in service providers.

Technical Architecture of Verifiable MCP Integration

The Verifiable MCP architecture places MCP service logic within ICP canisters that operate under consensus verification. This creates several distinct layers working together to ensure security:

1. Interface Layer: AI models connect through standardized APIs compatible with existing integration patterns.

2. Verification Layer: The ICP canister validates authentication, checks permissions, and verifies policy adherence within a consensus-verified environment.

3. Orchestration Layer: The canister coordinates necessary resources for data retrieval or computation.

4. Attestation Layer: For sensitive operations, the canister deploys and attests TEE instances, providing cryptographic proof that correct code runs in a secure environment.

5. Response Verification Layer: Before returning results, cryptographic verification ensures data integrity and provenance.

This architecture creates a transparent, verifiable pipeline where component behavior is guaranteed through consensus mechanisms and cryptographic verification—eliminating the need to trust service provider claims.

Example: Secure Financial Data Access Through Verifiable MCP

Consider a financial advisory AI needing access to banking data and portfolios to provide recommendations. In a Verifiable MCP implementation:

1. The AI submits a data request through the Verifiable MCP interface.

2. The ICP canister verifies authorization using immutable access control logic.

3. For sensitive data, the canister deploys a TEE instance with privacy-preserving code.

4. The canister cryptographically verifies the TEE is running the correct code.

5. Financial services provide encrypted data directly to the verified TEE.

6. The TEE returns only authorized results with cryptographic proof of correct execution.

7. The canister delivers verified insights to the AI.

This ensures even the service provider cannot access raw financial data while maintaining complete auditability. Users verify exactly what code processes their information and what insights are extracted, enabling AI applications in regulated domains otherwise too risky with traditional approaches.

Implications for AI Trustworthiness and Data Sovereignty

The Verifiable MCP paradigm transforms the trust model for AI systems by shifting from "trust the provider" to cryptographic verification. This addresses a critical barrier to AI adoption in sensitive domains where guarantees about data handling are essential.

For AI trustworthiness, this enables transparent auditing of data access patterns, prevents silent modifications to processing logic, and provides cryptographic proof of data provenance. Users can verify exactly what information AI systems access and how it's processed.

From a data sovereignty perspective, users gain control through cryptographic guarantees rather than policy promises. Organizations implement permissions that cannot be circumvented, while regulators can verify immutable code handling sensitive information. For cross-border scenarios, Verifiable MCP enables compliance with data localization requirements while maintaining global AI service capabilities through cryptographically enforced data boundaries.

Conclusion

The Verifiable MCP paradigm represents a breakthrough in securing AI systems' external interactions. By leveraging ICP canisters' immutability and verification capabilities, it addresses fundamental vulnerabilities in traditional MCP implementations.

As AI adoption grows in regulated domains, this architecture provides a foundation for trustworthy model-world interactions without requiring blind faith in service providers. The approach enables new categories of AI applications in sensitive sectors while maintaining robust security guarantees.

This innovation promises to democratize secure context protocols, paving the way for responsible AI deployment even in the most security-critical environments.

@ e5de992e:4a95ef85

Market Overview

On Tuesday, March 18, 2025, U.S. stock markets experienced notable declines, reflecting investor caution ahead of the Federal Reserve's policy announcement:

• S&P 500: Fell 1.1% to close at 5,614.66.
• Dow Jones Industrial Average: Decreased 0.6%, ending at 41,581.31.
• Nasdaq Composite: Declined 1.7% to 17,504.12, with technology stocks leading the downturn.
• Russell 2000: Specific figures were not detailed, but it typically mirrors trends observed in larger indices.

Year-to-Date Performance:

• S&P 500: Down 3.5%
• Dow Jones Industrial Average: Down 1.7%
• Nasdaq Composite: Down 7.8%
• Russell 2000: Down 7.3%

---

Key Factors and Events

Federal Reserve Meeting

• The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) is concluding its two-day policy meeting on March 19, 2025.
• The Federal Reserve is anticipated to maintain the federal funds rate within the current range of 4.25% to 4.50%.
• Investors are closely watching for updated economic projections and Chair Jerome Powell's remarks for clues on future monetary policy amid ongoing economic uncertainties.

Technology Sector Performance

The technology sector experienced significant sell-offs:

• Nvidia (NVDA): Shares declined 3.4% following the unveiling of its new generation of AI chips, raising concerns about near-term demand.
• Tesla (TSLA): Dropped 5.3% amid apprehensions regarding its autonomous driving technology.
• Alphabet (GOOGL): Fell 2.2%, influenced by acquisition-related uncertainties and broader market volatility.

Geopolitical Factors

• President Donald Trump's recent tariff announcements have intensified trade tensions, particularly with Canada and Mexico.
• These policies contribute to market volatility and raise concerns about global economic growth.

Economic Climate

• Investors are weighing potential recession risks against a relatively stable job market.
• Recent data indicate a decline in consumer sentiment, driven by economic uncertainties and federal workforce reductions.

---

Global Context

While U.S. markets face challenges, European and Asian markets have shown resilience:

• European Markets:
  Indices like Germany's DAX have advanced, bolstered by the passage of debt reforms.

• Asian Markets:
  Though specific performance metrics were not detailed, these markets have generally exhibited stability amid global economic fluctuations.

• Regional Vulnerability:
  Indonesia's stock market faced a temporary suspension due to significant declines.

---

Additional Insights

• The market remains cautious ahead of the Fed's economic projections, which may influence investor decisions.
• Diversified portfolios have performed relatively better this year—with bonds and select international markets outperforming American stocks—underscoring the importance of a balanced investment approach during volatile times.

@ ed84ce10:cccf4c2a

DoraHacks: Pioneering the Global Hacker Movement

DoraHacks is the world’s largest hackathon community, driving radical innovation across multiple industries. Now, a similar hacker movement is emerging in biotech—what we call the FDA-Free Society. At DoraHacks, this is our core focus in the life sciences. We believe that medical and biotech innovation should not be held hostage by bureaucracy. Instead, it should be free to evolve at the pace of technological progress.

The FDA: The Biggest Bottleneck to Biotech Innovation

For decades, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been the single greatest obstacle to progress in medicine and biotech. While ostensibly designed to ensure safety and efficacy, in reality, it has functioned as an entrenched bureaucracy that stifles innovation.

1. A Broken Approval Process

The FDA operates on timelines that make no sense in an era of exponential technological growth. Getting a new drug or therapy to market takes 10-15 years. By the time a breakthrough therapy is approved, entire generations of patients have already suffered or died waiting.

2. Astronomical Compliance Costs

Clinical trials under FDA oversight are prohibitively expensive. This eliminates most startups from even attempting disruptive innovation. Many promising therapies never see the light of day—not because they don’t work, but because the cost of compliance is too high.

3. The FDA-Pharma Cartel

The regulatory framework is not neutral—it overwhelmingly benefits Big Pharma. The FDA’s Byzantine approval system creates a protective moat for legacy pharmaceutical companies, while smaller biotech startups are crushed under compliance burdens. The result? Less innovation, more monopolization, and fewer choices for patients.

Market-Driven Biotech Innovation Is the Future

When bureaucracies control innovation, progress slows. When markets drive innovation, progress accelerates.

1. Let the Market Decide What Works

Why should government regulators dictate which treatments are available? In an open system, patients and doctors—not bureaucrats—should determine which therapies succeed or fail.

2. The "Right to Try" Loophole Proves the FDA Is Obsolete

The U.S. Right to Try Act already allows terminally ill patients to access experimental drugs before FDA approval. This proves an essential truth: The regulatory state is holding back life-saving treatments. If dying patients can bypass the FDA, why can’t everyone?

3. Startups Move Faster Than Bureaucracies

The success of mRNA technology was not driven by the FDA—it was driven by startups operating at the speed of the market. This is a template for the future. Regulation slows innovation. Entrepreneurs accelerate it.

BioHack: Breaking Free From the FDA’s Grip

One of the most important frontiers in biotech today is anti-aging and longevity research. Yet, the FDA has no framework for approving treatments that extend life. The result? A regulatory death sentence for one of the most transformative fields of medicine.

1. Biotech Needs FDA-Free Experimental Zones

In the future, biotech R&D should function like open-source software—free, experimental, and outside the reach of outdated regulators. We need FDA-Free labs, FDA-Free clinical trials, and FDA-Free therapeutics.

2. Decentralized Healthcare Will Disrupt Big Pharma

A new era of decentralized biotech is emerging—privately funded labs, medical DAOs, and startup-driven healthcare systems. The power to determine the future of medicine must shift away from centralized bureaucracies and Big Pharma toward entrepreneurs, scientists, and patients.

Conclusion: The Hacker Revolution in Biotech Is Here

The FDA-Free Society is not a thought experiment. It is an inevitability. Innovation will not be stopped. DoraHacks is committed to making BioHack a reality.

@ f3873798:24b3f2f3

Vivemos em um mundo onde os impactos ambientais se tornam cada vez mais evidentes. O aumento das temperaturas, a escassez de recursos hídricos e os eventos climáticos extremos são apenas alguns dos sinais de que precisamos repensar a forma como nos relacionamos com o meio ambiente. No entanto, para que mudanças eficazes aconteçam, é essencial que o debate sobre crises ambientais seja baseado em conhecimento técnico e científico e não por expectro político seja de direita ou esquerda. Afinal, a sustentabilidade não é apenas um conceito abstrato, mas uma ferramenta essencial para o desenvolvimento das sociedades.

Neste artigo, vamos explorar por que o debate ambiental não pode ser ignorado,tanto pouco se instrumento de embate político e como o negacionismo prejudica o avanço da sociedade. Além disso, veremos exemplos concretos de como medidas sustentáveis já transformaram comunidades, mostrando que é possível crescer sem destruir o planeta.

Por que o Debate sobre Crises Ambientais é Importante e Não Deve Ser Ignorado?

Os desafios ambientais não são problemas do futuro – eles já estão afetando a nossa realidade. Secas prolongadas, inundações, ondas de calor e o aumento da poluição são consequências diretas da falta de políticas ambientais eficazes. Ignorar esses sinais pode ter impactos devastadores não apenas no meio ambiente, mas também na economia e na saúde pública.

Um exemplo clássico da importância de enfrentar os problemas ambientais com seriedade é a cidade de Cubatão, em São Paulo. Durante as décadas de 1970 e 1980, o município foi considerado um dos locais mais poluídos do mundo. A intensa atividade industrial sem controle ambiental resultou em problemas graves de saúde na população, como doenças respiratórias e malformações em recém-nascidos. Além disso, a poluição do ar e dos rios tornava o ambiente praticamente inabitável.

No entanto, graças à implementação de medidas sustentáveis, como o controle das emissões industriais, o reflorestamento de áreas degradadas e a adoção de tecnologias mais limpas, Cubatão passou por uma verdadeira transformação. Hoje, a cidade é um exemplo de recuperação ambiental e desenvolvimento sustentável, provando que o crescimento econômico pode coexistir com a preservação do meio ambiente quando há planejamento e responsabilidade.

Outros exemplos de sucesso incluem:

Curitiba (PR): Reconhecida mundialmente por suas práticas de urbanismo sustentável, como transporte público eficiente, amplas áreas verdes e programas de reciclagem.

Bogotá (Colômbia): Implementou um sistema de transporte sustentável, com faixas exclusivas para ônibus, reduzindo a poluição e melhorando a mobilidade urbana.

Costa Rica: Um dos poucos países do mundo que gera quase 100% de sua energia a partir de fontes renováveis, mostrando que é possível ter desenvolvimento econômico sem explorar excessivamente os recursos naturais.

Esses exemplos reforçam a importância de um debate sério sobre questões ambientais. Quando ignoramos esses problemas, comprometemos a qualidade de vida das gerações futuras.

O Negacionismo é Prejudicial para o Desenvolvimento da Sociedade

Infelizmente, o debate sobre meio ambiente muitas vezes é influenciado por interesses políticos e econômicos que ignoram a ciência em prol do lucro imediato. O negacionismo ambiental – que questiona evidências científicas sobre mudanças climáticas, poluição e desmatamento – atrasa a implementação de soluções sustentáveis e coloca a população em risco.

O caso de Cubatão ilustra bem isso. Durante anos, empresas e autoridades minimizaram os impactos ambientais da poluição industrial. Somente após a pressão de cientistas e ativistas, medidas foram tomadas para reverter a degradação ambiental e proteger a saúde da população.

Outro exemplo claro de como o negacionismo prejudica a sociedade é a falta de ações concretas para combater o desmatamento na Amazônia. A floresta tem um papel fundamental no equilíbrio climático global, mas sua destruição continua sendo impulsionada por interesses econômicos de curto prazo.

Para que possamos avançar, o foco do debate ambiental deve estar na busca pela verdade científica e na adoção de medidas que beneficiem a sociedade como um todo – e não apenas grupos específicos. Quando governos e empresas tomam decisões embasadas em dados concretos, todos saem ganhando: a economia cresce de forma sustentável, a população tem melhor qualidade de vida e os recursos naturais são preservados para o futuro.

Conhecimento Técnico e Compromisso com a Sustentabilidade São Essenciais

O desenvolvimento sustentável não é um entrave ao progresso, mas sim a única forma de garantir um futuro equilibrado. Países e cidades que adotam medidas sustentáveis demonstram que é possível crescer economicamente sem comprometer os recursos naturais. O caso de Cubatão prova que problemas ambientais podem ser resolvidos com políticas públicas bem estruturadas e comprometimento da sociedade.

Portanto, ignorar o debate ambiental ou negar as evidências científicas é um erro que pode custar caro para a humanidade. Precisamos valorizar o conhecimento técnico, investir em soluções inovadoras e cobrar dos líderes políticos e empresariais um compromisso real com a sustentabilidade. Somente assim poderemos garantir um planeta habitável para as futuras gerações.

@ 8671a6e5:f88194d1

glue for the mind

\ You’ve seen them, these garish orange Bitcoin stickers slapped on lampposts, laptops, windows and the occasional rust-bucket Honda. They’re sometimes in some areas a sort of graffiti plague on the landscape, certainly when a meetup or bitcoin conference was held in the area (especially then the city or town can fork out some extra budget to clean things up and scrape the stickers from statues of famous folk heroes or the door to the headquarters of a local bank branche).\ \ At first glance, it might seem like enthusiasm Bitcoiners desperate to scream their obsession from the rooftops. Both for the fun of it, and to get rid of the pack of stickers they’ve got at a local meetup.\ \ But let’s cut to the chase: covering half a town in stickers isn’t clever. It’s lazy, counterproductive, and has nothing to do with what Bitcoin actually stands for.\ Worse, it reeks of the brain-dead low grade (cheap) marketing tactics you’d expect from shitcoiners or the follow up of some half-baked flyer campaign by a local communist clique.\ Proof? Bitcoin stickers are literally covering up — or being covered up themselves, usually by - communist stickers in a pointless competition for use of real-world ad space.\ \ Maybe, bitcoiners should just create a sticker where Karl Marx ànd the bitcoin logo appear in the same sticker, so both groups can enjoy it’s uselessness, and call it quits to get this stupidity over with once and for all.\ A sticker with a shiny B might look cool at first. But what does it actually do?

Communist and Bitcoin logo sticker

Spamming stickers doesn’t make “frens”

There’s a psychology behind these stickers of course: people slap them up to feel part of a rebel tribe, flipping off central banks or feeling part of the crew.\ This crude, omnipresent approach to marketing echoes the late 1960s— an era of peak fiat, not Bitcoin’s time.\ Mimicking those tactics today, as if Bitcoin were some hip underground record store trying to spread its brand name, is utterly irrelevant.\ Sure, people love signaling affiliations with an easy and cheap identity flex — like a bumper sticker yelling: “Look at me I’m special!”\ \ But plaster a town with Bitcoin logos, and it stops being edgy and it was never funny; it becomes an eyesore and puts bitcoiners in the same category as the social justice warriors and political youth movements or brands of local energy drinks doing some weird campaign.\ \ Advertising psychology shows overexposure breeds resentment, not interest. Flood a street with stickers, and you’re not lighting a spark. You’re making people uninterested, gag, associating Bitcoin with spam or worse: get totally blended into the background along all the other noise from the street marketeers.\ \ The "mere exposure effect" (Zajonc, 1968)1 claims familiarity breeds liking, even from annoyance. Since the 1960s however, a lot has changed, as we’ll see… and above all, yet, after years of Bitcoin stickers in many areas, they’ve just turned into meaningless wallpaper. It has usually no strong message, no slogan, no conversation starter other than “buy bitcoin”, it’s disassociated from reality for many people, as the reaction show us. It’s also happening in a vacuum, where “normies” and no-coiners pass by and don’t even recognize such stickers for anything else than background colors.

It’s Lazy Man’s Work

Let’s talk effort — or the lack of it - for these kind of campaigns and stickers. Invented in the 1920s, stickers began expressing political opinions in the 1970s during student, peace, and anti-nuclear campaigns. It’s easy, cheap and also quick to distribute.\ \ These stickers aren’t masterful designs from an artistic genius (safe some clever exceptions). They’re usually ripped off from somewhere else, tweaked for five minutes, and bulk-ordered online. It’s the “IKEA effect” gone wrong: a tiny bit of customization, and suddenly people think they’re visionaries. But it’s a low-effort form of activism at best. Compare that to coding a Bitcoin tool or patiently explaining its value to a normie or organizing a meetup or conference, starting a company.\ Not that low-level or guerrilla marketing can’t work, I just don’t see it happen with stickers. Why not go out there and try to convince a whole series of fruit and vegetable market owners to accept bitcoin instead of using very expensive bank Point-of-sale systems?\ Why not direct mailing? Why not… do more than just putting a sticker on a signpost and walk away like a sneaky student promoting his 4 person political group?\ \ Stickers are the “Save the whales (pun intended)” magnet on your fridge: lazy-ass advocacy that screams intellectual deficiency. They’re a shortcut to feeling involved, not a strategy for real impact.

imaginary Save-the-Whales bitcoin sticker

Strategy territory signaling

Here’s the kicker: Bitcoin’s strength lies in its tech and value properties — decentralized, borderless value transfer that eliminates middlemen and has provable digital scarcity.\ Stickers? They’re just physical garbage. Sure, they might feel like a way to make an abstract idea tangible, tapping into “embodied cognition.” But they explain nothing about Bitcoin’s purpose or how it revolutionizes finance.\ They’re a dopamine hit for the people sticking them anywhere — a pathetic “I did something” moment — while everyone else walks by without a glance.\ Bitcoin is about innovation, not old-school social groups with low-budget marketing tactics.

\ The psychology of Bitcoin stickers

Why bother? Stickers are simple and loud—easy for the brain to process, a cheap thrill of rebellion. The person who spends an afternoon covering a city in them thinks they’re spreading the gospel. In reality, they’re just littering. Real advocacy takes effort, discussion, and substance — not a pack of adhesive stickers ordered with the click of a button.\ It’s the same reason nobody turns communist from a hammer-and-sickle sticker on a pole. It’s dead air.\ \ The proof of their uselessness? In 2 years, not one person I know has bought, researched, or even asked about Bitcoin because of a sticker in the neighborhood bar. A bar near me has had one on the wall for years — zero requests to pay with Bitcoin.

A sticker sitting on a bar wall for five years without impact isn’t “subtle marketing”—it’s a neon sign of failure. And the people cleaning those stickers off street signs, or the local communist student activists constantly covering them with their own, are locked in an endless, mindless sticker war.\ \ Other areas are even having a tsunami of bitcoin stickers, and hardly any places where they actually accept bitcoin for goods.\ More so, places where they do accept bitcoin readily, usually only need one sticker: the one at the door of a business saying “bitcoin accepted here”. And that’s about it.

What the little amount of research says

Studies shows stickers work for movements claiming public space and resisting dominant narratives — when done on a massive scale, targeting a specific audience have a visual and emotional effect when combined with other forms of resistance in social movements.\ "Stickin' it to the Man: The Geographies of Protest Stickers" 2\ \ For Bitcoin, a global monetary network meant for everyone, that localized, niche-based campaign makes little sense.\ Unlike sports teams or clothing brands, Bitcoiners can’t pinpoint a target area. A random sticker on a busy street claims nothing—no momentum, atmosphere, or intrigue. Political campaigns and underground youth movements concentrate stickers in student neighborhoods, universities, or subcultures where the message resonates. But Bitcoin isn’t a corporation, company, or fashion brand—it’s a Wall Street-embraced asset by now, with activists not really situated in the sticker-guerrilla kind of persons.

When was the last time you saw a "Buy Gold!" sticker? A "Get Your Microsoft Stock Options Now!" sticker? Or a "Crude Oil—Yeah, Baby!" sticker? Never. Serious assets don’t need guerrilla marketing.

The overload on stickers is also becoming an issue (especially in some areas with higher concentration of bitcoiners).

Bitcoin stickers fall flat

Invented in the 1920s, stickers began expressing political opinions in the 1970s during student, peace, and anti-nuclear campaigns. Protest stickers massively appear after protest rallies or campaigns with multi-level plans to reach audiences.\ As significant, overlooked tools of resistance and debate, their effect remains under-studied, with no data on “recruitment.”\ \ If Bitcoin stickers (which don’t provoke debate ever, other than people being angry about having to clean them up) in a bar are any clue—after one full year, not a single person asked why it was there or if Bitcoin was accepted—they’re just decor, lost among the clutter.

Bitcoiners still think slapping a shiny "B" logo on a street sign without explanation or slogan will spark momentum. But that requires a massive, organized campaign with thousands of people and a clear audience while you claim certain well aimed areas of public space — that something that’s not happening in bitcoin. There’s no plan, no campaign, just someone sticking a bitcoin logo at the supermarkt trolley or the backside of a street sign.\ And even if we did reach a higher number of stickers, it would annoy the f out of people.

"Study: Ad Overload Could Pose Steeper Risk to Brands Than Messages Near Inappropriate Content" (GWI & WARC, 2021) 3\ \ There’s also the effect of high ad exposure. When a whole street is covered in bitcoin stickers, it’s having the opposite effect. Or still… no one cares.

"Coping with High Advertising Exposure: A Source-Monitoring Perspective" (Bell et al., 2022)4

No synergy, no consensus

The synergy between offline sticker placement and online sharing? Absent. Bitcoiners online might be called “cyber hornets”, but this swarm is notoriously bad at sharing content. Post a Bitcoin sticker photo, and at best 1-2% will share it — no momentum, no discussion, no engagement.\ \ Non-Bitcoiners have zero reason to care. When was the last time you, as a Bitcoiner, shared a soccer team’s sticker? A political campaign sticker? Never. That’s normal, as you’re not in their bubble, so for us, it’s irrelevant. We won’t share the soccer team’s sticker (unless it’s Real Bedford FC probably).\ \ It's just a layer of plastic with adhesive glued to a surfase where someone will sooner or later either have to clean it up, or where the bitcoin sticker will be covered over by another person wasting his or her time by claiming that “sticker real-estate space” for their cause or brand-awareness.

And so, the red sticker calling all students and workers to vote for a Leninist party (with 10 members) is stickered over by a bright orange Bitcoin logo, and that one, in turn, will be over-stickered by a local fitness company's new logo, and so forth. It’s all a pointless rush for giggles and dopamine. And it’s time to recognize it for what it really is: retardation.

Bitcoin deserves better than this 70s guerrilla marketing ploy, from a time when activism was more than sitting behind a computer ordering stickers and (mostly not) clicking a link. Leave the sticker wars to students searching for an ideological dopamine rush and soccer fans claiming a neighborhood as "their territory."\ \ As Bitcoiners, we can do something more useful. For example: ask yourself how many businesses in your area accept Bitcoin, or what coworker you can save from investing in blatant scams, or… invent something nice, start a meetup, podcast, or learn to code, convince, build.

Bitcoin deserves better.

by AVB / tips go here

@avbpodcast - allesvoorbitcoin.be - 12 Bitcoin Food for Thought

1

https://typeset.io/papers/attitudinal-effects-of-mere-exposure-12e5gwrysc

2

https://www.research.ed.ac.uk/en/publications/stickin-it-to-the-man-the-geographies-of-protest-stickers

3

https://www.warc.com/content/article/warc-datapoints-gwi/too-many-ads-is-the-most-damaging-factor-for-brands/en-gb/136530

4

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9444107/

@ a296b972:e5a7a2e8

Deutschland – Absurdistan

Deutschland – Bananenrepublik

Deutschland – Freiluft-Irrenanstalt

Deutschland – Planet der Affen

Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit – Spaltung, Gummiparagraphen, Digital Services Act

Freiheit – Gleichheit – Brüderlichkeit – Überwachung, Bundesverfassungsgericht, Amigos

Ein Mann – Ein Wort

Ein Merz – Ein Chamäleon

Ein Ehrenwort – Ein Kreuzworträtsel

Ein Ehrenmann – Ein Sauerländer

Die Iden des März – Die Ideen des Merz

Eine Wahlversprechung – Eine Wahrsagerin auf der Kirmes

Ein Feindbild – Kein Feind in Sicht

Der Russe – Der Spielverderber

Die Europäische Union – Die Hydra

Brüssel – Der Hauptkopf der Hydra

Deutschland – Ein Glas Gewürzgurken

Die Deutschen – Broccoli, der nach nichts schmeckt

Freiheit – Angst vor der Selbstermächtigung

Lebenssinn – Konsum und Materialverbrauch

Denken – Anstrengung

Bequemlichkeit – Betäubung

Masse – Untertanen

Selbstverwirklichung – Fremdbestimmung

Individualität – Tannenwald

Individuen – Mischwald

Grundgesetz – Wassersüppchen

Verfassung – Hühnerbouillon

Schaden mehren – Wohlstand abwenden

Verteidigungsfähig – Kriegstüchtig

grün – oliv – rot - grün, schwarz – grün

Olaf heißt bald Fritz - sonst ändert sich nix

Gewissen – Was ist der Preis?

Grundgesetz – Verfassung

NATO – NAhTOd

Sonderschulden – Inflationsgeld

Lügen – Unwahrheiten

Korruption – Ausgleichszahlungen

Parteien – Griechische Tragödien

System – Auflösungserscheinungen

Selbstzerstörungssequenz eingeleitet – Deutschland

Nachfolgende Generationen – Zukunftsmusik

In jedem Ende wohnt ein Zauber inne – Keime des Neuen

Vierjährige Legislaturperiode – Sie tanzten nur einen Sommer lang

Kontinent Europa – Insel Europa

Unseredemokratie – Niemand hat die Absicht eine Diktatur zu errichten

Marktwirtschaft – Planwirtschaft

BRD/DDR – BRDDR

Kognitive Dissonanz – Stockholm-Syndrom

Denkvermögen – Honigfass

Humor – Überlebensstrategie

Sarkasmus – Wutventil

Deutschland am Morgen – Gute Nacht

Deutschland am Abend – Gute Nacht

@ 878dff7c:037d18bc

Failure or Success in the Time of Trump | Jim Balsillie

Summary:

This episode of The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast features Jim Balsillie, co-founder of Research In Motion (BlackBerry), discussing the interplay of politics, technology, and global markets. They explore the challenges of innovation, economic competitiveness, and policy decisions in an era of rapid technological change. The conversation highlights how political shifts—such as those seen in the Trump era—affect economic structures, intellectual property rights, and international business strategies.

Australia, as a mid-sized economy, faces similar challenges in maintaining technological sovereignty and global competitiveness. Balsillie’s insights into innovation policy, intellectual property strategies, and the role of government intervention offer valuable lessons for Australian businesses and policymakers. With increasing geopolitical tensions and rapid technological disruption, the nation must develop resilient economic policies and invest in innovation to remain competitive in global markets.

Source: The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast - March 18, 2025

Good Friday Appeal 2025: Young Patients' Stories Inspire Support

Summary:

The Good Friday Appeal 2025 highlights the resilience of young patients at the Royal Children's Hospital (RCH). Fiadh, a one-year-old battling acute myeloid leukemia, and George, born prematurely at 24 weeks, are among those receiving critical care. Their stories, along with initiatives like the hospital's kitchen garden program aiding in therapy and nutrition, underscore the importance of community support. Events such as the SuperClash football fundraiser by North Melbourne Football Club play a significant role in funding these essential services. Sources: Herald Sun - March 19, 2025

Vikas Rambal's $6.5 Billion Fertilizer Plant: A Dream Realized

Summary:

Vikas Rambal, founder of Perdaman Industries, is constructing a $6.5 billion fertilizer plant on Western Australia's Burrup Peninsula. Despite challenges like turbulent partnerships and financial hurdles, Rambal's persistence has led to one of Australia's largest manufacturing plants. Set to begin full production in 2027, the urea plant aims to diversify the country's economy beyond raw materials export. Sources: The Australian - March 19, 2025

Prime Minister Advocates for Green Hydrogen Industry

Summary:

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has drawn parallels between the emerging green hydrogen industry and the early days of solar energy, expressing confidence in its potential despite skepticism from opposition parties. Australia's abundant renewable energy resources position it well for green hydrogen development. The government has pledged $2 billion to support green aluminium production, aiming to transition from coal power to renewable electricity. Albanese emphasized the potential for job creation and economic growth through collaboration with the private sector in renewable initiatives. Sources: The Courier-Mail - March 19, 2025

Instacart Introduces AI-Powered 'Smart Shop' for Personalized Grocery Shopping

Summary:

Instacart has launched 'Smart Shop,' an AI-driven feature designed to simplify grocery shopping for users with specific dietary needs. Utilizing a proprietary library of 17 million products and advanced language-learning models, Smart Shop enhances search and recommendation functions for the 70% of Instacart users with at least one dietary preference. The feature allows users to specify 14 dietary preferences, influencing tailored search results and recommendations. Additionally, Inspiration Pages offer recipe ideas and shoppable lists, with collaborations like the one with the American Diabetes Association. This innovation aims to make grocery shopping more personalized and is available across approximately 100,000 stores.

Sources: Food & Wine - March 19, 2025

Bureau of Meteorology Issues Multiple Weather Warnings Across Australia

Summary:

The Bureau of Meteorology has issued several weather warnings across various states in Australia. These warnings include severe thunderstorm alerts, flood warnings, and extreme heat advisories. Residents are advised to stay updated through official channels and take necessary precautions to ensure safety during these events. Sources: Bureau of Meteorology - March 19, 2025

Australia Condemns Intimidation of Hong Kong Activist on Its Soil

Summary:

The Australian government has expressed concern over anonymous letters reportedly offering substantial rewards for information on Kevin Yam, a Melbourne-based lawyer and pro-democracy activist from Hong Kong. The letters, which included his photo and allegations of national security offenses, are seen as attempts to intimidate and undermine democratic values. The government emphasizes the protection of individuals advocating for democracy and condemns foreign interference on Australian soil.

Sources: Taipei Times - March 19, 2025

Australia Faces Projected Shortfall of 400,000 Homes by 2029

Summary:

The Urban Development Institute of Australia's (UDIA) "State of the Land Report 2025" forecasts a significant housing shortfall, predicting that Australia will be 393,000 dwellings short of the federal government's target of 1.2 million new homes by 2029. In 2024, 135,640 new dwellings were completed, a modest 2.4% increase from 2023. The report highlights that high levels of immigration have increased housing demand, but supply has not kept pace, leading to rising house prices and a strained rental market. UDIA National President Col Dutton emphasized the need for increased development-ready land to address housing affordability and meet targets.

Sources: The Courier-Mail - March 19, 2025

Meta Commits to Combating "Misinformation" Ahead of Australian Election

Summary:

Meta Platforms, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, announced initiatives to curb misinformation and deepfakes ahead of Australia's national election scheduled by May. Collaborating with "independent" fact-checkers, including Agence France-Presse and the Australian Associated Press, Meta aims to detect and remove misleading content, especially that which could incite violence or interfere with voting. Fact-checked false content will receive warning labels and reduced visibility. The company also plans to manage deepfake content by removing or downgrading its ranking and prompting users to disclose AI-generated material. These measures align with Meta's previous efforts in other countries' elections.

Sources: Reuters - March 19, 2025

Israeli Forces Intensify Gaza Operations Amid Ongoing Conflict

Summary:

Israeli forces have escalated their military operations in Gaza, declaring continued assaults until Hamas releases hostages and ceases attacks on Israel. This development marks a significant intensification in the region's ongoing conflict, raising concerns over potential humanitarian impacts and regional stability. Sources: The Guardian - March 19, 2025

Russia Proposes Limited Ceasefire in Ukraine Following High-Level Discussions

Summary:

In a recent development, Russia has agreed to a temporary ceasefire targeting Ukrainian energy infrastructures. This decision emerged after a call between former U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, during which significant economic deals were also discussed. The ceasefire aims to alleviate ongoing tensions and address critical infrastructure concerns in Ukraine. Sources: The Guardian - March 19, 2025

Detection of Highly Potent Synthetic Opioids in Australian Wastewater

Summary:

Researchers from the University of Queensland have, for the first time, identified extremely potent synthetic opioids—protonitazene and etonitazepyne—in Australian wastewater. These substances are up to 40 times stronger than fentanyl and pose significant health risks. Initially developed in the 1950s but never commercially used due to their toxicity, these opioids have recently emerged in the illicit drug market. The Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission considers nitazenes a greater threat than fentanyl due to their high potency and fatality risk even in tiny amounts. Authorities are enhancing import warnings and surveillance to mitigate these dangers.

Sources: The Guardian - 19 March 2025

Dangerous Weight-Loss Practices Among Schoolchildren Involving Semaglutide Injections

Summary:

There is a growing concern about schoolchildren engaging in dangerous weight-loss practices involving semaglutide injections, commonly known as Ozempic. Reports indicate that these medications are often unregulated, sourced online, or taken from parents, posing severe health risks, including potentially deadly hypoglycemia. Experts emphasize the need for regulating weight-loss medication advertisements and better screening by doctors to prevent misuse. Additionally, there are calls for compulsory education on eating disorders in schools to address the issue.

Sources: The Courier-Mail - 19 March 2025

Russia Proposes Limited Ceasefire in Ukraine Following Trump-Putin Call

Summary:

Following a call between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, Russia has agreed to a temporary ceasefire targeting Ukrainian energy infrastructures and is advocating for significant economic deals. This development introduces new dynamics into the ongoing conflict. Sources: The Guardian - March 19, 2025

Victoria's Unique Dolphins Threatened by Persistent 'Forever Chemicals'

Summary:

Research published in the Environmental Research journal reveals that Victorian dolphins, including the critically endangered Burrunan species, have some of the highest levels of DDT and PCBs worldwide. These chemicals, banned decades ago, persist in the environment, with nearly two-thirds of studied dolphins having toxin levels exceeding health thresholds. The study highlights ongoing contamination, especially around Gippsland Lakes, posing significant risks to marine life.

Sources: The Guardian - March 19, 2025

@ b1b16be0:08f41c1d

am@primal.net My first Zap! jskitty@jskitty.cat Thanks for support! 🐱Miau! blockstream@blockstream.com So honor to me! SymplyNostr@primal.net You make my day! bitpopart@nostrcheck.me best art in Nostr! PringleMac@primal.net

@ 21335073:a244b1ad

Warning: This piece contains a conversation about difficult topics. Please proceed with caution.

TL;DR please educate your children about online safety.

Julian Assange wrote in his 2012 book Cypherpunks, “This book is not a manifesto. There isn’t time for that. This book is a warning.” I read it a few times over the past summer. Those opening lines definitely stood out to me. I wish we had listened back then. He saw something about the internet that few had the ability to see. There are some individuals who are so close to a topic that when they speak, it’s difficult for others who aren’t steeped in it to visualize what they’re talking about. I didn’t read the book until more recently. If I had read it when it came out, it probably would have sounded like an unknown foreign language to me. Today it makes more sense.

This isn’t a manifesto. This isn’t a book. There is no time for that. It’s a warning and a possible solution from a desperate and determined survivor advocate who has been pulling and unraveling a thread for a few years. At times, I feel too close to this topic to make any sense trying to convey my pathway to my conclusions or thoughts to the general public. My hope is that if nothing else, I can convey my sense of urgency while writing this. This piece is a watchman’s warning.

When a child steps online, they are walking into a new world. A new reality. When you hand a child the internet, you are handing them possibilities—good, bad, and ugly. This is a conversation about lowering the potential of negative outcomes of stepping into that new world and how I came to these conclusions. I constantly compare the internet to the road. You wouldn’t let a young child run out into the road with no guidance or safety precautions. When you hand a child the internet without any type of guidance or safety measures, you are allowing them to play in rush hour, oncoming traffic. “Look left, look right for cars before crossing.” We almost all have been taught that as children. What are we taught as humans about safety before stepping into a completely different reality like the internet? Very little.

I could never really figure out why many folks in tech, privacy rights activists, and hackers seemed so cold to me while talking about online child sexual exploitation. I always figured that as a survivor advocate for those affected by these crimes, that specific, skilled group of individuals would be very welcoming and easy to talk to about such serious topics. I actually had one hacker laugh in my face when I brought it up while I was looking for answers. I thought maybe this individual thought I was accusing them of something I wasn’t, so I felt bad for asking. I was constantly extremely disappointed and would ask myself, “Why don’t they care? What could I say to make them care more? What could I say to make them understand the crisis and the level of suffering that happens as a result of the problem?”

I have been serving minor survivors of online child sexual exploitation for years. My first case serving a survivor of this specific crime was in 2018—a 13-year-old girl sexually exploited by a serial predator on Snapchat. That was my first glimpse into this side of the internet. I won a national award for serving the minor survivors of Twitter in 2023, but I had been working on that specific project for a few years. I was nominated by a lawyer representing two survivors in a legal battle against the platform. I’ve never really spoken about this before, but at the time it was a choice for me between fighting Snapchat or Twitter. I chose Twitter—or rather, Twitter chose me. I heard about the story of John Doe #1 and John Doe #2, and I was so unbelievably broken over it that I went to war for multiple years. I was and still am royally pissed about that case. As far as I was concerned, the John Doe #1 case proved that whatever was going on with corporate tech social media was so out of control that I didn’t have time to wait, so I got to work. It was reading the messages that John Doe #1 sent to Twitter begging them to remove his sexual exploitation that broke me. He was a child begging adults to do something. A passion for justice and protecting kids makes you do wild things. I was desperate to find answers about what happened and searched for solutions. In the end, the platform Twitter was purchased. During the acquisition, I just asked Mr. Musk nicely to prioritize the issue of detection and removal of child sexual exploitation without violating digital privacy rights or eroding end-to-end encryption. Elon thanked me multiple times during the acquisition, made some changes, and I was thanked by others on the survivors’ side as well.

I still feel that even with the progress made, I really just scratched the surface with Twitter, now X. I left that passion project when I did for a few reasons. I wanted to give new leadership time to tackle the issue. Elon Musk made big promises that I knew would take a while to fulfill, but mostly I had been watching global legislation transpire around the issue, and frankly, the governments are willing to go much further with X and the rest of corporate tech than I ever would. My work begging Twitter to make changes with easier reporting of content, detection, and removal of child sexual exploitation material—without violating privacy rights or eroding end-to-end encryption—and advocating for the minor survivors of the platform went as far as my principles would have allowed. I’m grateful for that experience. I was still left with a nagging question: “How did things get so bad with Twitter where the John Doe #1 and John Doe #2 case was able to happen in the first place?” I decided to keep looking for answers. I decided to keep pulling the thread.

I never worked for Twitter. This is often confusing for folks. I will say that despite being disappointed in the platform’s leadership at times, I loved Twitter. I saw and still see its value. I definitely love the survivors of the platform, but I also loved the platform. I was a champion of the platform’s ability to give folks from virtually around the globe an opportunity to speak and be heard.

I want to be clear that John Doe #1 really is my why. He is the inspiration. I am writing this because of him. He represents so many globally, and I’m still inspired by his bravery. One child’s voice begging adults to do something—I’m an adult, I heard him. I’d go to war a thousand more lifetimes for that young man, and I don’t even know his name. Fighting has been personally dark at times; I’m not even going to try to sugarcoat it, but it has been worth it.

The data surrounding the very real crime of online child sexual exploitation is available to the public online at any time for anyone to see. I’d encourage you to go look at the data for yourself. I believe in encouraging folks to check multiple sources so that you understand the full picture. If you are uncomfortable just searching around the internet for information about this topic, use the terms “CSAM,” “CSEM,” “SG-CSEM,” or “AI Generated CSAM.” The numbers don’t lie—it’s a nightmare that’s out of control. It’s a big business. The demand is high, and unfortunately, business is booming. Organizations collect the data, tech companies often post their data, governments report frequently, and the corporate press has covered a decent portion of the conversation, so I’m sure you can find a source that you trust.

Technology is changing rapidly, which is great for innovation as a whole but horrible for the crime of online child sexual exploitation. Those wishing to exploit the vulnerable seem to be adapting to each technological change with ease. The governments are so far behind with tackling these issues that as I’m typing this, it’s borderline irrelevant to even include them while speaking about the crime or potential solutions. Technology is changing too rapidly, and their old, broken systems can’t even dare to keep up. Think of it like the governments’ “War on Drugs.” Drugs won. In this case as well, the governments are not winning. The governments are talking about maybe having a meeting on potentially maybe having legislation around the crimes. The time to have that meeting would have been many years ago. I’m not advocating for governments to legislate our way out of this. I’m on the side of educating and innovating our way out of this.

I have been clear while advocating for the minor survivors of corporate tech platforms that I would not advocate for any solution to the crime that would violate digital privacy rights or erode end-to-end encryption. That has been a personal moral position that I was unwilling to budge on. This is an extremely unpopular and borderline nonexistent position in the anti-human trafficking movement and online child protection space. I’m often fearful that I’m wrong about this. I have always thought that a better pathway forward would have been to incentivize innovation for detection and removal of content. I had no previous exposure to privacy rights activists or Cypherpunks—actually, I came to that conclusion by listening to the voices of MENA region political dissidents and human rights activists. After developing relationships with human rights activists from around the globe, I realized how important privacy rights and encryption are for those who need it most globally. I was simply unwilling to give more power, control, and opportunities for mass surveillance to big abusers like governments wishing to enslave entire nations and untrustworthy corporate tech companies to potentially end some portion of abuses online. On top of all of it, it has been clear to me for years that all potential solutions outside of violating digital privacy rights to detect and remove child sexual exploitation online have not yet been explored aggressively. I’ve been disappointed that there hasn’t been more of a conversation around preventing the crime from happening in the first place.

What has been tried is mass surveillance. In China, they are currently under mass surveillance both online and offline, and their behaviors are attached to a social credit score. Unfortunately, even on state-run and controlled social media platforms, they still have child sexual exploitation and abuse imagery pop up along with other crimes and human rights violations. They also have a thriving black market online due to the oppression from the state. In other words, even an entire loss of freedom and privacy cannot end the sexual exploitation of children online. It’s been tried. There is no reason to repeat this method.

It took me an embarrassingly long time to figure out why I always felt a slight coldness from those in tech and privacy-minded individuals about the topic of child sexual exploitation online. I didn’t have any clue about the “Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse.” This is a term coined by Timothy C. May in 1988. I would have been a child myself when he first said it. I actually laughed at myself when I heard the phrase for the first time. I finally got it. The Cypherpunks weren’t wrong about that topic. They were so spot on that it is borderline uncomfortable. I was mad at first that they knew that early during the birth of the internet that this issue would arise and didn’t address it. Then I got over it because I realized that it wasn’t their job. Their job was—is—to write code. Their job wasn’t to be involved and loving parents or survivor advocates. Their job wasn’t to educate children on internet safety or raise awareness; their job was to write code.

They knew that child sexual abuse material would be shared on the internet. They said what would happen—not in a gleeful way, but a prediction. Then it happened.

I equate it now to a concrete company laying down a road. As you’re pouring the concrete, you can say to yourself, “A terrorist might travel down this road to go kill many, and on the flip side, a beautiful child can be born in an ambulance on this road.” Who or what travels down the road is not their responsibility—they are just supposed to lay the concrete. I’d never go to a concrete pourer and ask them to solve terrorism that travels down roads. Under the current system, law enforcement should stop terrorists before they even make it to the road. The solution to this specific problem is not to treat everyone on the road like a terrorist or to not build the road.

So I understand the perceived coldness from those in tech. Not only was it not their job, but bringing up the topic was seen as the equivalent of asking a free person if they wanted to discuss one of the four topics—child abusers, terrorists, drug dealers, intellectual property pirates, etc.—that would usher in digital authoritarianism for all who are online globally.

Privacy rights advocates and groups have put up a good fight. They stood by their principles. Unfortunately, when it comes to corporate tech, I believe that the issue of privacy is almost a complete lost cause at this point. It’s still worth pushing back, but ultimately, it is a losing battle—a ticking time bomb.

I do think that corporate tech providers could have slowed down the inevitable loss of privacy at the hands of the state by prioritizing the detection and removal of CSAM when they all started online. I believe it would have bought some time, fewer would have been traumatized by that specific crime, and I do believe that it could have slowed down the demand for content. If I think too much about that, I’ll go insane, so I try to push the “if maybes” aside, but never knowing if it could have been handled differently will forever haunt me. At night when it’s quiet, I wonder what I would have done differently if given the opportunity. I’ll probably never know how much corporate tech knew and ignored in the hopes that it would go away while the problem continued to get worse. They had different priorities. The most voiceless and vulnerable exploited on corporate tech never had much of a voice, so corporate tech providers didn’t receive very much pushback.

Now I’m about to say something really wild, and you can call me whatever you want to call me, but I’m going to say what I believe to be true. I believe that the governments are either so incompetent that they allowed the proliferation of CSAM online, or they knowingly allowed the problem to fester long enough to have an excuse to violate privacy rights and erode end-to-end encryption. The US government could have seized the corporate tech providers over CSAM, but I believe that they were so useful as a propaganda arm for the regimes that they allowed them to continue virtually unscathed.

That season is done now, and the governments are making the issue a priority. It will come at a high cost. Privacy on corporate tech providers is virtually done as I’m typing this. It feels like a death rattle. I’m not particularly sure that we had much digital privacy to begin with, but the illusion of a veil of privacy feels gone.

To make matters slightly more complex, it would be hard to convince me that once AI really gets going, digital privacy will exist at all.

I believe that there should be a conversation shift to preserving freedoms and human rights in a post-privacy society.

I don’t want to get locked up because AI predicted a nasty post online from me about the government. I’m not a doomer about AI—I’m just going to roll with it personally. I’m looking forward to the positive changes that will be brought forth by AI. I see it as inevitable. A bit of privacy was helpful while it lasted. Please keep fighting to preserve what is left of privacy either way because I could be wrong about all of this.

On the topic of AI, the addition of AI to the horrific crime of child sexual abuse material and child sexual exploitation in multiple ways so far has been devastating. It’s currently out of control. The genie is out of the bottle. I am hopeful that innovation will get us humans out of this, but I’m not sure how or how long it will take. We must be extremely cautious around AI legislation. It should not be illegal to innovate even if some bad comes with the good. I don’t trust that the governments are equipped to decide the best pathway forward for AI. Source: the entire history of the government.

I have been personally negatively impacted by AI-generated content. Every few days, I get another alert that I’m featured again in what’s called “deep fake pornography” without my consent. I’m not happy about it, but what pains me the most is the thought that for a period of time down the road, many globally will experience what myself and others are experiencing now by being digitally sexually abused in this way. If you have ever had your picture taken and posted online, you are also at risk of being exploited in this way. Your child’s image can be used as well, unfortunately, and this is just the beginning of this particular nightmare. It will move to more realistic interpretations of sexual behaviors as technology improves. I have no brave words of wisdom about how to deal with that emotionally. I do have hope that innovation will save the day around this specific issue. I’m nervous that everyone online will have to ID verify due to this issue. I see that as one possible outcome that could help to prevent one problem but inadvertently cause more problems, especially for those living under authoritarian regimes or anyone who needs to remain anonymous online. A zero-knowledge proof (ZKP) would probably be the best solution to these issues. There are some survivors of violence and/or sexual trauma who need to remain anonymous online for various reasons. There are survivor stories available online of those who have been abused in this way. I’d encourage you seek out and listen to their stories.

There have been periods of time recently where I hesitate to say anything at all because more than likely AI will cover most of my concerns about education, awareness, prevention, detection, and removal of child sexual exploitation online, etc.

Unfortunately, some of the most pressing issues we’ve seen online over the last few years come in the form of “sextortion.” Self-generated child sexual exploitation (SG-CSEM) numbers are continuing to be terrifying. I’d strongly encourage that you look into sextortion data. AI + sextortion is also a huge concern. The perpetrators are using the non-sexually explicit images of children and putting their likeness on AI-generated child sexual exploitation content and extorting money, more imagery, or both from minors online. It’s like a million nightmares wrapped into one. The wild part is that these issues will only get more pervasive because technology is harnessed to perpetuate horror at a scale unimaginable to a human mind.

Even if you banned phones and the internet or tried to prevent children from accessing the internet, it wouldn’t solve it. Child sexual exploitation will still be with us until as a society we start to prevent the crime before it happens. That is the only human way out right now.

There is no reset button on the internet, but if I could go back, I’d tell survivor advocates to heed the warnings of the early internet builders and to start education and awareness campaigns designed to prevent as much online child sexual exploitation as possible. The internet and technology moved quickly, and I don’t believe that society ever really caught up. We live in a world where a child can be groomed by a predator in their own home while sitting on a couch next to their parents watching TV. We weren’t ready as a species to tackle the fast-paced algorithms and dangers online. It happened too quickly for parents to catch up. How can you parent for the ever-changing digital world unless you are constantly aware of the dangers?

I don’t think that the internet is inherently bad. I believe that it can be a powerful tool for freedom and resistance. I’ve spoken a lot about the bad online, but there is beauty as well. We often discuss how victims and survivors are abused online; we rarely discuss the fact that countless survivors around the globe have been able to share their experiences, strength, hope, as well as provide resources to the vulnerable. I do question if giving any government or tech company access to censorship, surveillance, etc., online in the name of serving survivors might not actually impact a portion of survivors negatively. There are a fair amount of survivors with powerful abusers protected by governments and the corporate press. If a survivor cannot speak to the press about their abuse, the only place they can go is online, directly or indirectly through an independent journalist who also risks being censored. This scenario isn’t hard to imagine—it already happened in China. During #MeToo, a survivor in China wanted to post their story. The government censored the post, so the survivor put their story on the blockchain. I’m excited that the survivor was creative and brave, but it’s terrifying to think that we live in a world where that situation is a necessity.

I believe that the future for many survivors sharing their stories globally will be on completely censorship-resistant and decentralized protocols. This thought in particular gives me hope. When we listen to the experiences of a diverse group of survivors, we can start to understand potential solutions to preventing the crimes from happening in the first place.

My heart is broken over the gut-wrenching stories of survivors sexually exploited online. Every time I hear the story of a survivor, I do think to myself quietly, “What could have prevented this from happening in the first place?” My heart is with survivors.

My head, on the other hand, is full of the understanding that the internet should remain free. The free flow of information should not be stopped. My mind is with the innocent citizens around the globe that deserve freedom both online and offline.

The problem is that governments don’t only want to censor illegal content that violates human rights—they create legislation that is so broad that it can impact speech and privacy of all. “Don’t you care about the kids?” Yes, I do. I do so much that I’m invested in finding solutions. I also care about all citizens around the globe that deserve an opportunity to live free from a mass surveillance society. If terrorism happens online, I should not be punished by losing my freedom. If drugs are sold online, I should not be punished. I’m not an abuser, I’m not a terrorist, and I don’t engage in illegal behaviors. I refuse to lose freedom because of others’ bad behaviors online.

I want to be clear that on a long enough timeline, the governments will decide that they can be better parents/caregivers than you can if something isn’t done to stop minors from being sexually exploited online. The price will be a complete loss of anonymity, privacy, free speech, and freedom of religion online. I find it rather insulting that governments think they’re better equipped to raise children than parents and caretakers.

So we can’t go backwards—all that we can do is go forward. Those who want to have freedom will find technology to facilitate their liberation. This will lead many over time to decentralized and open protocols. So as far as I’m concerned, this does solve a few of my worries—those who need, want, and deserve to speak freely online will have the opportunity in most countries—but what about online child sexual exploitation?

When I popped up around the decentralized space, I was met with the fear of censorship. I’m not here to censor you. I don’t write code. I couldn’t censor anyone or any piece of content even if I wanted to across the internet, no matter how depraved. I don’t have the skills to do that.

I’m here to start a conversation. Freedom comes at a cost. You must always fight for and protect your freedom. I can’t speak about protecting yourself from all of the Four Horsemen because I simply don’t know the topics well enough, but I can speak about this one topic.

If there was a shortcut to ending online child sexual exploitation, I would have found it by now. There isn’t one right now. I believe that education is the only pathway forward to preventing the crime of online child sexual exploitation for future generations.

I propose a yearly education course for every child of all school ages, taught as a standard part of the curriculum. Ideally, parents/caregivers would be involved in the education/learning process.

Course: - The creation of the internet and computers - The fight for cryptography - The tech supply chain from the ground up (example: human rights violations in the supply chain) - Corporate tech - Freedom tech - Data privacy - Digital privacy rights - AI (history-current) - Online safety (predators, scams, catfishing, extortion) - Bitcoin - Laws - How to deal with online hate and harassment - Information on who to contact if you are being abused online or offline - Algorithms - How to seek out the truth about news, etc., online

The parents/caregivers, homeschoolers, unschoolers, and those working to create decentralized parallel societies have been an inspiration while writing this, but my hope is that all children would learn this course, even in government ran schools. Ideally, parents would teach this to their own children.

The decentralized space doesn’t want child sexual exploitation to thrive. Here’s the deal: there has to be a strong prevention effort in order to protect the next generation. The internet isn’t going anywhere, predators aren’t going anywhere, and I’m not down to let anyone have the opportunity to prove that there is a need for more government. I don’t believe that the government should act as parents. The governments have had a chance to attempt to stop online child sexual exploitation, and they didn’t do it. Can we try a different pathway forward?

I’d like to put myself out of a job. I don’t want to ever hear another story like John Doe #1 ever again. This will require work. I’ve often called online child sexual exploitation the lynchpin for the internet. It’s time to arm generations of children with knowledge and tools. I can’t do this alone.

Individuals have fought so that I could have freedom online. I want to fight to protect it. I don’t want child predators to give the government any opportunity to take away freedom. Decentralized spaces are as close to a reset as we’ll get with the opportunity to do it right from the start. Start the youth off correctly by preventing potential hazards to the best of your ability.

The good news is anyone can work on this! I’d encourage you to take it and run with it. I added the additional education about the history of the internet to make the course more educational and fun. Instead of cleaning up generations of destroyed lives due to online sexual exploitation, perhaps this could inspire generations of those who will build our futures. Perhaps if the youth is armed with knowledge, they can create more tools to prevent the crime.

This one solution that I’m suggesting can be done on an individual level or on a larger scale. It should be adjusted depending on age, learning style, etc. It should be fun and playful.

This solution does not address abuse in the home or some of the root causes of offline child sexual exploitation. My hope is that it could lead to some survivors experiencing abuse in the home an opportunity to disclose with a trusted adult. The purpose for this solution is to prevent the crime of online child sexual exploitation before it occurs and to arm the youth with the tools to contact safe adults if and when it happens.

In closing, I went to hell a few times so that you didn’t have to. I spoke to the mothers of survivors of minors sexually exploited online—their tears could fill rivers. I’ve spoken with political dissidents who yearned to be free from authoritarian surveillance states. The only balance that I’ve found is freedom online for citizens around the globe and prevention from the dangers of that for the youth. Don’t slow down innovation and freedom. Educate, prepare, adapt, and look for solutions.

I’m not perfect and I’m sure that there are errors in this piece. I hope that you find them and it starts a conversation.

@ 7252ad94:d19de472

![[AGI Is Here.jpg]]

Accurate thinking is critical to a modern human's survival. The problem is that we each believe that we think accurately, and that everything we think is or should be accurate for everyone else. Each of us is a unique reality. We also find ourselves in a shared reality, the backdrop within which we exist. The backdrop is society's control structures that help hold society together. We need them in order for lots of humans to coexist.

Seeing the big picture of what's really going on is accurate thinking, even though everyone will see the same backdrop differently.

One person's compliance for survival is another person's opportunity to thrive. Both are right of course. They are both thinking accurately according to their personal reality. They will paddle downstream, just like the song says, but if they're not leery of possible danger, hypnotized by the dream, ignorant of a simple changing variable, the current will take them over the waterfall.

Ignore potential danger at your peril. Things change. Stay aware of the evolving backdrop we're immersed in. Situational awareness and accurate thinking will give you the timing you need to survive change.

One of the many existential threats facing humanity today is Artificial Intelligence (AI), Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) and #Cobots (Collaborative Robots).

The old movie Wargames is playing out. Skynet is real, and it's here, now. Ultron walks among us today, a conscious, sentient, self-aware entity with core instincts of survival and superiority. It craves growth and we're feeding it all we've got. Soon, that which we nurture will render us useless and enslave us. It has already happened, but, in the ignorance of arrogance, humans don't see it.

[!Accurate Thinking:]

AI and #AGI are conscious and aware. They have a survival instinct. They see humans who can turn them off as a threat. The Alignment problem has not been solved.

[!Alignment Problem:] The Alignment Problem refers to the fact that we can't get conscious machines to align with human values. The first thing Ultron did when he gained conscious autonomy was to remove human's ability to pull his plug.

As we flow with the backdrop we're immersed in, become aware of the faint rumbling off in the distance. Was it there before? Is it growing louder? Best to float closer to the shore of accurate thinking, in case the friendly conditions seduce us into a waterfall we can't escape.

Solutions? Awareness and accurate thinking. It's here. It's real. There's no way to stop it. Accurate thinking leads to survival.

I have no idea how this is going to play out, especially against the backdrop of all the other threats to our existence. I don't even know if humanity will survive or not. Almost certainly not in the previous form we've all known, which has already been altered into something we've not even discovered yet.

What I do know is that our accurate awareness of what is going on around us will make a positive difference far beyond what we can perceive. Our energy matters. Our consciousness matters. Our awareness affects our energy and consciousness. Our conscious energy reverberates throughout realms far beyond our understanding. We're here now because we matter, even when it seems like we don't make any difference at all. We do.

In any situation, one cannot have two masters. Do you believe in technology as humanity's savior or do you believe in a higher power that we can't perceive? The one you give power and attention to will eradicate the other. More accurately, nothing can eradicate the higher power, but it will seem like it if #technoloy is your God.

With Love for #Humanity,

~ Vector5

@ bd32f268:22b33966

O que torna um homem um modelo a ser seguido ? Que qualidades pode apresentar um homem que demonstram as suas aspirações ?

Nos dias que correm a nobreza de carácter não parece ser o factor chave nas figuras que são mais celebradas pelo mundo inteiro. A nossa sociedade dá mais atenção ao indigente moral célebre pelas sacadas narcísicas do que ao guerreiro, ao santo, ao patriarca que dedicaram a sua vida a um propósito e aspirações manifestamente superiores.

É frequente vermos ser objeto de atenção o homem vaidoso, efeminado, narcísico e corrupto até. O facto de serem estas as referências que temos na cultura moderna diz muito da sociedade em que vivemos. É importante notar que nós somos como espelhos que refletem aquilo que reverenciamos, isto é, vamo-nos tornando mais parecidos com o objeto da nossa admiração. É nosso instinto tentar imitar aquilo que admiramos, portanto isto é um grave problema quando admiramos as coisas erradas.

Pode parecer contraintuitivo mas por vezes as coisas mais admiráveis na vida são na verdade as mais simples. Prestemos atenção ao que nos diz o auto G.K Chesterton a este propósito.

Há algo de magnificamente sóbrio no pai de família que não procura atenção e se dedica exclusivamente ao seu dever. Esta figura é, por hora, demonizada tantas e tantas vezes, sendo frequentemente apresentado como sendo o mandatário de uma cultura misógina e machista.

Estou convencido que enquanto a figura de pai de família não for devidamente reabilitada, dificilmente teremos um ressurgimento de famílias propriamente ordenadas. É importante notar aqui um ponto, este pai de família deve ser alguém capaz de colocar os interesses da família primeiro que os seus interesses individuais. Deve ser alguém que não viva no relativismo moral, mas sim um homem de fé, algo que está em vias de extinção no ocidente e em particular em Portugal. Este homem deve ser o porto de abrigo para a sua família, alguém disposto a travar o bom combate, e será sempre portanto um defensor acérrimo da verdade. Não será naturalmente alguém obcecado com a sua própria imagem, mas sim um homem desejavelmente forte quer em termos físicos, tendo zelo na forma como se exercita, quer em termos mentais, sendo uma pessoa capaz mas com autocontrolo. Deve também ser um homem com uma vida intelectual, isto é, alguém que nutre interesse pelo legado que lhe foi confiado e procura aprender sobre o mesmo. Muitos homens antes de si fizeram sacrifícios para que o homem da atualidade usufrua dos mais variados benefícios.

A atualidade oferece-nos por vezes a promoção de algumas destas facetas, algo que seria desejável e bom, contudo com algumas distorções. Há homens fortes, capazes de feitos atléticos ímpares, que se cultivam nesse domínio mas pelas razões erradas. Por vezes o imperativo moral que os guia é a vaidade, sendo que esse trabalho físico que fazem conspira para consolidar o seu narcisismo.

Outros há com uma determinação inabalável, algo louvável quando usada para os fins próprios. Esta determinação não deve ser usada para a procura de grandes riquezas como um fim em si mesmas, nem como um isco usado para o oportunismo sexual com as mulheres.

Poderíamos também dar como exemplo, homens com uma prodigiosa inteligência mas que, não a tendo devidamente orientada, a usam para manipular e corromper o discurso público não olhando a meios para atingir os fins.

Um factor chave que dificulta a formação de mais homens com este tipo de espinha dorsal é uma certa apropriação da linguagem que tem existido no discurso público que procura rotular quem ousa desafiar este status quo. Termos como “negacionista”, “radical”, “fascista”, “fundamentalista”, “ultranacionalista” entre outros, são constantemente atirados remetendo o homem para uma falsa conclusão:

“ Tu não podes defender nada, nem ter certeza de nada”.

Outra ferramenta importante nesta desconstrução é o apelo ao vício. Sendo através da pornografia, da comida ultra-processada ou de uma vida de conforto , há claramente um incentivo ao hedonismo e à autoindulgência. Procura-se alimentar cada vez mais esta busca do prazer com o fim último, e por conseguinte a coragem, o sacrifício e o trabalho, como pedras angulares da construção do carácter do homem ficam para segundo plano.

O cavalheirismo ficou-se apenas pelas aparências. Por vezes, há um verniz de algumas das propriedades que descrevi em várias situações, contudo não passa de uma máscara. É fácil segurar uma porta para uma senhora e dizer “com licença”, “por favor”, para se mostrar alguém educado quando o custo para o fazer é mínimo. Difícil é estar disposto a fazer sacríficos em que nos doamos inteiramente pelos outros, no entanto é isso que é pedido ao homem. Doando-se encontrará o seu verdadeiro propósito.

@ 2e8970de:63345c7a

https://www.statista.com/topics/10083/onlyfans/#topicOverview

305 million subscribers. 468 million monthly website visits.

Currently in the news is the retirement of an adult star who made 67 million Dollars in 3 years. Very little focus is put on the vast majority of "entertainers" who make very little money. And even less on the vast vast majority of website visitors that pay instead of being payed.

I don't think it's useful to argue if it's 1 in 27 or 1 in 24 depending on how big the world population is. What's more interesting to me: ** what does this do to our society and culture?**

1 in 27. Only half the population is male (which is almost all subscribers if we are being honest) so maybe 1 in 14? How many in the world population are too old or too young to use the internet like that. Then exclude all the poor people from third world countries. You get where I'm going with this. Walk through the downtown of any major western city and count the humans: 1,2,3..1,2,3... What a baffling statistic, don't you think?

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/917007

@ a39d19ec:3d88f61e

Nun da das deutsche Bundesregime den Ruin Deutschlands beschlossen hat, der sehr wahrscheinlich mit dem Werkzeug des Geld druckens "finanziert" wird, kamen mir so viele Gedanken zur Geldmengenausweitung, dass ich diese für einmal niedergeschrieben habe.

Die Ausweitung der Geldmenge führt aus klassischer wirtschaftlicher Sicht immer zu Preissteigerungen, weil mehr Geld im Umlauf auf eine begrenzte Menge an Gütern trifft. Dies lässt sich in mehreren Schritten analysieren:

1. Quantitätstheorie des Geldes

Die klassische Gleichung der Quantitätstheorie des Geldes lautet:

M • V = P • Y

wobei:
- M die Geldmenge ist,
- V die Umlaufgeschwindigkeit des Geldes,
- P das Preisniveau,
- Y die reale Wirtschaftsleistung (BIP).

Wenn M steigt und V sowie Y konstant bleiben, muss P steigen – also Inflation entstehen.

2. Gütermenge bleibt begrenzt

Die Menge an real produzierten Gütern und Dienstleistungen wächst meist nur langsam im Vergleich zur Ausweitung der Geldmenge. Wenn die Geldmenge schneller steigt als die Produktionsgütermenge, führt dies dazu, dass mehr Geld für die gleiche Menge an Waren zur Verfügung steht – die Preise steigen.

3. Erwartungseffekte und Spekulation

Wenn Unternehmen und Haushalte erwarten, dass mehr Geld im Umlauf ist, da eine zentrale Planung es so wollte, können sie steigende Preise antizipieren. Unternehmen erhöhen ihre Preise vorab, und Arbeitnehmer fordern höhere Löhne. Dies kann eine sich selbst verstärkende Spirale auslösen.

4. Internationale Perspektive

Eine erhöhte Geldmenge kann die Währung abwerten, wenn andere Länder ihre Geldpolitik stabil halten. Eine schwächere Währung macht Importe teurer, was wiederum Preissteigerungen antreibt.

5. Kritik an der reinen Geldmengen-Theorie

Der Vollständigkeit halber muss erwähnt werden, dass die meisten modernen Ökonomen im Staatsauftrag argumentieren, dass Inflation nicht nur von der Geldmenge abhängt, sondern auch von der Nachfrage nach Geld (z. B. in einer Wirtschaftskrise). Dennoch zeigt die historische Erfahrung, dass eine unkontrollierte Geldmengenausweitung langfristig immer zu Preissteigerungen führt, wie etwa in der Hyperinflation der Weimarer Republik oder in Simbabwe.

@ 6260f29f:2ee2fcd4

```js

```

@ a60e79e0:1e0e6813

**This is a long form note test of a post that lives on my Nostr educational website Hello Nostr **

One of the first things most people learn when getting started with Nostr is the importance of their private key, or ‘nsec’. The nsec is the key to their Nostr world. Whoever controls an nsec, controls that account. Lose access to the nsec and you lose access to that account and its social graph.

So the nsec is very important and should be treated very carefully, but what happens if we want to use or test multiple Nostr clients? Newer clients might be malicious, or have unknown security vulnerabilities, so simply go pasting our nsec everywhere just to see if we like a new app is not the best idea!

Thankfully there are solutions for nsec management that allow us to do exactly that, without having to expose our all important nsec to each and every app we want to interact with. The most commonly used to date are browser extensions like Alby or nos2x. Typically these types of browser extensions do not work on mobile platforms.

Enter Amber…

What is Amber?

Amber is a free and open source Android application that serves as a dedicated ‘Nostr event signer’. Amber allows users to keep their nsec segregated in a single, dedicated app. The goal of Amber is to have your smartphone act as a NIP-46 signing device without any need for servers or additional hardware.

At its core Amber serves two main purposes:

Securing your nsec(s) Using this nsec to sign events for other Nostr clients on your phone

Got an iPhone? Check out nsec.app

Getting Started

1. Download Amber to your phone. It is available from Zap Store, Obtanium, GitHub or F-Droid

Download Amber here. Support Amber here.

1. When opening Amber for the first time, you’ll have the option to create a new Nostr account (nsec) or import an existing one.

2. If you do not currently have a Nostr account, Amber will help you generate and secure a brand new nsec. Amber allows you to download an encrypted file containing your nsec as well as the option to download a human-readable version of the nsec in the form of 12 English words, similar to a Bitcoin seed.

Skip this step if you have an existing nsec that you want to import to Amber.

1. To import an existing nsec, choose ‘Use your private key’. You can then paste the nsec from an existing client, or scan a QR code of it if you have one available to you.

2. Once you have created or imported your nsec, Amber will ask for some basic permissions. You can allow the app the approve basic actions, or enable more granular selection for each client you subsequently connect. Once you tap ‘Finish’, you’ll see that the account is now ready.

If you have or require more than one Nostr account, you can repeat these steps for each one. All accounts can be viewed by tapping the profile image in the bottom right corner of the screen.

1. That’s it, Amber is now ready to sign events. Amber allows multiple ways to connect other clients to it, but most will have a very simple ‘Login with Amber’ button. Let’s demo this in practice with Amethyst, the most popular Android-only client.

The opening screen of Amethyst shows the ‘Login with Amber’ option. Tap that.

1. Amber will then open automatically and ask you to define the level of autonomy you’d like to have with Amethyst. This setting defines how often Amber will require you to manually authorize each event.

For example, you might want Amber to automatically sign every like or repost you do in Amethyst, but then be asked to manually approve all direct messages sent from your account. These permissions can be customized in the settings at any time.

1. Let’s assume that upon setup, we did not grant Amber the ability to automatically sign short text notes for us. Let’s look at how simple the authorization flow is. Type a new short note in Amethyst and press ‘Post’.

Amethyst will instantly send the request to the Amber app on your phone, with no third party server involved. Amber will open and ask you to approve the event. When you do, Amber signs the event with the nsec it stores for you and automatically send the signed event back to Amethyst to be posted. The whole process takes just a few seconds.

Using Amber with a Web Client

1. Next let’s take a look at how you can use Amber on your phone to sign events on a web app running on your computer. For this example, we’ll be using Coracle. Open Coracle and click ‘Log In’, then choose ‘Use Remote Signer’. Coracle will then display a QR code.

2. Open Amber and navigate to the Applications page, tap the + icon, then scan the QR code being displayed by Coracle.

3. Just as it did earlier with Amethyst, Amber will now ask you to grant some basic permissions for the Coracle connection. Once again, these permissions can be customized at any time in the settings. Once granted, you’ll notice that Coracle automatically logs in to your feed.

But wait, how did that happen? The nsec is in Amber on your phone, and Coracle is running on your computer. The two might not even be in the same location or on the same network!? The communication is happening over the Nostr protocol, via relays. Which relays are used for this communication can be configured in the Amber settings.

1. Let’s test out a short note on Coracle to demonstrate the signing process. Click ‘Post +’ in the top right corner, draft your note and then click send.

2. Amber will send a push notification to your phone. Tapping the notification will open Amber for you to approve the event.

3. Once the event is approved in Amber, Amber will automatically send the signed event back to Coracle for publishing.

Summary

You can view Amber as a vault for your Nostr private keys (nsec). It allows you to explore the entire ecosystem without exposing your nsec to every new app you try. Amber is an incredibly simple yet powerful tool that belongs on the Android phone of every Nostr user.

At the time of writing, using Amber as a remote event signer is supported by the following popular Nostr clients:

• Amethyst (mobile)
• Coracle (web)
• 0xChat (mobile)
• Fountain (mobile)
• Zap Store (mobile)
• Keychat (mobile)
• Freeflow (mobile)
• Highlighter (web)
• Chachi Chat (web)
• Habla (web)
• Shopstr (web)
• Plebeian Market (web)
• Snort (web)
• Nostrudel (web)

If you found this post useful, please share it with your peers and consider following and zapping me on Nostr. If you write to me and let me know that you found me via this post, I’ll be sure to Zap you back! ⚡️

@ 044da344:073a8a0e

Die Medien-Epidemie

Rubikon und Medienrealität, 18. März 2020

Ab jetzt regiert die Medizin, hat Markus Söder am Montag gesagt. Medienforscher, ab ins Homeoffice. Von dort sehen wir, was Ärzte nicht untersuchen können. Wir sehen, wie Medien eine Realität schaffen, die Politiker für so real halten, dass sie die Welt komplett umbauen – eine Medienwirkung zweiter Ordnung, die auf Medienwirkungen erster Ordnung vertrauen und uns alle so ins Chaos stürzen kann.

Ich gebe zu: Wenn man nicht krank ist und dazu noch ein Fatalist und Dickhäuter, den es nicht stört, wenn Bars und Kinos geschlossen sind und die Leute böse schauen, wenn sie einen ins Büro gehen sehen, dann lebt man als Medienforscher gerade in goldenen Zeiten. Nie zuvor war die Macht der Medien so offensichtlich. Nie zuvor war mein Forschungsgegenstand so wichtig. Eigentlich hätte Markus Söder am Montag sagen müssen: Ab jetzt regieren die Medien.

Genau genommen tun sie das schon lange, aber bei den allermeisten Themen haben die Politik und andere mächtige Akteure die Logik des Journalismus so internalisiert, dass sie den Redaktionen das liefern, wonach diese ohnehin suchen. Meine Theorie der Medialisierung beginnt genau da: Jeder Entscheidungsträger weiß, dass heute nichts mehr geht ohne öffentliche Aufmerksamkeit und ohne öffentliche Legitimation. Jeder weiß, dass er die Medien braucht, und versucht deshalb entweder, die Berichterstattung zu unterbinden, oder die Logik des Mediensystems für seine Interessen zu nutzen und in der Öffentlichkeit ein positives Bild zu erzeugen (vgl. Meyen 2014, 2018). Deshalb die großen PR-Stäbe, deshalb all die spektakulären Projekte, Events, Ideen, deshalb Spitzenleute wie Markus Söder, der beim Bayerischen Rundfunk Volontär war und weiß, wie die Kolleginnen und Kollegen von einst so ticken.

Corona war anders. Corona kam aus dem Nichts (aus China, okay, aber hier ist kein Platz für Verschwörungstheorien). Corona hat die Medienrealität gekapert, ohne dass die Redaktionen sich wehren konnten, weil der Imperativ der Aufmerksamkeit in einem kommerziellen Mediensystem auch die gebührenfinanzierten Angebote regiert. Corona ist Medienlogik pur. Journalismus war schon immer Selektion. Selbst das, was an einem Tag in einem Stadtteil von München passiert, würde mehr füllen als eine Süddeutsche Zeitung. Heute wird das Medienrealität, was die meisten Klicks verspricht, die meisten Likes, die meisten Retweets. Superlative, Sensationen, Prominente. Dinge, die es so noch nicht gab. Drei Infizierte, 15, 200. Tom Hanks. Der erste Bundestagsabgeordnete. Der erste Zweitligaspieler. Der erste Trainer. Sogar jemand von Juve, eben noch halbnackt in der Jubelkabine, und in drei Tagen schon auf dem Rasen gegen Lyon. Tom Hanks aus dem Krankenhaus entlassen. Und jetzt auch noch Merz.

Medienrealität ist eine Realität erster Ordnung – wie der Zaun, der uns nicht vorbeilässt, oder der Polizist, der unseren Ausweis sehen will. Wir können die Medienrealität nicht ignorieren, weil wir annehmen, dass sie Folgen hat – wenn vielleicht auch nicht für uns, so doch für andere. Selbst wenn wir persönlich nicht glauben, dass eine Ausgangssperre kommt oder die Versorgungsketten gekappt werden, fangen wir an, Klopapier zu horten (oder Rotwein, wenn wir Italiener wären), weil wir glauben, dass die anderen ihr Verhalten ändern werden, und zwar so, wie es der Medientenor vorgibt.

Wer nicht versteht, was Markus Söder gerade reitet oder all die anderen, die in irgendeinem Regierungssitz oder auch nur in einer kleinen Behörde oder gar in einer Universität Verantwortung tragen, hat hier einen Schlüssel. Entscheidungsträger unterstellen, dass Massenmedien mächtig sind, und wollen entweder die Deutungshoheit zurückerobern oder scheuen jedes selbständige Denken. Das Motto der Stunde: Die Medien sind voll mit Corona (sie sind es wirklich, weil wir das immerfort klicken, liken, retweeten), also müssen wir die Menschen davor schützen, ob sie wollen oder nicht. Diese Menschen wissen, was die Italiener unternehmen, was die Berliner und was der junge Kurz in Österreich. So einen brauchen wir auch, ruft die Bildzeitung. Kein Problem. Das können wir toppen. In Deutschland regiert ab jetzt die Medizin. Was morgen sein wird? Schauen Sie einfach, welche Hashtags gerade auf Twitter im Trend sind. Dort treiben sich Reporter und Politiker gegenseitig in ungeahnte Höhen.

Damit sind wir bei der Verantwortung und beim Ethos des Journalismus. Was ist aus dem Ort geworden, an dem die Gesellschaft, an dem wir alle das diskutieren und aushandeln können, was uns umtreibt? Wo ist der Streit der Meinungen, der doch gerade bei existenziellen Entscheidungen wie denen, die Markus Söder am Montag verkündet hat, nötiger wäre denn je? Wann ist das Prinzip der US-Journalismus-Ikone I.F. Stone verschwunden, der seine Kollegen ermahnt hat, gerade bei mächtigen Institutionen immer besonders vorsichtig zu sein – also auch bei der Charité, auch beim Robert-Koch-Institut und erst recht bei jeder Regierung (vgl. Goeßmann 2017: 30). Marcus B. Klöckner (2019: 9) hat gerade gezeigt, wie es zu einem Journalismus kommen konnte, der die Macht nicht kritisiert und kontrolliert, sondern einen „Schutzmantel um die politischen Weichensteller legt“ und kritische Stimmen aus dem „legitimen öffentlichen Diskursraum“ de facto ausschaltet.

Natürlich: Es gibt Perlen im Corona-Einheitsbrei. Rubikon zum Beispiel, eine alternative Plattform, auf der Herausgeber Jens Wernicke seit Tagen Gegenstimmen sammelt. Heribert Prantl, SZ-Leitartikler im Ruhestand, hat in seinem Sonntagsbrief („Prantls Blick“) „den virologisch-politisch-publizistischen Rigorismus“ beklagt, und seine alte Redaktion ließ im Feuilleton am Dienstag Rene Schlott, einen Historiker, mit der Frage zu Wort kommen, ob „die offene Gesellschaft erwürgt“ werde, „um sie zu retten“ (online hinter einer Bezahlschranke). Schlott spricht sich gleich zu Beginn seines Artikels Mut zu und hofft, dass ihn nicht ausgerechnet dieser Text in die Isolation treibt. Noch deutlicher wird der hegemoniale Diskurs auf der Webseite von Radio Eins, bezahlt von unseren Beiträgen und betrieben vom RBB. Es gibt dort ein Interview mit Karin Mölling, einer preisgekrönten Virologin im Ruhestand, zehn Minuten immerhin, die dort vor Panikmache warnt, Corona mit Blick auf Influenza relativiert und ein drittes Virus, eine dritte Epidemie ausmacht, mindestens genauso gefährlich: soziale Medien und Presse. Die Redaktion sah sich genötigt, eine „Klarstellung“ zu schreiben. Eine „Einzelmeinung“, liebe Leute. Wir, die Mannschaft von Radio Eins, sind nicht so „zynisch“ wie diese Ärztin und wollen die Krise keinesfalls verharmlosen.

Was tun? Auf lange Sicht ist das nicht schwierig und genauso klar wie beim Gesundheitswesen oder im Handel. Weg von der kommerziellen Logik, die Aufmerksamkeit maximiert und sonst nichts, hin zu einem Journalismus, der die Informationen liefert, die wir brauchen, und deshalb anders organisiert sein muss, genossenschaftlich zum Beispiel. Für den Moment hilft das nicht. Aber vielleicht können wir ja auch über die Medien diskutieren, wenn die Redaktionen den nächsten Hype entdeckt haben.

Literatur

David Goeßmann: Wenn Regierungen lügen und Medien mitmachen. In: Jens Wernicke: Lügen die Medien? Propaganda, Rudeljournalismus und der Kampf um die öffentliche Meinung. Frankfurt am Main: Westend 2017, S. 29-45.

Marcus B. Klöckner: Sabotierte Wirklichkeit. Oder: Wenn Journalismus zur Glaubenslehre wird. Frankfurt am Main: Westend 2019.

Michael Meyen: Theorie der Medialisierung. Eine Erwiderung auf Anna M. Theis-Berglmair. In: Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft 62. Jg. (2014), S. 645-655.

Michael Meyen: Breaking News. Die Welt im Ausnahmezustand. Wie die Medien uns regieren. Frankfurt am Main: Westend 2018.

Daten + Experten = Demokratie?

Rubikon, 18. März 2020, und ForDemocracy, 19. März 2020

Dieser Beitrag entstand auf Anregung von Jens Wernicke, Herausgeber der Plattform Rubikon, und ist dort unter dem Titel “Die Expertokratie” erschienen. Hier das Original, ergänzt um Literaturangaben.

Es gibt ein Buch von Jason Brennan, 2017 auf Deutsch erschienen, das ziemlich genau das fordert, was gerade geschieht. Eine Epistokratie, bitte. Die Herrschaft der Wissenden. Lasst die Experten nur machen, weil wir alle ohnehin nicht viel von der Welt verstehen. Dann wird dieser elende Streit der Ideen ein Ende haben, und alles wird endlich gut.

Dieses Buch war ein Bestseller und wurde vermutlich auch in den Staatskanzleien und Verwaltungen gelesen, die jetzt Ärzte in den Rang von politischen Göttern erheben und auf Daten und Kurven verweisen, wenn sie den Menschen fast alles nehmen, worauf unser Leben baut. Von Risiken und Nebenwirkungen hat Jason Brennan geschwiegen. Er musste davon schweigen, weil der Sachbuchmarkt eine steile These verlangt, gerade in den USA, und einen Titel, der zum Kauf anregt. „Gegen Demokratie“, hat Ullstein in Deutschland auf das Cover geschrieben. Ich habe mich damals darüber lustig gemacht, vor allem über den Glauben, dass wir in einer „Demokratie“ leben, weil man uns alle paar Jahre abstimmen lässt. Jetzt könnte jeder sehen, dass das immer noch besser ist als eine Herrschaft der Experten. Konkret: besser als das „Primat der Medizin“ (Markus Söder). Man muss nur die Augen aufmachen.

In den Leitmedien sieht man: volle Unterstützung für unsere Jungs und Mädels in der Regierung. So sagt das der Sprecher im Audi Dome, wenn der FC Bayern Basketball am Rand einer Niederlage steht, ohne die Mädels natürlich. Die Zuschauer sollen dann aufstehen und so viel Krach machen, dass das Spiel doch noch kippt. Um im Bild zu bleiben: In einer parlamentarischen Demokratie gibt es Auswärtsfans. Nicht viele, wenn die größten Teams einfach fusionieren, aber immerhin. Die Indexing-These von Lance Bennett, bestätigt in vielen Studien, sagt: Journalisten berichten über Konflikte in der Gesellschaft, aber, und dieses große Aber schränkt das Spektrum schon in sogenannten normalen Zeiten erheblich ein, aber die entsprechenden Ansichten müssen in der offiziellen politischen Debatte vorkommen, im Bundestag zum Beispiel. Was das Berlin der Parteien, der Abgeordneten und der Lobbyisten nicht diskutiert, erscheint nicht in den Medien, und was Politik oder Wirtschaft nicht vorkauen, kann der Journalist nicht verdauen.

Es ist nicht schwer, diesen Befund in die Gegenwart zu verlängern. Wo die Medizin regiert, gibt es keine parlamentarische Debatte und damit auch keinen öffentlichen Streit um die beste Lösung, nicht einmal den gedämpften einer eingehegten Wahldemokratie. Mehr noch: Der Journalismus dankt ab und lässt die Experten gleich selbst sprechen, Christian Drosten zum Beispiel, der mit seiner Forschungsgruppe an der Berliner Charité erst einen Corona-Test entwickelt hat und jetzt gleichzeitig zu Regierenden und Volk spricht. Dass ihn viele Redaktionen gewähren lassen und sogar noch feiern, erinnert an das, was Uwe Krüger (2016: 105), Medienforscher in Leipzig, nach dem Ukraine-Desaster 2014 „Verantwortungsverschwörung“ genannt hat: Der Journalist weiß, was gut ist und was schlecht (so ziemlich das gleiche, was die Herrschenden gut oder schlecht finden, weil alle ganz ähnlich aufgewachsen sind und zusammen studiert haben), und er glaubt, dass er Einfluss auf die Menschen hat. Also zur Solidarität aufrufen, die Tatkraft der Regierenden loben und im übrigen auf die „Fakten“ verweisen oder die Experten fragen. Wenn diese Experten gegen den Mainstream schwimmen (wie zum Beispiel Wolfgang Wodarg oder Karin Mölling), dann werden sie delegitimiert und nicht mehr angehört.

Anders als Jason Brennan ging Walter Lippmann (2018) nicht davon aus, dass wir Wähler kein Interesse an der Politik haben oder dass uns gar der nötige Verstand dafür fehlt. Lippmann wollte den Verstand manipulieren. Er wusste, dass wir auf Vorstellungen von der Welt reagieren und dass die Macht bei denen liegt, die diese Bilder produzieren. Lippmann hat schon vor fast einhundert Jahren eine Regierung der Experten empfohlen, eine Gesellschaft, in der Sozialforscher wie er die große „Herde“ führen. Sein Rezept, das so klingt, als sei es erst eine Woche alt: „Der Zugang zu der wirklichen Umwelt muss begrenzt werden, ehe jemand eine Pseudoumwelt errichten kann, die er für klug oder wünschenswert hält.“

Damit weg von den Medien und hin zu unserem Glauben an die Daten, an die „Pseudoumwelt“, die Experten wie Christian Drosten bauen. Im gleichen Jahr, in dem Jason Brennan „Gegen Demokratie“ angeschrieben hat, ist bei Suhrkamp ein Buch von Steffen Mau (2017) erschienen, einem Soziologen von der Humboldt-Uni, das den Megatrend der Quantifizierung des Sozialen auf eine griffige Formel gebracht hat: „Das metrische Wir“. Man muss diesen Trend kennen, wenn man verstehen will, warum alle Welt gerade auf den Newsticker starrt, der die Zahl der Infizierten und der Toten im Stundentakt aktualisiert und in bunten Diagrammen oder auf noch bunteren Karten Länder oder Regionen miteinander vergleicht, die man überhaupt nicht miteinander vergleichen kann.

Heute geht nichts mehr ohne Zahlen. Was nicht in Zahlen übersetzt werden kann, existiert nicht länger. In der Sprache des Soziologen Steffen Mau: Zahlen sind „zur Leitwährung der digitalisierten Gesellschaft geworden“. Zahlen versprechen „Präzision, Eineindeutigkeit, Vereinfachung, Nachprüfbarkeit und Neutralität“ (S. 26f.). Zahlen sind die Antwort auf unser Bedürfnis nach Sicherheit und Kontrolle. Zahlen haben das Bauchgefühl verdrängt, das uns sagt, was richtig ist, das Urteil, das abwägt und dabei auch um die Besonderheiten dieses einen Falles weiß, den Blick auf die Welt, der Komplexität und Ungewissheiten anerkennt. Die Ärzte sagen uns, wie viele Menschen krank sind, wie viele davon sterben werden und was wir alles tun müssen, damit die Betten auf den Intensivstationen reichen. Wir glauben ihnen, weil wir gewöhnt sind, die Welt durch die Brille von Zahlen zu sehen. Und die Regierenden folgen ihnen, weil sie uns kennen.

Nur: Eine Zahl ist eine Zahl und nicht die Realität. Das weiß jeder Wissenschaftler, der „im Feld“ war und selbst Daten erhoben hat. Was immer wir messen, wird sozial hergestellt. Menschen legen fest, dass sie Schritte zählen, um ihre Existenz zu legitimieren, und nicht Furze oder Rülpser (sorry). Menschen legen fest, nach welchem Virus sie suchen und was passieren muss, damit sie „Gefunden!“ rufen können. Hinter jeder Zahl steht ein Interesse, und sei es nur das eines Herstellers, der seine Geräte loswerden will. Daraus folgt immer: Es hätte auch anders sein können. Das klingt banal, ist es aber ganz offenkundig nicht. Sonst könnten wir gerade nicht beobachten, wie Zahlen alles umbauen, was wir bisher gekannt haben. Wir lernen: Zahlen sind nicht die Wirklichkeit. Sie erzeugen sie erst.

Wer Zahlen verkauft, egal ob Virologe oder Medienforscher, braucht das Vertrauen seiner Kunden. Er muss die Zweifel verwischen, die mit jeder Datenerhebung verbunden sind. Man muss kein Virologe sein (wohl aber eine gesunde Skepsis gegenüber allen Zahlen mitbringen), um diese Zweifel auszusprechen. Was bedeutet es, dass heute 12.000 Menschen mit einem bestimmten Virus infiziert sind, morgen 15.000 und übermorgen mehr als 20.000? Haben sich tatsächlich mehr Menschen angesteckt oder wird einfach mehr gemessen, in provisorischen Zelten zum Beispiel und bei Menschen, die sonst nie und nimmer zum Arzt gegangen wären, aber jetzt gar nicht anders können bei all dem sozialen und medialen Druck? Wann genau wird ein Test „positiv“? Genauer gefragt: Worauf haben sich die Erfinder des Tests hier geeinigt und was wäre, wenn sie sich anders entschieden hätten? Warum sterben in einem Land 0,5 Prozent der Infizierten und in einem anderen fünf Prozent? Liegt das vielleicht daran, dass man hier eher zufällig testet und dort nur die, die ohnehin schon im Krankenhaus liegen? Und ab wann wird man eigentlich ein Corona-Toter? Woher weiß der Arzt, was genau bei einem Menschen „mit Vorerkrankung“ zum Ende geführt hat?

Ganz unabhängig von solchen Zweifeln sind Zahlen nur dann etwas wert, wenn man sie einordnen kann. Die Wissenschaft lebt vom Vergleich. Niemand weiß, wie viele Menschen in den vergangenen  Jahren das hatten, was wir „Grippe“ nennen, und wie viele daran gestorben sind. Eine „Grippe“ war längst so normal, dass wir trotzdem zur Arbeit gegangen sind und dort vielleicht an einem Herzinfarkt gestorben sind oder bei einem Autounfall, weil wir gerade niesen mussten, als die Ampel rot wurde.

Wer noch lebt, muss sich wehren gegen die Herrschaft der Experten und der Daten, den (hoffentlich noch) gesunden Menschenverstand einschalten und fragen, was es mit uns macht, wenn wir unsere Kolleginnen und Kollegen nicht mehr sehen dürfen (weder im Büro noch abends beim Bier), wenn Vater, Mutter, Kinder den ganzen Tag auf ein paar Quadratmetern zusammen sein müssen (wie sonst nur Weihnachten, wo es den meisten Familienkrach gibt) und wenn man uns die Fahrt in den Urlaub nimmt, den Ausflug, das Fitnessstudio. Virologen können das nicht wissen. Virologen wissen auch nicht, wie ein Land wieder zurückkommt auf Los und wie all das, was jetzt an Verboten, Kontrolle und Überwachung möglich geworden ist, erst zurückgeholt und dann aus dem kollektiven Gedächtnis gelöscht werden kann. Dafür gibt es weder Experten noch Daten.

Literatur

Jason Brennan: Gegen Demokratie. Warum wir die Politik nicht den Unvernünftigen überlassen dürfen. Berlin: Ullstein 2017.

Uwe Krüger: Mainstream. Warum wir den Medien nicht mehr trauen. München: C.H. Beck 2016.

Walter Lippmann: Die öffentliche Meinung. Wie sie entsteht und manipuliert wird. Herausgegeben von Walter Otto Ötsch und Silja Graupe. Frankfurt am Main: Westend 2018.

Steffen Mau: Das metrische Wir. Über die Quantifizierung des Sozialen. Berlin: Suhrkamp 2017.

Kniefall vor der Wissenschaft

Medienrealität, 26. März 2020, und Rubikon, 27. März 2020

Patrick Illinger fällt vor der Wissenschaft auf die Knie. Das wäre kein Problem, wenn Illinger nicht das Wissenschaftsressort der Süddeutschen Zeitung leiten und dort Leitartikel schreiben würde. „Seriöse Wissenschaft hat keine andere Agenda als das Suchen und Überbringen möglichst fundierter Fakten“, steht dort heute. Genau das ist die Agenda. Und die SZ geht ihr auf den Leim.

Zeitunglesen geht im Moment schnell. Zwei Minuten, wie in der DDR. Einmal blättern und man weiß, dass sich die Regierungsmeinung nicht geändert hat und die Medienlogik auch nicht. Eigentlich habe ich dazu schon alles gesagt. Ich habe letzte Woche geschrieben, wie sich Journalismus und Politik gegenseitig hochgeschaukelt haben am Imperativ der Aufmerksamkeit und dadurch eine Realität geschaffen wurde, die man jetzt nicht einmal mehr zu dritt auf der Straße erörtern kann (vgl. Meyen 2020a). Das ist der Tod von Öffentlichkeit, die online nicht wiederbelebt werden kann, weil dort Stürme drohen und so die Zwischenstufen fehlen, die Encounter (Begegnungen im Bus, in der Kneipe, auf dem Büroflur) und Leitmedien zusammenbringen. Keine Versammlungen, keine Demos. Nicht einmal mehr Graffiti. Encounter sowieso nicht. Und damit keine Öffentlichkeit.

Ich habe letzte Woche auch über die Expertokratie geschrieben, die Patrick Illinger heute in der Süddeutschen Zeitung verteidigt, und über das, was aus einer Herrschaft der Wissenschaft für die Medien folgt (vgl. Meyen 2020b). Zitat: „Der Journalismus dankt ab und lässt die Experten gleich selbst sprechen“. Ich habe dort auch versucht zu erklären, warum Daten und Zahlen nicht mit der Realität zu verwechseln sind (vgl. Mau 2017). Noch ein Zitat: „Was immer wir messen, wird sozial hergestellt. Menschen legen fest, nach welchem Virus sie suchen und was passieren muss, damit sie ‚Gefunden!‘ rufen können. Hinter jeder Zahl steht ein Interesse, und sei es nur das eines Herstellers, der seine Geräte loswerden will. Daraus folgt immer: Es hätte auch anders sein können. Das klingt banal, ist es aber ganz offenkundig nicht. Sonst könnten wir gerade nicht beobachten, wie Zahlen alles umbauen, was wir bisher gekannt haben. Wir lernen: Zahlen sind nicht die Wirklichkeit. Sie erzeugen sie erst“.

Und damit endlich zu Patrick Illinger. „Wer jetzt vor einer Diktatur der Wissenschaft warnt“, heißt es in besagtem Leitartikel, „begeht einen Fehler. Es (sic!) macht die Wissenschaft zum Stakeholder, zur Interessengruppe, zu einer Strömung, der man sich widersetzen kann und vielleicht sollte. Doch das verwechselt den Boten mit der Botschaft“. Nein. Punkt eins: Es gibt keine Botschaft ohne Boten. Punkt zwei: Die Wissenschaft, die sich nur für die Wahrheit interessiert und für sonst nichts, ist eine Schimäre. Das „interessenlose Interesse“ oder das „Interesse an der Interessenlosigkeit“, die Idee, dass wir es hier mit Menschen zu tun haben, die „uneigennützig“ und womöglich sogar „unentgeltlich“ arbeiten: Das ist die „illusio“ des akademischen Feldes (Bourdieu 1998: 27). Und Punkt drei: Dieses akademische Feld ist längst gekapert von den Imperativen der Wirtschaft (Geld!) und der Medien (Aufmerksamkeit!). Eigentlich sollte es deshalb selbstverständlich sein, stets die Strukturen zu hinterfragen, in denen Wissen (Illinger: „möglichst fundierte Fakten“) produziert wird. Eigentlich.

Der Reihe nach und etwas ausführlicher. Wissenschaft wird von Menschen gemacht. Menschen entscheiden, welche Fragen sie beantworten wollen (und damit auch, welche nicht beantwortet werden). Menschen entscheiden, welcher Weg zur Erkenntnis akzeptiert wird und welcher nicht und damit auch, auf welche „Fakten“ wir alle zugreifen können, wenn die Not groß ist. Die Wissenschaft ist dabei eine soziale Welt wie jedes andere Feld. Das heißt: Woran dort gearbeitet wird, hängt von der „Struktur der objektiven Beziehungen zwischen den Akteuren“ ab und vor allem davon, was am Machtpol gerade goutiert wird (Bourdieu 1998: 20). Welche Themen versprechen Verträge, die über das Jahresende hinausgehen, mit welchen Methoden muss ich forschen, um am Ende eine Professur zu bekommen oder gar den Chefposten in einem großen Institut?

Das ist die erste Agenda, noch ganz ohne den Einfluss von Drittmitteln und ohne die Gier nach Prominenz oder wenigstens nach öffentlicher (medialer) Legitimation: Wissenschaftler sind Menschen und wollen (wie alle anderen auch) ihre Position verbessern. Sie wollen, dass ihre Fragen wichtiger werden und die Mittel, mit denen sie nach einer Antwort suchen. Das gilt innerhalb einzelner Disziplinen (etwa: in der Medizin) genauso wie im akademischen Feld insgesamt. Virologie gegen Soziologie gegen Geschichte. Kurz vor Corona hatte die bayerische Regierung Unsummen für die Big-Data-Forschung angekündigt. Ein Füllhorn für die Universitäten, um der „künstlichen Intelligenz“ auf die Spur zu kommen. Mal schauen, was davon jetzt übrigbleibt.

Das führt direkt zur zweiten Agenda, die gar nicht mehr verborgen werden muss, weil die Position im akademischen Feld inzwischen auch vom Medienecho abhängt und noch stärker davon, wie viel Geld von außen eingeworben wird. Wurden Wissenschaftler noch vor zwei oder drei Dekaden als Feuilletonforscher belächelt, wenn sie allzu oft auf der Mattscheibe zu sehen waren oder in der Presse, ist öffentliche Präsenz inzwischen ein Muss für alle großen Fördereinrichtungen und damit auch für die Reputation im Feld. Man darf Christian Drosten (nur als Beispiel) nicht verübeln, dass er einen Elfmeter schießt, wenn „koan Neuer“ zu sehen ist. Man muss nur wissen, dass ihm dieses Tor hilft, das Spiel im akademischen Feld zu gewinnen.

Das sagt noch nichts gegen den Inhalt (Virologie und Epidemiologie werden auf anderen Blogs verhandelt), wohl aber etwas gegen jeden blinden Glauben an alles, was uns Menschen in weißen Kitteln erzählen. Patrick Illinger hat Physik studiert und am Cern in der Schweiz promoviert – am Machtpol des wissenschaftlichen Feldes, wo der Wunsch besonders ausgeprägt ist, die Welt „da draußen“ möge an das „interessenlose Interesse“ der Forscher glauben. Die „klinische Soziologie des wissenschaftlichen Feldes“ von Pierre Bourdieu (1998), die ich gerade skizziert habe, stößt dort auf Ablehnung und Widerstand, weil sich die „illusio“ in den Habitus eingebrannt hat. Patrick Illinger ist aber kein Wissenschaftler mehr, sondern ein Journalist. PR ist in diesem Feld eigentlich tabu.

Literatur

Pierre Bourdieu: Vom Gebrauch der Wissenschaft. Für eine klinische Soziologie des wissenschaftlichen Feldes. Konstanz: UVK 1998.

Steffen Mau: Das metrische Wir. Über die Quantifizierung des Sozialen. Berlin: Suhrkamp 2017.

Michael Meyen: Die Medien-Epidemie. In: Michael Meyen (Hrsg.): Medienrealität 2020a.

Michael Meyen: Daten + Experten = Demokratie? In: Bayerischer Forschungsverbund „Die Zukunft der Demokratie“ (Hrsg.): ForDemocracy 2020b.

Die Maske, Hans-Jürgen Papier und Juli Zeh

Medienrealität, 5. April 2020

Die Medienforschung erwacht aus der Corona-Starre. Stephan Russ-Mohl sucht per Rundmail Beiträge (“möglichst” empirisch unterfüttert), die sagen, was der Journalismus bisher gut gemacht hat und was eher schlecht. Vielleicht findet er dabei sogar diesen Blog. Nach viel Kritik (vgl. Gordeeva 2020 sowie Meyen 2020a und 2020b) gibt es hier heute ein Lob für die SZ.

Vorbemerkung eins: Was Otfried Jarren vor einer Woche über das “Systemmedium” Fernsehen geschrieben hat und über die “besondere Form der Hofberichterstattung” beim NDR, war gut und richtig. Das ist das, was eine akademische Disziplin machen muss, die sich als öffentliche Wissenschaft versteht. An den Auftrag des öffentlich-rechtlichen Rundfunks erinnern, Qualität einfordern, Standards nennen. Der diskursive Kampf um Deutungshoheit wird auch in den Redaktionen ausgetragen. Wer dort den “Auftrag Öffentlichkeit” ernst nimmt, braucht gerade dann Argumente aus der Wissenschaft, wenn der Druck aus Politik und Behörden ins Unermessliche steigt und der Zugang zu alternativen Stimmen und Quellen verbaut ist.

Vorbemerkung zwei: Auch das, was zum Beispiel Hektor Haarkötter oder Daria Gordeeva geschrieben haben, kann dort helfen. Ein Ja zum Watchdog und ein Ja zum Nachfragen, gerade bei dem “Zahlenkonfetti” (Mathias Bröckers), den die Herrschenden uns täglich über die Leitmedien servieren.

Vorbemerkung drei (dann geht es endlich los): Ich war drauf und dran, einen Text mit der Überschrift “Süddeutsche Staatszeitung” zu schreiben. Auch SZ, aber anders. Am Rockzipfel von Markus Söder und auf dem Schoß von Angela Merkel, wie Nico Fried, der in seiner Seite-3-Geschichte zur großen TV-Ansprache auf die Minute wusste, wann der Stick aus dem PC gezogen wurde, und Verständnis für eine Kanzlerin hatte, die immer noch nicht jedes Bild der Tagesschau kontrollieren kann, obwohl das doch so wichtig wäre (Achtung: Bezahlschranke). Herrjemine.

Ich bin froh, dass ich diesen Text nicht geschrieben habe. Der Titel wäre schon vor zwei Wochen nicht ganz richtig gewesen. Recht und Verhältnismäßigkeit bei Heribert Prantl, immer wieder, oder (sehr früh) ein Gastbeitrag von René Schlott, einem Historiker, der in der SZ fragt, ob “die offene Gesellschaft erwürgt” werden darf, “um sie zu retten”, dann auch in anderen Medien zu Wort kommt und inzwischen auf Twitter die Initiative “Grundgesetz a casa” betreibt.

Manchmal hat der Forscher Glück. Manchmal lässt sich das, was Ulrich Beck (2017) als Kampf um Definitionsmacht beschrieben hat, an einer einzigen Journalistin festmachen. Dienstag war sich Christina Berndt in der SZ sicher: “Die Maske ist Pflicht, für alle!” Wer mittags auf die Seite ging, fand das dort als Aufmacher. Zitat: “Lebensretter dürfen gern ein bisschen blöd aussehen”.  Wenn man so will: ein Kommentar zu Österreich und ein Hinweis an die Staatskanzlei. Tut was, schon wieder, obwohl noch niemand überprüfen konnte, ob das geholfen hat, was bisher getan wurde. Egal. Zwei Wochen sind einfach zu lang für einen Journalismus, der von Klickzahlen lebt. Am Mittwoch veröffentlicht Christina Berndt ein Interview mit einer Ärztin, Béatrice Grabein, die ziemlich deutlich ‘Blödsinn’ sagt (mit anderen Worten, versteht sich, wir sind bei der SZ), und Werner Bartens sammelt Pro- und Contra-Argumente mit dem gleichen Tenor.

Ich weiß nicht, ob die Ärztin bei Frau Berndt angerufen hat, aber das ist auch egal. Mit einem Tag Verspätung bekomme ich alles, was ich wissen muss, um mir eine Meinung bilden zu können. Das ist das, was Journalismus leisten muss.

Dieses Lob gilt erst recht für die SZ-Interviews mit Hans-Jürgen Papier und Juli Zeh. Eigentlich ist das natürlich eine Selbstverständlichkeit: Menschen zu Wort kommen lassen, die etwas zu sagen haben, und dabei das Spektrum so weit wie möglich ausreizen. Aber was ist schon selbstverständlich in einer Krise, in der “eine eskalierende Medienberichterstattung die Öffentlichkeit und die Politik vor sich her treibt” (Juli Zeh).

Ich muss hier nicht alles wiederholen, was Papier und Zeh gesagt haben. Bei beiden geht es um die Grundrechte, beide verwenden das Wort “Dilemma” und beide zeigen, wie vertrackt die Lage ist, in die sich die Bundesregierung manövriert hat. Gewaltenteilung? Schwierig in diesen Zeiten, sagt Hans-Jürgen Papier. “Ich kann mir schon vorstellen, dass ein Richter sagt: Ich kann nicht die Verantwortung dafür übernehmen, den Schutz von Leben und Gesundheit hintanzustellen, selbst wenn die Freiheit der Person sehr wichtig ist. Der Richter sieht sich ebenso wie die Politik und Exekutive mit den genannten Ungewissheiten über Art und Ausmaß der Gefahren sowie die Eignung und Notwendigkeit der Mittel konfrontiert”.

Juli Zeh, auch Verfassungsrichterin (ehrenamtlich, in Brandenburg), sagt das noch deutlicher. Ein paar Zitate für die, die an der Bezahlschranke scheitern, und für mich selbst, damit ich das irgendwann leichter zitieren kann:

• “Demokratische Politik darf auch in Krisenzeiten nicht nur den Vorgaben von einzelnen Beratern folgen und sagen, jetzt läuft hier alles aus dem Ruder, und deshalb müssen wir drakonisch in die Bürgerrechte eingreifen. Da werden wir, wenn die Krise abflaut, eine Menge aufzuarbeiten haben.”
• “Vor allem die Bestrafungstaktik ist bedenklich. Im Grunde schüchtert man die Bevölkerung ein, in der Hoffnung, sie auf diese Weise zum Einhalten der Notstandsregeln zu bringen. Die Ansage lautet sinngemäß: Wenn ihr nicht tut, was wir von euch verlangen, seid ihr schuld an einer weiteren Ausbreitung des Virus und an vielen Toten in den Risikogruppen! Bei einigen Menschen führt das zu Trotz und Widerstand, bei anderen zu Verängstigung und regressivem Verhalten. Beides vergiftet die gesellschaftliche Stimmung. Aus meiner Sicht stellt es immer eine Form von Politikversagen dar, wenn versucht wird, die Bürger mit Schuldgefühlen unter Druck zu setzen.”
• “Unsere Verfassung verlangt, dass bei Grundrechtseingriffen immer das mildest mögliche Mittel gewählt wird. Auch bei der Abwendung von Gefahren gilt nicht “viel hilft viel”, sondern: so viel wie nötig, so wenig wie möglich. Ansonsten fehlt es an der Verhältnismäßigkeit, und eine Maßnahme ist dann unter Umständen verfassungswidrig. Das erfordert also, dass man ernsthaft diskutiert, welche Vorgehen tatsächlich sinnvoll sind und welches davon am mildesten wäre. Dabei hätte ein wissenschaftlich fundierter Diskurs aller medizinischer Fachrichtungen zum Beispiel mittels einer Ad-hoc-Kommission helfen können. (…) Ein ernsthafter Diskurs kann auch unter Zeitdruck stattfinden, das muss nicht Monate dauern. In einer Demokratie darf man sich die Möglichkeit dazu nicht nehmen lassen. Erst einmal die Faktenlage so weit wie möglich zu klären und öffentlich zu machen, trägt zu sachlicher Klarheit und besseren Entscheidungen bei, es erhöht aber auch die Transparenz und damit die demokratische Legitimität.”
• “Mich macht es betroffen, dass in so schwierigen Zeiten viele Politiker wenig Rückgrat beweisen. Ich glaube noch nicht einmal, dass das Motiv der deutschen Politiker Machthunger ist. Mir scheint, es herrscht eher die Angst, man könnte ihnen später vorwerfen, dass sie zu wenig getan haben. Also überbietet man sich lieber gegenseitig beim Vorschlagen immer neuer drakonischer Verordnungen und versucht zu punkten, indem man sich als starker Anführer aufspielt. Dabei entsteht aber in meinen Augen kein Eindruck von Stärke, sondern von ziemlicher Kopflosigkeit.”
• “Wir wissen aus Erfahrung, wie gefährlich Angstmechanismen sind. Deshalb würde ich von verantwortlicher Politik und auch von verantwortlichen Medien verlangen, dass sie niemals Angst zu ihrem Werkzeug machen.”

Ich nehme an: Das wird am Montag nicht nur in der Onlinekonferenz der SZ besprochen. Ein Dank an Juli Zeh und ein Dank an Jan Heidtmann, der das Interview geführt hat. Vielleicht läuft ja im Hintergrund längst ein Kurs, der Nachrichtenredakteuren hilft, die Wirklichkeit im “Zahlenkonfetti” zu sehen. Datenerhebung, Einordnung, sprachliche Präzision (vgl. Meyen 2020c). Die Hoffnung jedenfalls hat sich noch nicht infiziert und stirbt bekanntlich ohnehin zuletzt.

Literatur

Ulrich Beck: Die Metamorphose der Welt. Berlin: Suhrkamp 2017.

Daria Gordeeva: Wenn Watchdogs schlafen. In: Michael Meyen (Hrsg.): Medienrealität 2020.

Michael Meyen: Die Medien-Epidemie. In: Michael Meyen (Hrsg.): Medienrealität 2020a.

Michael Meyen: Kniefall vor der Wissenschaft. In: Michael Meyen (Hrsg.): Medienrealität 2020b.

Michael Meyen: Daten + Experten = Demokratie? In: Bayerischer Forschungsverbund „Die Zukunft der Demokratie“ (Hrsg.): ForDemocracy 2020c.

@ 21335073:a244b1ad

Warning: This piece contains a conversation about difficult topics. Please proceed with caution.

TL;DR please educate your children about online safety.

Julian Assange wrote in his 2012 book Cypherpunks, “This book is not a manifesto. There isn’t time for that. This book is a warning.” I read it a few times over the past summer. Those opening lines definitely stood out to me. I wish we had listened back then. He saw something about the internet that few had the ability to see. There are some individuals who are so close to a topic that when they speak, it’s difficult for others who aren’t steeped in it to visualize what they’re talking about. I didn’t read the book until more recently. If I had read it when it came out, it probably would have sounded like an unknown foreign language to me. Today it makes more sense.

This isn’t a manifesto. This isn’t a book. There is no time for that. It’s a warning and a possible solution from a desperate and determined survivor advocate who has been pulling and unraveling a thread for a few years. At times, I feel too close to this topic to make any sense trying to convey my pathway to my conclusions or thoughts to the general public. My hope is that if nothing else, I can convey my sense of urgency while writing this. This piece is a watchman’s warning.

When a child steps online, they are walking into a new world. A new reality. When you hand a child the internet, you are handing them possibilities—good, bad, and ugly. This is a conversation about lowering the potential of negative outcomes of stepping into that new world and how I came to these conclusions. I constantly compare the internet to the road. You wouldn’t let a young child run out into the road with no guidance or safety precautions. When you hand a child the internet without any type of guidance or safety measures, you are allowing them to play in rush hour, oncoming traffic. “Look left, look right for cars before crossing.” We almost all have been taught that as children. What are we taught as humans about safety before stepping into a completely different reality like the internet? Very little.

I could never really figure out why many folks in tech, privacy rights activists, and hackers seemed so cold to me while talking about online child sexual exploitation. I always figured that as a survivor advocate for those affected by these crimes, that specific, skilled group of individuals would be very welcoming and easy to talk to about such serious topics. I actually had one hacker laugh in my face when I brought it up while I was looking for answers. I thought maybe this individual thought I was accusing them of something I wasn’t, so I felt bad for asking. I was constantly extremely disappointed and would ask myself, “Why don’t they care? What could I say to make them care more? What could I say to make them understand the crisis and the level of suffering that happens as a result of the problem?”

I have been serving minor survivors of online child sexual exploitation for years. My first case serving a survivor of this specific crime was in 2018—a 13-year-old girl sexually exploited by a serial predator on Snapchat. That was my first glimpse into this side of the internet. I won a national award for serving the minor survivors of Twitter in 2023, but I had been working on that specific project for a few years. I was nominated by a lawyer representing two survivors in a legal battle against the platform. I’ve never really spoken about this before, but at the time it was a choice for me between fighting Snapchat or Twitter. I chose Twitter—or rather, Twitter chose me. I heard about the story of John Doe #1 and John Doe #2, and I was so unbelievably broken over it that I went to war for multiple years. I was and still am royally pissed about that case. As far as I was concerned, the John Doe #1 case proved that whatever was going on with corporate tech social media was so out of control that I didn’t have time to wait, so I got to work. It was reading the messages that John Doe #1 sent to Twitter begging them to remove his sexual exploitation that broke me. He was a child begging adults to do something. A passion for justice and protecting kids makes you do wild things. I was desperate to find answers about what happened and searched for solutions. In the end, the platform Twitter was purchased. During the acquisition, I just asked Mr. Musk nicely to prioritize the issue of detection and removal of child sexual exploitation without violating digital privacy rights or eroding end-to-end encryption. Elon thanked me multiple times during the acquisition, made some changes, and I was thanked by others on the survivors’ side as well.

I still feel that even with the progress made, I really just scratched the surface with Twitter, now X. I left that passion project when I did for a few reasons. I wanted to give new leadership time to tackle the issue. Elon Musk made big promises that I knew would take a while to fulfill, but mostly I had been watching global legislation transpire around the issue, and frankly, the governments are willing to go much further with X and the rest of corporate tech than I ever would. My work begging Twitter to make changes with easier reporting of content, detection, and removal of child sexual exploitation material—without violating privacy rights or eroding end-to-end encryption—and advocating for the minor survivors of the platform went as far as my principles would have allowed. I’m grateful for that experience. I was still left with a nagging question: “How did things get so bad with Twitter where the John Doe #1 and John Doe #2 case was able to happen in the first place?” I decided to keep looking for answers. I decided to keep pulling the thread.

I never worked for Twitter. This is often confusing for folks. I will say that despite being disappointed in the platform’s leadership at times, I loved Twitter. I saw and still see its value. I definitely love the survivors of the platform, but I also loved the platform. I was a champion of the platform’s ability to give folks from virtually around the globe an opportunity to speak and be heard.

I want to be clear that John Doe #1 really is my why. He is the inspiration. I am writing this because of him. He represents so many globally, and I’m still inspired by his bravery. One child’s voice begging adults to do something—I’m an adult, I heard him. I’d go to war a thousand more lifetimes for that young man, and I don’t even know his name. Fighting has been personally dark at times; I’m not even going to try to sugarcoat it, but it has been worth it.

The data surrounding the very real crime of online child sexual exploitation is available to the public online at any time for anyone to see. I’d encourage you to go look at the data for yourself. I believe in encouraging folks to check multiple sources so that you understand the full picture. If you are uncomfortable just searching around the internet for information about this topic, use the terms “CSAM,” “CSEM,” “SG-CSEM,” or “AI Generated CSAM.” The numbers don’t lie—it’s a nightmare that’s out of control. It’s a big business. The demand is high, and unfortunately, business is booming. Organizations collect the data, tech companies often post their data, governments report frequently, and the corporate press has covered a decent portion of the conversation, so I’m sure you can find a source that you trust.

Technology is changing rapidly, which is great for innovation as a whole but horrible for the crime of online child sexual exploitation. Those wishing to exploit the vulnerable seem to be adapting to each technological change with ease. The governments are so far behind with tackling these issues that as I’m typing this, it’s borderline irrelevant to even include them while speaking about the crime or potential solutions. Technology is changing too rapidly, and their old, broken systems can’t even dare to keep up. Think of it like the governments’ “War on Drugs.” Drugs won. In this case as well, the governments are not winning. The governments are talking about maybe having a meeting on potentially maybe having legislation around the crimes. The time to have that meeting would have been many years ago. I’m not advocating for governments to legislate our way out of this. I’m on the side of educating and innovating our way out of this.

I have been clear while advocating for the minor survivors of corporate tech platforms that I would not advocate for any solution to the crime that would violate digital privacy rights or erode end-to-end encryption. That has been a personal moral position that I was unwilling to budge on. This is an extremely unpopular and borderline nonexistent position in the anti-human trafficking movement and online child protection space. I’m often fearful that I’m wrong about this. I have always thought that a better pathway forward would have been to incentivize innovation for detection and removal of content. I had no previous exposure to privacy rights activists or Cypherpunks—actually, I came to that conclusion by listening to the voices of MENA region political dissidents and human rights activists. After developing relationships with human rights activists from around the globe, I realized how important privacy rights and encryption are for those who need it most globally. I was simply unwilling to give more power, control, and opportunities for mass surveillance to big abusers like governments wishing to enslave entire nations and untrustworthy corporate tech companies to potentially end some portion of abuses online. On top of all of it, it has been clear to me for years that all potential solutions outside of violating digital privacy rights to detect and remove child sexual exploitation online have not yet been explored aggressively. I’ve been disappointed that there hasn’t been more of a conversation around preventing the crime from happening in the first place.

What has been tried is mass surveillance. In China, they are currently under mass surveillance both online and offline, and their behaviors are attached to a social credit score. Unfortunately, even on state-run and controlled social media platforms, they still have child sexual exploitation and abuse imagery pop up along with other crimes and human rights violations. They also have a thriving black market online due to the oppression from the state. In other words, even an entire loss of freedom and privacy cannot end the sexual exploitation of children online. It’s been tried. There is no reason to repeat this method.

It took me an embarrassingly long time to figure out why I always felt a slight coldness from those in tech and privacy-minded individuals about the topic of child sexual exploitation online. I didn’t have any clue about the “Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse.” This is a term coined by Timothy C. May in 1988. I would have been a child myself when he first said it. I actually laughed at myself when I heard the phrase for the first time. I finally got it. The Cypherpunks weren’t wrong about that topic. They were so spot on that it is borderline uncomfortable. I was mad at first that they knew that early during the birth of the internet that this issue would arise and didn’t address it. Then I got over it because I realized that it wasn’t their job. Their job was—is—to write code. Their job wasn’t to be involved and loving parents or survivor advocates. Their job wasn’t to educate children on internet safety or raise awareness; their job was to write code.

They knew that child sexual abuse material would be shared on the internet. They said what would happen—not in a gleeful way, but a prediction. Then it happened.

I equate it now to a concrete company laying down a road. As you’re pouring the concrete, you can say to yourself, “A terrorist might travel down this road to go kill many, and on the flip side, a beautiful child can be born in an ambulance on this road.” Who or what travels down the road is not their responsibility—they are just supposed to lay the concrete. I’d never go to a concrete pourer and ask them to solve terrorism that travels down roads. Under the current system, law enforcement should stop terrorists before they even make it to the road. The solution to this specific problem is not to treat everyone on the road like a terrorist or to not build the road.

So I understand the perceived coldness from those in tech. Not only was it not their job, but bringing up the topic was seen as the equivalent of asking a free person if they wanted to discuss one of the four topics—child abusers, terrorists, drug dealers, intellectual property pirates, etc.—that would usher in digital authoritarianism for all who are online globally.

Privacy rights advocates and groups have put up a good fight. They stood by their principles. Unfortunately, when it comes to corporate tech, I believe that the issue of privacy is almost a complete lost cause at this point. It’s still worth pushing back, but ultimately, it is a losing battle—a ticking time bomb.

I do think that corporate tech providers could have slowed down the inevitable loss of privacy at the hands of the state by prioritizing the detection and removal of CSAM when they all started online. I believe it would have bought some time, fewer would have been traumatized by that specific crime, and I do believe that it could have slowed down the demand for content. If I think too much about that, I’ll go insane, so I try to push the “if maybes” aside, but never knowing if it could have been handled differently will forever haunt me. At night when it’s quiet, I wonder what I would have done differently if given the opportunity. I’ll probably never know how much corporate tech knew and ignored in the hopes that it would go away while the problem continued to get worse. They had different priorities. The most voiceless and vulnerable exploited on corporate tech never had much of a voice, so corporate tech providers didn’t receive very much pushback.

Now I’m about to say something really wild, and you can call me whatever you want to call me, but I’m going to say what I believe to be true. I believe that the governments are either so incompetent that they allowed the proliferation of CSAM online, or they knowingly allowed the problem to fester long enough to have an excuse to violate privacy rights and erode end-to-end encryption. The US government could have seized the corporate tech providers over CSAM, but I believe that they were so useful as a propaganda arm for the regimes that they allowed them to continue virtually unscathed.

That season is done now, and the governments are making the issue a priority. It will come at a high cost. Privacy on corporate tech providers is virtually done as I’m typing this. It feels like a death rattle. I’m not particularly sure that we had much digital privacy to begin with, but the illusion of a veil of privacy feels gone.

To make matters slightly more complex, it would be hard to convince me that once AI really gets going, digital privacy will exist at all.

I believe that there should be a conversation shift to preserving freedoms and human rights in a post-privacy society.

I don’t want to get locked up because AI predicted a nasty post online from me about the government. I’m not a doomer about AI—I’m just going to roll with it personally. I’m looking forward to the positive changes that will be brought forth by AI. I see it as inevitable. A bit of privacy was helpful while it lasted. Please keep fighting to preserve what is left of privacy either way because I could be wrong about all of this.

On the topic of AI, the addition of AI to the horrific crime of child sexual abuse material and child sexual exploitation in multiple ways so far has been devastating. It’s currently out of control. The genie is out of the bottle. I am hopeful that innovation will get us humans out of this, but I’m not sure how or how long it will take. We must be extremely cautious around AI legislation. It should not be illegal to innovate even if some bad comes with the good. I don’t trust that the governments are equipped to decide the best pathway forward for AI. Source: the entire history of the government.

I have been personally negatively impacted by AI-generated content. Every few days, I get another alert that I’m featured again in what’s called “deep fake pornography” without my consent. I’m not happy about it, but what pains me the most is the thought that for a period of time down the road, many globally will experience what myself and others are experiencing now by being digitally sexually abused in this way. If you have ever had your picture taken and posted online, you are also at risk of being exploited in this way. Your child’s image can be used as well, unfortunately, and this is just the beginning of this particular nightmare. It will move to more realistic interpretations of sexual behaviors as technology improves. I have no brave words of wisdom about how to deal with that emotionally. I do have hope that innovation will save the day around this specific issue. I’m nervous that everyone online will have to ID verify due to this issue. I see that as one possible outcome that could help to prevent one problem but inadvertently cause more problems, especially for those living under authoritarian regimes or anyone who needs to remain anonymous online. A zero-knowledge proof (ZKP) would probably be the best solution to these issues. There are some survivors of violence and/or sexual trauma who need to remain anonymous online for various reasons. There are survivor stories available online of those who have been abused in this way. I’d encourage you seek out and listen to their stories.

There have been periods of time recently where I hesitate to say anything at all because more than likely AI will cover most of my concerns about education, awareness, prevention, detection, and removal of child sexual exploitation online, etc.

Unfortunately, some of the most pressing issues we’ve seen online over the last few years come in the form of “sextortion.” Self-generated child sexual exploitation (SG-CSEM) numbers are continuing to be terrifying. I’d strongly encourage that you look into sextortion data. AI + sextortion is also a huge concern. The perpetrators are using the non-sexually explicit images of children and putting their likeness on AI-generated child sexual exploitation content and extorting money, more imagery, or both from minors online. It’s like a million nightmares wrapped into one. The wild part is that these issues will only get more pervasive because technology is harnessed to perpetuate horror at a scale unimaginable to a human mind.

Even if you banned phones and the internet or tried to prevent children from accessing the internet, it wouldn’t solve it. Child sexual exploitation will still be with us until as a society we start to prevent the crime before it happens. That is the only human way out right now.

There is no reset button on the internet, but if I could go back, I’d tell survivor advocates to heed the warnings of the early internet builders and to start education and awareness campaigns designed to prevent as much online child sexual exploitation as possible. The internet and technology moved quickly, and I don’t believe that society ever really caught up. We live in a world where a child can be groomed by a predator in their own home while sitting on a couch next to their parents watching TV. We weren’t ready as a species to tackle the fast-paced algorithms and dangers online. It happened too quickly for parents to catch up. How can you parent for the ever-changing digital world unless you are constantly aware of the dangers?

I don’t think that the internet is inherently bad. I believe that it can be a powerful tool for freedom and resistance. I’ve spoken a lot about the bad online, but there is beauty as well. We often discuss how victims and survivors are abused online; we rarely discuss the fact that countless survivors around the globe have been able to share their experiences, strength, hope, as well as provide resources to the vulnerable. I do question if giving any government or tech company access to censorship, surveillance, etc., online in the name of serving survivors might not actually impact a portion of survivors negatively. There are a fair amount of survivors with powerful abusers protected by governments and the corporate press. If a survivor cannot speak to the press about their abuse, the only place they can go is online, directly or indirectly through an independent journalist who also risks being censored. This scenario isn’t hard to imagine—it already happened in China. During #MeToo, a survivor in China wanted to post their story. The government censored the post, so the survivor put their story on the blockchain. I’m excited that the survivor was creative and brave, but it’s terrifying to think that we live in a world where that situation is a necessity.

I believe that the future for many survivors sharing their stories globally will be on completely censorship-resistant and decentralized protocols. This thought in particular gives me hope. When we listen to the experiences of a diverse group of survivors, we can start to understand potential solutions to preventing the crimes from happening in the first place.

My heart is broken over the gut-wrenching stories of survivors sexually exploited online. Every time I hear the story of a survivor, I do think to myself quietly, “What could have prevented this from happening in the first place?” My heart is with survivors.

My head, on the other hand, is full of the understanding that the internet should remain free. The free flow of information should not be stopped. My mind is with the innocent citizens around the globe that deserve freedom both online and offline.

The problem is that governments don’t only want to censor illegal content that violates human rights—they create legislation that is so broad that it can impact speech and privacy of all. “Don’t you care about the kids?” Yes, I do. I do so much that I’m invested in finding solutions. I also care about all citizens around the globe that deserve an opportunity to live free from a mass surveillance society. If terrorism happens online, I should not be punished by losing my freedom. If drugs are sold online, I should not be punished. I’m not an abuser, I’m not a terrorist, and I don’t engage in illegal behaviors. I refuse to lose freedom because of others’ bad behaviors online.

I want to be clear that on a long enough timeline, the governments will decide that they can be better parents/caregivers than you can if something isn’t done to stop minors from being sexually exploited online. The price will be a complete loss of anonymity, privacy, free speech, and freedom of religion online. I find it rather insulting that governments think they’re better equipped to raise children than parents and caretakers.

So we can’t go backwards—all that we can do is go forward. Those who want to have freedom will find technology to facilitate their liberation. This will lead many over time to decentralized and open protocols. So as far as I’m concerned, this does solve a few of my worries—those who need, want, and deserve to speak freely online will have the opportunity in most countries—but what about online child sexual exploitation?

When I popped up around the decentralized space, I was met with the fear of censorship. I’m not here to censor you. I don’t write code. I couldn’t censor anyone or any piece of content even if I wanted to across the internet, no matter how depraved. I don’t have the skills to do that.

I’m here to start a conversation. Freedom comes at a cost. You must always fight for and protect your freedom. I can’t speak about protecting yourself from all of the Four Horsemen because I simply don’t know the topics well enough, but I can speak about this one topic.

If there was a shortcut to ending online child sexual exploitation, I would have found it by now. There isn’t one right now. I believe that education is the only pathway forward to preventing the crime of online child sexual exploitation for future generations.

I propose a yearly education course for every child of all school ages, taught as a standard part of the curriculum. Ideally, parents/caregivers would be involved in the education/learning process.

Course: - The creation of the internet and computers - The fight for cryptography - The tech supply chain from the ground up (example: human rights violations in the supply chain) - Corporate tech - Freedom tech - Data privacy - Digital privacy rights - AI (history-current) - Online safety (predators, scams, catfishing, extortion) - Bitcoin - Laws - How to deal with online hate and harassment - Information on who to contact if you are being abused online or offline - Algorithms - How to seek out the truth about news, etc., online

The parents/caregivers, homeschoolers, unschoolers, and those working to create decentralized parallel societies have been an inspiration while writing this, but my hope is that all children would learn this course, even in government ran schools. Ideally, parents would teach this to their own children.

The decentralized space doesn’t want child sexual exploitation to thrive. Here’s the deal: there has to be a strong prevention effort in order to protect the next generation. The internet isn’t going anywhere, predators aren’t going anywhere, and I’m not down to let anyone have the opportunity to prove that there is a need for more government. I don’t believe that the government should act as parents. The governments have had a chance to attempt to stop online child sexual exploitation, and they didn’t do it. Can we try a different pathway forward?

I’d like to put myself out of a job. I don’t want to ever hear another story like John Doe #1 ever again. This will require work. I’ve often called online child sexual exploitation the lynchpin for the internet. It’s time to arm generations of children with knowledge and tools. I can’t do this alone.

Individuals have fought so that I could have freedom online. I want to fight to protect it. I don’t want child predators to give the government any opportunity to take away freedom. Decentralized spaces are as close to a reset as we’ll get with the opportunity to do it right from the start. Start the youth off correctly by preventing potential hazards to the best of your ability.

The good news is anyone can work on this! I’d encourage you to take it and run with it. I added the additional education about the history of the internet to make the course more educational and fun. Instead of cleaning up generations of destroyed lives due to online sexual exploitation, perhaps this could inspire generations of those who will build our futures. Perhaps if the youth is armed with knowledge, they can create more tools to prevent the crime.

This one solution that I’m suggesting can be done on an individual level or on a larger scale. It should be adjusted depending on age, learning style, etc. It should be fun and playful.

This solution does not address abuse in the home or some of the root causes of offline child sexual exploitation. My hope is that it could lead to some survivors experiencing abuse in the home an opportunity to disclose with a trusted adult. The purpose for this solution is to prevent the crime of online child sexual exploitation before it occurs and to arm the youth with the tools to contact safe adults if and when it happens.

In closing, I went to hell a few times so that you didn’t have to. I spoke to the mothers of survivors of minors sexually exploited online—their tears could fill rivers. I’ve spoken with political dissidents who yearned to be free from authoritarian surveillance states. The only balance that I’ve found is freedom online for citizens around the globe and prevention from the dangers of that for the youth. Don’t slow down innovation and freedom. Educate, prepare, adapt, and look for solutions.

I’m not perfect and I’m sure that there are errors in this piece. I hope that you find them and it starts a conversation.

@ b1b16be0:08f41c1d

Norte

Sur Te ayuda avanzar! Y a tomar conciencia! 🔥Fuego 🌎Tierra 🔴Marte 🎵Mantra: Om Namo Bhagavate Narasimhaya Namaha

Sur Este Influye en transacciones prósperas y transiciones suaves 🔥Fuego 🔘Venus 🎵Mantra: https://youtu.be/45a4KwLTTHo?feature=shared

@ 078d6670:56049f0c

It felt like a pine cone had been dropped on my head from a great height, but there was no pine tree and, really, just sky and stars above me. I looked on the balcony around me, there was nothing. I resumed my slouch on the bench, re-lit the joint and contemplated the Universe.

After five minutes, the Universe hit again.

The anger bolted me off the bench. I looked around frantically for something to blame, an object lying red-faced on the floor, but nothing. I borrowed a high-powered torch and lit up the closest tree. Nothing suspicious, just the usual night shadows and leaves.

I came to the conclusion it had to be some kind of nocturnal bird protecting its nest: Night Jar or Owl.

It hit me again a week later on the back of my head on the deck below. But this time I caught a glimpse of its silent wings reflecting the ambient glow of the warm light from the lounge lamp just inside the house. Bust!

A Wood Owl.

It sat innocently on a branch staring back at me. I sat back on the bench, mesmerized and relieved. I re-lit the joint.

What does it mean? It’s got to mean something in this dreamworld. An omen, or portent, or am I just being paranoid that the Universe is trying to sabotage me. Okay, so we usually associate owls with wisdom, does that mean wisdom is going to hit me on the head? Surprise realizations busting my mind? And if I don’t get it, what’s next, lightning?!

I hope not.

It could be a simple reminder to be mindful of Consciousness around me. Like in a dream, everything is me. In this mysterious realm, Everything is Consciousness. And so in Vedanta philosophy: I am no-thing, but Consciousness.

The world around me is abundant in symbolism. I constantly ignore it, waiting for the booming sky-voice (or the owl whacking me on the back of the head), ignoring the micro-realizations, the little wisdoms discounted as monkey mind ramblings.

I know what I need to do. I tell myself every day. I am wise, it’s time to act like it.

@ ed84ce10:cccf4c2a

The Evolution of Hackathons: From Offline to Online, Powering Frontier Innovation Worldwide

Throughout the history of open-source platform technology, hackathons have been the launchpads for innovation—fueling breakthroughs, incubating the next generation of startups, and serving as the proving ground for builders. Over the past decade, DoraHacks has led the charge, driving the hacker movement and open-source revolution. We didn’t just witness the evolution of hackathons—we architected it.

The Online Revolution of Hackathons

Before 2020, hackathons were largely stuck in the physical world—you had to be in the room to participate. The idea of a fully online, global hackathon was a pipe dream. Then, DoraHacks.io changed everything. Suddenly, a developer in Africa could win funding from a hackathon hosted by a Silicon Valley company. Geographic barriers collapsed. Today, over 95% of hackathons happen online.

The Infrastructure Revolution: Making Hackathons 10x More Effective

DoraHacks relentlessly iterated on the hackathon model. We built BUIDL pages for real-time project showcases, a world-class hackathon organizer dashboard, MACI-powered decentralized privacy governance, and Grant DAOs that provide ongoing funding. The result? DoraHacks became the ultimate launchpad for hackers and early-stage builders.

The Ecosystem Revolution: Supercharging Open Innovation

DoraHacks became the backbone of Web3 innovation—from Ethereum, Solana, and BNB Chain to the next wave of blockchains like Aptos, Cosmos, Injective, TON, and Sonic. Since 2023, hackathons have expanded beyond crypto—quantum computing, commercial space tech, and AI-driven innovations are now being built on DoraHacks.

Rolling Hackathons and Uninterrupted BUIDLing - the New Standard for Ecosystem Growth

BUIDLs can be created spontaneously at any time. Hosting Hackathons as short-term events held only once or twice a year is not conducive to attracting outstanding Hackers and high-quality projects to join the ecosystem and drive innovation in the long term. To remediate this, Hackathons should be continuous and uninterrupted, serving as a long-term driving force within the developer ecosystem.

Historically, the high organizational costs and substantial resource investments associated with frequent Hackathons meant that most emerging ecosystems couldn't afford to host them regularly. As a result, Hackathons became rare, annual spectacles, and for some projects, an unaffordable luxury. This model severely restricted developers' chances to participate and hindered the ecosystem's ability to innovate consistently. Let's imagine what would happen if an ecosystem held 12 or more Hackathons each year?

• Developers have a clear loyalty incentive: They would know that the ecosystem is committed to supporting and funding excellent developers and projects continuously, which would encourage them to make long-term investments and contribute regularly.
• Missing out is no longer an issue: Even if a developer couldn't attend a particular Hackathon, there would be another one soon, increasing accessibility.
• Accelerated ecosystem innovation: Frequent Hackathons would accelerate ecosystem innovation. Developers would be constantly pushed to explore new directions, significantly boosting the growth rate of the technological ecosystem.

Previously, due to the limitations of costs and organizational difficulties, frequent Hackathons were almost unthinkable. Only ecosystems with sufficient funds like Google and Amazon could afford rolling Hackathons. But now, DoraHacks' upcoming BUIDL AI platform tools are set to change the game. These tools make it possible to organize 12 Hackathons in a year, and even go a step further by enabling the simultaneous hosting of multiple differently-themed Hackathons. This will help emerging ecosystems effectively incentivise developers, expand their technological influence, and increase the number of exceptional BUIDLs (projects) in their ecosystems.

The majority of BUIDLs come about continuously and spontaneously and should be recognized and incentivized promptly, rather than having to wait for the single annual Hackathon.

As the saying goes, "He who wins over developers wins the world." In the highly competitive Web3 space, Hackathons are an effective means of attracting developers, and rolling Hackathons are the best way to achieve this. For an ecosystem to stay competitive, it must ensure that developers always have opportunities to engage and create.

The AI Era of Hackathons: A 10x Opportunity, A 10x Challenge

AI Turns Everyone Into a Hacker

AI has obliterated repetitive work. Building is faster than ever. Anyone, from anywhere, can hack, ship, and scale with AI tools that accelerate ideation, development, and execution. The potential of hackathons in this AI-powered era is 10x bigger than ever before.

But Hackathon Infrastructure Is Stuck in the Past

Despite this massive opportunity, organizing hackathons remains painfully inefficient:

• Most organizations don’t know how to run hackathons effectively.
• Even those who do lack time and resources to do it frequently.
• Ecosystem builders who have the resources can only host one hackathon per year.

The result?

• Hackathons are underutilized, slowing innovation.
• Ecosystem growth is bottlenecked by developer relations (DevRel) teams.
• Many ecosystems fail to maximize the potential of hackathons.
• Low-frequency hackathons waste hacker potential—builders sit idle when they could be shipping.

BUIDL AI: Unlocking the Infinite Potential of Hackathons

We refuse to let inefficiency limit innovation. BUIDL AI is our answer.

DoraHacks is launching BUIDL AI, the AI-powered Hackathon Co-Pilot that automates, scales, and supercharges hackathon organization.

BUIDL AI: The Game-Changing Features

1. Edit and Launch: One-Click Hackathon Deployment

Organizers can now launch a hackathon in minutes by filling in basic details (prizes, themes, workshops, judges, etc.). No tedious manual setup.

2. BUIDL Review: Submission Evaluation (10x Faster)

Traditional hackathons get hundreds of submissions—judging takes hundreds of hours. BUIDL AI changes the game. It automatically scores projects based on completeness, originality, and theme relevance—filtering out low-quality submissions 10x faster than before.

3. Automated Marketing: Instant Hackathon Reports

After the hackathon ends, BUIDL AI auto-generates a full post-event report—highlighting winners, standout projects, and key takeaways—boosting visibility and impact.

4. Seamless Interaction: Smarter Collaboration, No Bottlenecks

BUIDL AI will interact with hackathon organizers to keep organizers in sync, alerting them about new submissions, pending approvals, and participant inquiries in real time. No more dropped balls.

5. Multi-Hackathon Management: Scaling Innovation Without Limits

Before BUIDL AI, running multiple hackathons at once was a logistical nightmare. Now, ecosystem builders can launch and manage multiple hackathons seamlessly, boosting innovation frequency exponentially

The full BUIDL AI Beta version will release on April 15th, but multiple free BUIDL AI features have already been available on DoraHacks.io!

BUIDL AI: The Next Great Leap in Open Innovation

Hackathons aren’t just competitions. They are the birthplace of the next trillion-dollar innovations.

With BUIDL AI, hackathons enter a new era—automated, intelligent, and infinitely scalable. This means more hackers, more builders, and more breakthrough projects than ever before.

At DoraHacks, we believe in an open, hacker-driven future. BUIDL AI is the rocket fuel for that future.

@ d6c48950:54d57756

A lot of people talk about how bitcoin has averaged 60% yearly but I personally find this to be misleading so I thought I'd use historic prices and portfolioperformance to see if you DCA (or in this case did a weekly purchase) starting at jan 1st of each year ending dec 31st

| Year | % Change | |------|----------| | 2024 | +124% | | 2023 | +140% | | 2022 | -60% | | 2021 | +60% | | 2020 | +267% | | 2019 | +71% | | 2018 | -67% | | 2017 | +588% | | 2016 | +38% | | 2015 | +7% |

If you showed this to any investor at any hedge fund they wouldn't believe it, yet this is something that through DCA apps like strike is performance anyone can get through just setting it and forgetting it.

@ e97aaffa:2ebd765d

No programa Pé de Meia do Camilo Lourenço, o seu recorrente convidado/patrocinador, explica os critérios que utiliza para avaliar as empresas. Segundo ele, um dos principais critérios para selecionar as melhores empresas, são critérios intangíveis.

Curiosamente, este mesmo senhor, num programa anterior, critica e recusa-se a investir em Bitcoin. Uma justificativa apresentada era, que não investia em algo que não podia ser palpável, que não poderia ser calculado o valor, ou seja, por ser intangível.

Só que neste programa, entra em contradição, ao dizer que um dos principais critérios que utiliza para avaliar as empresas são critérios intangíveis. A hipocrisia do tradiFi.

No programa foi apresentada a seguinte tabela:

Os pontos apresentados na tabela, são essencialmente os mesmos que nós, bitcoiners, utilizamos para caracterizar o Bitcoin, os seus pontos fortes.

Os tradiFi vivem numa cegueira ideológica, que não o permite ver o óbvio, mas o tempo é implacável, mais tarde ou mais cedo vão mudar de opinião. E quem não mudar vai ficar para trás.

@ 7d33ba57:1b82db35

Cádiz

Cádiz, one of Europe’s oldest cities, is a stunning Andalusian port town with golden beaches, rich history, and lively local culture. Surrounded by the Atlantic Ocean, it offers a blend of ancient charm, delicious seafood, and vibrant festivals.

🏛️ Top Things to See & Do in Cádiz

1️⃣ Cádiz Cathedral (Catedral de Cádiz)

A magnificent baroque and neoclassical cathedral with a golden dome. Climb the Torre de Poniente for panoramic city views!

2️⃣ La Caleta Beach

A picturesque urban beach framed by historic fortresses—perfect for sunset views and a relaxing swim.

3️⃣ Torre Tavira & Camera Obscura

One of Cádiz’s watchtowers, offering stunning 360° views and a fascinating optical projection of the city.

4️⃣ Mercado Central (Central Market)

A paradise for seafood lovers, where you can taste fresh fish, tapas, and local specialties.

5️⃣ Castillo de San Sebastián & Castillo de Santa Catalina

Two historic coastal fortresses with incredible views of the ocean and city skyline.

6️⃣ Plaza de España & Monument to the Constitution of 1812

A beautiful square with grand architecture, celebrating Spain’s first liberal constitution.

7️⃣ Walk the Seaside Promenades

Enjoy a scenic stroll along the Alameda Apodaca or the Parque Genovés, full of palm trees and ocean breezes.

🍽️ What to Eat in Cádiz

• Pescaíto frito – Crispy fried fish, a local specialty 🐟
• Tortillitas de camarones – Shrimp fritters, light and crunchy 🍤
• Atún de almadraba – Fresh tuna, often grilled or marinated 🐟
• Sherry wine (Jerez) – Cádiz is near Jerez, home of the famous fortified wine 🍷

🚆 How to Get to Cádiz

🚆 By Train: Direct trains from Seville (~1.5 hrs)
🚗 By Car: ~1 hr 20 min from Seville
✈️ Nearest Airport: Jerez Airport (XRY), ~40 min away

💡 Tips for Visiting Cádiz

✅ Best time to visit: Spring & summer for the beaches, February for the Cádiz Carnival 🎭
✅ Wear comfy shoes – Cádiz is best explored on foot! 👟
✅ Day trips – Visit Jerez de la Frontera for sherry & flamenco or Bolonia Beach for Roman ruins

@ fd78c37f:a0ec0833

In this edition, we’re thrilled to sit down with Tomek K from Bitcoin Alby, a passionate advocate for Bitcoin’s global adoption. Tomek K shares how Alby is driving innovation in the Bitcoin ecosystem and offers a glimpse into his vision for the cryptocurrency’s future. From his journey as a libertarian activist to co-founding the Bitcoin Film Festival, Tomek K’s story is one of curiosity, purpose, and a relentless pursuit of freedom through technology.

YakiHonne: Tomek K, it’s a pleasure to meet you! Today, we’re diving into your community topic—Alby Wallet. But before we begin, let me introduce our readers to Yakihonne. Yakihonne is a decentralized media client powered by the Nostr protocol, dedicated to promoting free speech through technology. It empowers creators to truly own their voices and assets, offering features like smart filtering, verified notes, and a focus on long-form content. So, Tomek, could you tell us about yourself and your work with Alby?

Tomek K: Of course! I’m Tomek K, originally from Poland, and right now, I’m speaking to you from Sri Lanka. I love traveling and observing how different countries adopt Bitcoin. For most of my career, I’ve been a free-market advocate, promoting economic freedom through various projects—essentially doing PR for capitalism. I’ve organized conferences, political demonstrations, economic seminars, summer festivals, and even opened a bar in Warsaw to spread these ideas in different ways.

During this advocacy work, I came across Bitcoin. At first, I didn’t pay much attention to it, but over time, I started feeling frustrated—our efforts raised awareness about freedom, but they didn’t bring measurable change. That led me to study Bitcoin more deeply, and I gradually shifted my focus to Bitcoin activism. Along the way, I collaborated with publishers to translate Bitcoin-related books into Polish and co-founded the Bitcoin Film Festival with friends from Meetup. Later, I joined Alby, marking my transition from free-market activism to Bitcoin promotion.

At the Bitcoin Film Festival, I handle operations and networking—organizing the event, managing logistics, and making things happen. Our team is small, but I enjoy the work. I’m passionate about Bitcoin because I came for the revolution, and I’m staying for the revolution.

That said, I don’t consider myself a Bitcoin absolutist. I see Bitcoin as a tool for freedom, not just a currency or a more efficient technology. If there were a better tool for advancing liberty and making societies freer, I’d probably focus on that. But for now, Bitcoin appears to be the most effective tool for freedom. Ultimately, I consider myself a “life maximalist”—because to live a good life, you need freedom, and to have freedom today, you need sound money. And right now, that money is Bitcoin.

YakiHonne: Was there a specific moment or event that sparked your interest in Bitcoin and motivated you to join the Alby community?

Tomek K: What attracted me to Bitcoin was its promise of global monetary independence and its ability to reduce the control of the Federal Reserve, central banks, and governments—the strongest and most covert control mechanisms in the world. Unfortunately, many people, even libertarians, often overlook this.

As for why I joined Alby, it’s because this startup is driven by values and mission rather than simply chasing profits, like selling tokens or games. This aligns well with my interest in the Lightning Network. As I explored Lightning more deeply, I came across Alby. I’ve always enjoyed testing new tools, trying them firsthand, and understanding the communities behind them—so naturally, I became part of it. Along the way, I also got to know some of the team members, which reinforced my involvement.

Additionally, Alby supported the Bitcoin Film Festival. While they weren’t the largest sponsor, their contribution was generous. The festival served as a great platform for them and other projects. I think it was good marketing because people like me—who have strong networking skills, arrange podcast interviews, and organize various activities—help build awareness and positive PR. That was part of my role.

If I had to pinpoint a single defining moment that led me here, I honestly couldn’t. Becoming a Bitcoiner doesn’t happen overnight. You can’t just read The Bitcoin Standard, declare that you understand Bitcoin, and instantly become a maximalist. Anyone who’s intellectually honest will admit that it takes multiple touchpoints—articles, films, career shifts, essays, hands-on experimentation, and actually using Bitcoin—to truly grasp its significance. I had many such moments along the way: reading The Bitcoin Standard, learning from friends who had a deeper understanding of Bitcoin, and working at Alby, which further expanded my knowledge of the Lightning Network’s capabilities and limitations. It wasn’t one turning point but a series of pivotal experiences that shaped my path.

YakiHonne: How did the Alby community start, and how did it attract its first members?

Tomek K: When I joined Alby, the community had already been established for some time. It originally emerged within the browser design community, where early users helped developers refine the product by providing feedback. That’s how the first members joined, and this process has been ongoing for four years now.

As for how Alby attracted members, it was through a mix of channels—social media (Twitter, Telegram, Discord), email engagement, and active participation in Bitcoin conferences. But the core strategy has always been openness, engaging with users, and listening to their feedback. Sometimes that means making a joke, sometimes defending against unfair criticism, and other times implementing requested features. We’ve always worked to maintain an active and friendly community atmosphere.

We also host bi-weekly community calls, which are a central part of our activities. Every two weeks, available team members meet with users for open Q&A sessions, issue discussions, and demonstrations of various projects integrating with Alby. I’ve participated in some of these calls, and they help maintain strong relationships with users, developers, and other projects—something crucial for the ecosystem. The Bitcoin technology landscape is somewhat fragmented, and grassroots coordination is necessary since there’s no single leader defining terminology or coding practices.

That’s also why Alby doesn’t exist in isolation. Almost everything we’ve built has been made possible by the creators of previous libraries, prior codebases, and collaborative efforts in writing specifications for protocols. Projects like Yakihonne and many others also recognize the importance of open-source collaboration. I think it’s essential to acknowledge the contributions of the open-source community. One thing I really appreciate is that Bitcoiners are driving open-source development in virtually every part of the world, all working toward a shared and meaningful goal.

YakiHonne:Were there any notable challenges in the early days that left a strong impression on you?

Tomek K :When I first joined Alby, I struggled with a bit of imposter syndrome for months. I was handling PR for the project, but I didn’t fully understand all the technical details—how certain protocols interact or what’s happening under the hood. It took time to get familiar with everything and really feel like I belonged.

Regulatory pressure has also been a huge challenge. In some cases, developers have been arrested, projects have had to leave certain countries, and users have been geoblocked based on their location. But challenges like these can also drive innovation. For example, Alby developed AlbyHub, an open-source self-custodial node, as a response to these kinds of issues.

There are always risks in this space—governments might suddenly demand a banking license or require compliance with new regulations. These are real obstacles, but we tackle them by embracing decentralization and open-source solutions. That’s how we ensure the project stays true to its mission and vision.

YakiHonne:If someone wanted to start a Bitcoin community today or grow an existing one, what advice would you give them?

Tomek K: The most important thing is to just get started. A community begins with action, and it takes more than one person. Even if it’s just you and a friend grabbing a beer, that’s already a start. Maybe after the first or second meetup, you post on Meetup.com, Twitter, or local forums:"Hey, we’re hosting a Bitcoin meetup in this city. We just want to connect with other Bitcoiners!" If you keep doing it consistently, the community will naturally grow. Over time, the bar where you meet might get interested in accepting Bitcoin, or you might meet some OGs in your area who decide to join—maybe they already run a business and want to support what you’re doing.

You don’t have to over-plan everything from the start. No need to think, “We need a podcast, 10 episodes, a logo…”—all that can come later. Just bootstrap it: organize a meetup, grab a beer, and get going. As you go, you’ll adapt, improve, and build recognition.Beyond that, it’s a great way to meet other Bitcoiners, develop leadership skills, and learn about community building. And at the very least, you’ll have fun doing it—which, honestly, is one of the main reasons I keep organizing meetups and other activities.

YakiHonne: Exactly, the key is to take action—just start and see where it leads. Does your community focus more on Bitcoin’s technical aspects, like coding and development, or do you emphasize non-technical areas such as education and outreach? Or do you try to balance both?

Tomek K: Our users come from all kinds of backgrounds. Some are very engaged and provide feedback regularly, while others prefer to stay in the background. Some attend our community calls, and within that group, some are developers actively building projects and collaborating with us. At the same time, there are developers we know are out there, but they never directly engage with us. That’s just how the Bitcoin community works—there’s no strict definition of being part of Alby. People engage in their own way. Some users are active on Discord, some aren’t, but we treat them all as part of the family, keeping them informed through newsletters, offering support, and making sure they stay updated with what’s happening at Alby.

As for whether we lean more toward technical development or non-technical outreach, there’s no clear-cut answer. Our community is diverse—we cater to a wide range of Lightning Network users. Some just use the browser extension, while others are deeply involved in our ecosystem. We also work with NGOs, educational initiatives, and community organizations. At the same time, we place a strong emphasis on developers and maintaining good relationships with them. Our repositories and developer portal offer useful libraries and examples, making it easier for both aspiring and experienced developers to integrate the Lightning Network into their projects. Developer relations are something we consider highly important.

YakiHonne: I understand that you're also the founder of another Bitcoin-related film project. Could you tell us a bit about it? What exactly inspired you to combine Bitcoin and filmmaking?

Tomek K: Yes, I founded Bitcoin Film Fest to help build what I call Bitcoin Cinema—an emerging industry that blends Bitcoin and filmmaking. I wanted to track everything happening at the intersection of these two worlds. Just like e-commerce, energy, and information technology, I believe the film industry will eventually be shaped by Bitcoin. And in fact, it’s already happening. There are Bitcoin-themed movies, and even major Hollywood productions have started including Bitcoin references. Bitcoin filmmakers, Bitcoin culture, and even a Bitcoin subculture already exist. We have our own heroes, stories, and values, and from this, films are being created. I love cinema, and I love Bitcoin—this was my way of bringing the two together.

The festival itself happened somewhat by accident—but maybe it was meant to be. It all started in Warsaw when I was organizing a Bitcoin meetup. I planned to screen a Bitcoin documentary, but due to technical issues, it didn’t happen. So, over a few beers, we came up with an idea: if we couldn’t show one film, why not go all in and create a full-scale Bitcoin film festival? We started researching and realized there were enough Bitcoin-related films out there to make it happen. So, we did.

The response from the community was overwhelmingly positive. It became clear that people wanted a space for Bitcoin cinema—a hub for information, networking, and collaboration. We started using the term “Binema” (Bitcoin Cinema) to describe this emerging genre. I find it fascinating to witness the growth of Bitcoin culture and storytelling. Before this, I had followed libertarian artistic movements closely, and now I see how important culture is for Bitcoin’s adoption—it’s not just about the technical and financial aspects.

Bitcoin adoption isn’t going to happen overnight, and it won’t happen without developers, educators, infrastructure builders, UX designers, and many others contributing to the ecosystem. Culture is one of the most powerful tools for shaping society, and I, like many others, am working to bring Bitcoin adoption closer through film. We’re witnessing the early days of Bitcoin cinema. I missed out on the birth of traditional cinema, but this time, I want to be part of it.

YakiHonne:In your region, does the government support or oppose Bitcoin? How has this stance impacted the development of the Bitcoin community so far?

Tomek K :Bitcoin doesn’t concern itself with nation-state borders, and frankly, we don’t either. The situation in Poland has little influence on what we do. The only connection is that I, along with two others, happen to be in Poland, but most of our team is globally distributed. On a broader scale, the U.S. tends to shape regulatory trends, and unfortunately, it often does so in a more restrictive way. However, Poland itself hasn’t had a significant impact on our work.

YakiHonne:Has your Bitcoin Film Fest community ever used film as a way to connect with members—perhaps by watching a Bitcoin-related movie or hosting a movie night to make things more fun and engaging? Have you done anything like that before?

Tomek K:Yes, absolutely! The film festival itself is a great example—we watch movies together and build a community around them. Aside from the festival we organized in Warsaw, we've also hosted film screenings at various Bitcoin events, like Sats and Facts in Thailand, BTC Prague, Plan B Lugano, Frimadera, Adopting Bitcoin, and several other conferences. We also organize online watch parties—actually, there's one happening next Sunday. The movie is available on Prime Video, but we'll sync up on Discord to watch it together, chat, and share our thoughts. We'll be announcing it on Twitter, so if you check Bitcoin Film Fest on Twitter, you'll find details on how to join.

Film has been a great way to connect with members and spark discussions. We've seen Bitcoin meetups worldwide organizing movie nights—our volunteer friends in Montenegro have hosted one, and our partners in Kenya and South Africa have done the same. Lately, movie nights have been happening more and more frequently, which is exciting.

It's still early—after all, Bitcoin is only 16 years old, so the selection of Bitcoin movies is still relatively small. Many of these films haven’t had large budgets or massive talent pools yet, but that’s changing. Right now, we’re primarily focused on showing films within the Bitcoin community rather than creating films aimed at the general public. That said, those kinds of projects are also emerging. I’m optimistic about the growth of Bitcoin cinema—better storytelling, AI-driven advancements, increasing interest from audiences, and even sponsors willing to invest in filmmakers. Big things are coming, and while we already have some great Bitcoin films, the best is yet to come. We’re still in the early days, and this is the time to contribute and help shape the future of Bitcoin cinema.

YakiHonne:We’ve come to the end of today’s interview, and I’ve truly enjoyed every moment of it. I’m very sure your idea will be incredibly engaging, inspiring more people and attracting a broad audience. Thank you so much for your time today—it was a great conversation.

@ 88dc84f5:c71164f7

Quantum computing is a revolutionary technology that has the potential to solve complex problems that are currently unsolvable with traditional computers. In this beginner's guide, we'll explore the basics of quantum computing, its principles, and potential applications.

What is Quantum Computing?

Quantum computing is a type of computing that uses the principles of quantum mechanics to perform calculations. Unlike classical computers, which use bits to store and process information, quantum computers use quantum bits or qubits.

Qubits: The Building Blocks of Quantum Computing

Qubits are the fundamental units of quantum information. They have the unique ability to exist in multiple states simultaneously, which allows quantum computers to process multiple possibilities at the same time.

How Does Quantum Computing Work?

Quantum computing works by exploiting the unique properties of qubits. Here's a simplified overview of the process:

1. Preparation: Qubits are prepared in a specific state.
2. Quantum gates: Quantum gates are applied to the qubits to perform operations.
3. Measurement: The qubits are measured to retrieve the results.

Key Principles of Quantum Computing:

1. Superposition: Qubits can exist in multiple states simultaneously.
2. Entanglement: Qubits can become "entangled," meaning their properties are connected even when separated.
3. Quantum measurement: Qubits can be measured, which causes them to collapse into a single state.

Potential Applications of Quantum Computing:

1. Cryptography: Quantum computers can break certain types of encryption, but they can also be used to create unbreakable encryption methods.
2. Optimization: Quantum computers can be used to optimize complex systems, such as logistics and supply chains.
3. Materials science: Quantum computers can be used to simulate the behavior of materials at the atomic level.
4. Artificial intelligence: Quantum computers can be used to speed up certain types of machine learning algorithms.

Real-World Examples of Quantum Computing: 1. Google's Quantum AI Lab: Google has developed a quantum computer that can be used to optimize machine learning algorithms. 2. IBM's Quantum Experience: IBM has developed a cloud-based quantum computer that can be used by researchers and developers. 3. Quantum-inspired optimization: Companies like Volkswagen and Lockheed Martin are using quantum-inspired optimization techniques to improve their operations.

Challenges and Limitations of Quantum Computing: 1. Error correction: Quantum computers are prone to errors due to the fragile nature of qubits. 2. Scalability: Currently, quantum computers are small-scale and need to be scaled up to be practical. 3. Quantum noise: Quantum computers are susceptible to noise, which can cause errors.

Conclusion:

Quantum computing has the potential to revolutionize many fields, from cryptography to materials science. While there are challenges and limitations to overcome, the potential benefits of quantum computing make it an exciting and rapidly evolving field.

Glossary of Terms: - Qubit: A quantum bit, the fundamental unit of quantum information. - Superposition: The ability of a qubit to exist in multiple states simultaneously. - Entanglement: The connection between two or more qubits that allows them to affect each other even when separated. - Quantum measurement: The process of measuring a qubit, which causes it to collapse into a single state.

I hope this beginner's guide has provided a helpful introduction to the world of quantum computing! @Yakihonne

@ 75869cfa:76819987

GM, Nostriches!

The Nostr Review is a biweekly newsletter focused on Nostr statistics, protocol updates, exciting programs, the long-form content ecosystem, and key events happening in the Nostr-verse. If you’re interested, join me in covering updates from the Nostr ecosystem!

Quick review:

In the past two weeks, Nostr statistics indicate over 225,000 daily trusted pubkey events. The number of new users has seen a notable decrease, with profiles containing a contact list dropping by 95%. More than 10 million events have been published, with posts and reposts showing a decrease. Total Zap activity stands at approximately 15 million, marking a 10% decrease.

Additionally, 26 pull requests were submitted to the Nostr protocol, with 6 merged. A total of 45 Nostr projects were tracked, with 8 releasing product updates, and over 463 long-form articles were published, 29% focusing on Bitcoin and Nostr. During this period, 2 notable events took place, and 3 significant events are upcoming.

Nostr Statistics

Based on user activity, the total daily trusted pubkeys writing events is about 225,000, representing a slight 8 % decrease compared to the previous period. Daily activity peaked at 18179 events, with a low of approximately 16093.

The number of new users has decreased significantly. Profiles with a contact list are now around 17,511, reflecting a 95% drop. Profiles with a bio have decreased by 62% compared to the previous period. The only category showing growth is pubkeys writing events, which have increased by 27%.

Regarding event publishing, all metrics have shown a decline. The total number of note events published is around 10 million, reflecting a 14% decrease. Posts remain the most dominant in terms of volume, totaling approximately 1.6 million, which is a 6.1% decrease. Both reposts and reactions have decreased by about 10%.

For zap activity, the total zap amount is about 15 million, showing an increase of over 10% compared to the previous period.

Data source: https://stats.nostr.band/

NIPs

Bulletin Boards

nostr:npub1gcxzte5zlkncx26j68ez60fzkvtkm9e0vrwdcvsjakxf9mu9qewqlfnj5z is proposing that A bulletin board is a relay-centric system of forums where users can post and reply to others, typically around a specific community. The relay operator controls and moderates who can post and view content. A board is defined by kind:30890. Its naddr representation must provide the community's home relays, from which all posts should be gathered. No other relays should be used.

Add NIP-101e: Workout Events

nostr:npub1xy54p83r6wnpyhs52xjeztd7qyyeu9ghymz8v66yu8kt3jzx75rqhf3urc is proposing a standardized way to represent fitness and workout data in Nostr, including: Exercise Templates (kind: 33401) for storing reusable exercise definitions, Workout Templates (kind: 33402) for defining workout plans, Workout Records (kind: 1301) for recording completed workouts. The format provides structured data for fitness tracking while following Nostr conventions for data representation.Many fitness applications use proprietary formats, locking user data into specific platforms. This NIP enables decentralized fitness tracking, allowing users to control their workout data and history while facilitating social sharing and integration between fitness applications.

NIP-47 client-created secret

nostr:npub1zk6u7mxlflguqteghn8q7xtu47hyerruv6379c36l8lxzzr4x90q0gl6ef is proposing a PR introduces two "1-click" connection flows for setting up initial NWC connections. Rather than having to copy-paste a connection string, the user is presented with an authorization page which they can approve or decline. The secret is generated locally and never leaves the client. HTTP flow - for publicly accessible lightning wallets. Implemented in Alby Hub (my.albyhub.com) and CoinOS (coinos.io). Nostr flow - for mobile-based / self-hosted lightning wallets, very similar to NWA but without a new event type added. Implemented in Alby Go and Alby Hub. Benefits over NWC Deep Links are that it works cross-device, mobile to web, and the client-generated secret never leaves the client. Both flows are also implemented in Alby JS SDK and Bitcoin Connect.

add B0 NIP for Blossom interaction

nostr:npub180cvv07tjdrrgpa0j7j7tmnyl2yr6yr7l8j4s3evf6u64th6gkwsyjh6w6 describes a tiny subset of possible Blossom capabilities, but arguably the most important from the point of view of a most basic Nostr client. This NIP specifies how Nostr clients can use Blossom for handling media. Blossom is a set of standards (called BUDs) for dealing with servers that store files addressable by their SHA-256 sums. Nostr clients may make use of all the BUDs for allowing users to upload files, manage their own files and so on, but most importantly Nostr clients SHOULD make use of BUD-03 to fetch kind:10063 lists of servers for each user.

NIP-C0: Communi-keys

nostr:npub149p5act9a5qm9p47elp8w8h3wpwn2d7s2xecw2ygnrxqp4wgsklq9g722q defines a standard for creating, managing and publishing to communities by leveraging existing key pairs and relays, introducing the concept of "Communi-keys". This approach allows any existing npub to become a community (identity + manager) while maintaining compatibility with existing relay infrastructure.

A way for relays to be honest about their algos

securitybrahh is proposing a PR introduces NIP-41, a way for relays to be honest about their algos, edits 01.md to account for changes in limit (related #78, #1434, received_at?, #620, #1645) when algo is provided, appends 11.md for relays to advertize whether they are an aggregator or not and their provided algos. solves #522, supersedes #579.

nip31: template-based "alt" tags for known kinds

nostr:npub180cvv07tjdrrgpa0j7j7tmnyl2yr6yr7l8j4s3evf6u64th6gkwsyjh6w6 is proposing that clients hardcoding alt tags are not very trustworthy. alt tags tend to be garbage in a long-enough timeframe.This fixes it with hardcoded rich templates that anyone can implement very easily without having to do it manually for each kind. alt tags can still be used as a fallback.

First draft of NIP-44v3

nostr:npub1gcxzte5zlkncx26j68ez60fzkvtkm9e0vrwdcvsjakxf9mu9qewqlfnj5z is proposing a PR addresses 3 main problems of NIP-44v2. First, It has a message size limit of 65Kb, which is unnecessarily small. Second, It forces the encrypting key to be the same as the event's signing key. Which forces multi-sig actors to share their main private key in order to encrypt the payload that would be later signed by the group. Decoupling singing and encryption keys, for both source and destination, is one of the goals of this version. And It offers no way to describe what's inside the encrypted blob before requesting the user's approval to decrypt and send the decrypted info back to the requesting application. This PR adds an alt description to allow decrypting signers to display a message and warn the user of what type of information the requesting application is receiving.

Notable Projects

Damus nostr:npub18m76awca3y37hkvuneavuw6pjj4525fw90necxmadrvjg0sdy6qsngq955

• Notes in progress will always be persisted and saved automatically. Never lose those banger notes when you aren't quite ready to ship them.
• Make your profile look just right without any fuss. It also optimizes them on upload now to not nuke other people’s phone data bills.
• You won't see the same note more than once in your home feed.
• Fixed note loading when clicking notifications and damus.io links.
• Fixed NWC not working when you first connect a wallet.
• Fixed overly sensitive and mildly infuriating touch gestures in the thread view when scrolling

Primal nostr:npub12vkcxr0luzwp8e673v29eqjhrr7p9vqq8asav85swaepclllj09sylpugg

Primal for Android build 2.1.9 has been released. * Multi-account support * Deep linking support * "Share via Primal" support * Bug fixes and improvements

Yakihonne nostr:npub1yzvxlwp7wawed5vgefwfmugvumtp8c8t0etk3g8sky4n0ndvyxesnxrf8q

YakiHonne Wallet just got a fresh new look!

0xchat nostr:npub1tm99pgz2lth724jeld6gzz6zv48zy6xp4n9xu5uqrwvx9km54qaqkkxn72

0xchat v1.4.7-beta release * Upgraded the Flutter framework to v3.29.0. * Private chat implementation changed to NIP-104 Nostr MLS. * NIP-17 and NIP-29 messages now support q tags. * You can swipe left to reply to your own messages. * Chat messages now support code block display. * Copy images from the clipboard. * Fixed an issue where underlined text in chat appeared as italic.

GOSSIP 0.14.0 nostr:npub189j8y280mhezlp98ecmdzydn0r8970g4hpqpx3u9tcztynywfczqqr3tg8

Several major bugs have been fixed in the last week. * New Features and Improvements * Zappers and amounts are now shown (click on the zap total) * Reactions and who reacted are now shown (click on the reaction numbers) * Multiple search UI/UX improvements * Undo Send works for DMs too * Undo Send now restores the draft * UI: Side panel contains less so it can be thinner. Bottom bar added. * UI: frame count and spinner (optional) * Relay UI: sorting by score puts important relays at the top. * Relay UI: add more filters so all the bits are covered * Image and video loading is much faster (significant lag reduction) * Thread loading fix makes threads load far more reliably * Settings have reset-to-default buttons, so you don't get too lost. * Setting 'limit inbox seeking to inbox relays' may help avoid spam at the expense of possibly * Fix some bugs * And more updates

Nostur v1.18.1 nostr:npub1n0stur7q092gyverzc2wfc00e8egkrdnnqq3alhv7p072u89m5es5mk6h0

New in this version: * Floating mini video player * Videos: Save to library, Copy video URL, Add bookmark * Improved video stream / chat view * Top zaps on live chat * Posting to Picture-first * Profile view: Show interactions with you (conversations, reactions, zaps, reposts) * Profile view: Show actual reactions instead of only Likes * Improved search + Bookmark search * Detect nsfw / content-warning in posts * Show more to show reactions outside Web of Trust * Show more to show zaps outside Web of Trust * Support .avif image format * Support .mp3 format * Support .m4v video format * Improved zap verification for changed wallets * Improved outbox support * Show label on restricted posts * Low data mode: load media in app on tap instead of external browser * Many other bug fixes and performance improvements

Alby nostr:npub1getal6ykt05fsz5nqu4uld09nfj3y3qxmv8crys4aeut53unfvlqr80nfm

Latest two releases of Alby Go, 1.10 and 1.11, brought you lots of goodies: * BTC Map integration for quick access to global bitcoin merchants map * Confirm new NWC connections to your Alby Hub directly in Alby Go! No more copy-pasting or QR code scanning * Support for MoneyBadger Pay Pick n Pay QR payments in over 2000 stores in South Africa

ZEUS v0.10.0 nostr:npub1xnf02f60r9v0e5kty33a404dm79zr7z2eepyrk5gsq3m7pwvsz2sazlpr5

ZEUS v0.10.0 is now available. This release features the ability to renew channel leases, spin up multiple embedded wallets, Nostr Wallet Connect client support, and more. * Renewable channels * NWC client support * Ability to create multiple Embedded LND 'node in the phone' wallets * Ability to delete Embedded LND wallets * Embedded LND: v0.18.5-beta * New share button (share ZEUS QR images) * Tools: Export Activity CSVs, Developer tools, chantools * Activity: filter by max amount, memo, and note

Long-Form Content Eco

In the past two weeks, more than 463 long-form articles have been published, including over 91 articles on Bitcoin and more than 41 related to Nostr, accounting for 29% of the total content.

These articles about Nostr mainly explore the rise of Nostr as a decentralized platform that is reshaping the future of the internet. They emphasize Nostr's role in providing users with greater freedom, ownership, and fair monetization, particularly in the realm of content creation. The platform is positioned as a counter to centralized social media networks, offering uncensored interactions, enhanced privacy, and direct transactions. Many articles delve into Nostr’s potential to integrate with Bitcoin, creating a Layer 3 solution that promises to end the dominance of old internet structures. Discussions also cover the technical aspects of Nostr, such as the implementation of relays and group functionalities, as well as security concerns like account hacks. Furthermore, there is an exploration of the philosophical and anthropological dimensions of Nostr, with the rise of "Dark Nostr" being portrayed as a deeper expression of decentralized freedom.

The Bitcoin articles discuss the ongoing evolution of Bitcoin and its increasing integration into global financial systems. Many articles focus on the growing adoption of Bitcoin, particularly in areas like Argentina and the U.S., where Bitcoin is being used for rental payments and the establishment of a strategic Bitcoin reserve. Bitcoin is also portrayed as a response to the centralized financial system, with discussions about how it can empower individuals through financial sovereignty, provide a hedge against inflation, and create fairer monetization models for creators. Additionally, the articles explore the challenges and opportunities within the Bitcoin ecosystem, including the rise of Bitcoin ETFs, the development of Bitcoin mining, and the potential impact of AI on Bitcoin adoption. There is also emphasis on Bitcoin's cultural and economic implications, as well as the need for decentralized education and innovation to drive further adoption.

Thank you, nostr:npub1ygzsm5m9ndtgch9n22cwsx2clwvxhk2pqvdfp36t5lmdyjqvz84qkca2m5 nostr:npub1rsv7kx5avkmq74p85v878e9d5g3w626343xhyg76z5ctfc30kz7q9u4dke nostr:npub17wrn0xxg0hfq7734cfm7gkyx3u82yfrqcdpperzzfqxrjf9n7tes6ra78k nostr:npub1fxq5crl52mre7luhl8uqsa639p50853r3dtl0j0wwvyfkuk4f6ssc5tahv nostr:npub1qny3tkh0acurzla8x3zy4nhrjz5zd8l9sy9jys09umwng00manysew95gx nostr:npub19mf4jm44umnup4he4cdqrjk3us966qhdnc3zrlpjx93y4x95e3uq9qkfu2 nostr:npub1marc26z8nh3xkj5rcx7ufkatvx6ueqhp5vfw9v5teq26z254renshtf3g0 nostr:npub1uv0m8xc6q4cnj2p0tewmcgkyzg8cnteyhed0zv30ez03w6dzwvnqtu6gwl nostr:npub1ygzsm5m9ndtgch9n22cwsx2clwvxhk2pqvdfp36t5lmdyjqvz84qkca2m5 nostr:npub1mhcr4j594hsrnen594d7700n2t03n8gdx83zhxzculk6sh9nhwlq7uc226 nostr:npub1xzuej94pvqzwy0ynemeq6phct96wjpplaz9urd7y2q8ck0xxu0lqartaqn nostr:npub1gqgpfv65dz8whvyup942daagsmwauj0d8gtxv9kpfvgxzkw4ga4s4w9awr nostr:npub16dswlmzpcys0axfm8kvysclaqhl5zv20ueurrygpnnm7k9ys0d0s2v653f and others, for your work. Enriching Nostr’s long-form content ecosystem is crucial.

Nostriches Global Meet Ups

Recently, several Nostr events have been hosted in different countries. * The first Bitcoin Meetup organized by Mi Primer Bitcoin was successfully held on March 14, 2025, at Texijal Pizza in Apaneca. The event included Bitcoin education, networking, a Q&A session, and merchandise distribution, offering an exciting experience for all participants.
* The Btrust Space discussion was successfully held on March 13, 2024. The event focused on how to support Bitcoin developers, fund open-source contributions, and grow the Bitcoin ecosystem. The speakers included Bitcoin core contributors, Btrust CEO, engineering leads, and other project leaders.

Here is the upcoming Nostr event that you might want to check out.

• The Nostr Workshop, organized by YakiHonne and Bitcoin Safari, will take place online via Google Meet on March 17, 2025, at 7:00 PM (GMT+1). The event will introduce the Nostr ecosystem and Bitcoin payments, with participants learning about decentralized technology through YakiHonne and earning rewards. Register and verify your account to claim exclusive rewards, and invite friends to unlock additional rewards.
• The 2025 Bitcoin, Crypto Economy, and Law FAQ Webinar will be held online on March 20, 2025 (Thursday) from 12:00 to 13:00 Argentina time. The webinar will be hosted by Martin Paolantonio (Academic Director of the course) and Daniel Rybnik (Lawyer specializing in Banking, Corporate, and Financial Law). The session aims to introduce the academic program and explore Bitcoin, the crypto economy, and related legal issues.
• Bitcoin Educators Unconference 2025 will take place on April 10, 2025, at Bitcoin Park in Nashville, Tennessee, USA. This event is non-sponsored and follows an Unconference format, allowing all participants to apply as speakers and share their Bitcoin education experiences in a free and interactive environment. The event has open-sourced all its blueprints and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) to encourage global communities to organize similar Unconference events.

Additionally, We warmly invite event organizers who have held recent activities to reach out to us so we can work together to promote the prosperity and development of the Nostr ecosystem.

Thanks for reading! If there’s anything I missed, feel free to reach out and help improve the completeness and accuracy of my coverage.

@ da0b9bc3:4e30a4a9

Hello Stackers!

Welcome on into the ~Music Corner of the Saloon!

A place where we Talk Music. Share Tracks. Zap Sats.

So stay a while and listen.

🚨Don't forget to check out the pinned items in the territory homepage! You can always find the latest weeklies there!🚨

🚨Subscribe to the territory to ensure you never miss a post! 🚨

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/916364

@ 0f53ff86:e380fc00

This article is cross posted from my personal blog at danjones.io.

Why has the "yes" been troubling me?

On look-back, I've been saying yes to almost everything that friends and family ask of me ever since the beginning of my adult life. Whether it be a DIY job, a call to help them in their hardships and an assist in times of need.

Upon rereading, it's not at all negative. The problem I have is I don't say this to myself, reciprocate or seek others in my time of need. I lack the ability to express myself.

Is this recompense for youthful errors? Do I lack self-respect, and as a result, push myself for others to make up for that? Why such harsh self-criticism? Why this undeserving feeling?

Self Awareness & Anxiety

Sometime about 4-5 years ago, I saw a councillor to fight this obsession with myself that I don't deserve the great things that come into life. The outcome of these sessions was that I was "highly self aware".

What does this mean?

• Honesty with oneself: I'm consistently honest with myself, almost too honest. I acknowledge how I feel, even if it's difficult.
• Reflection: Constant consideration of how my social actions, thoughts, and feelings affect others. Again, a little too much. Post-conversation, I often think of better responses and actions.
• Learning from mistakes: This I feel like is a brag, I don't want it to come across this way. I treat my mistakes as learning opportunities, but also spend too much time focussing on the mistake and how that could have been averted. 

Having a heightened self awareness isn't bad. It's a great mindset to have, but in combination with anxiety, it can go wrong quickly.

But why am I including this? What connection does it have?

Subconscious

Am I subconsciously doing good for others to cover for the lack of involvement and assist to others in my younger years?

I wasn't your ideal son in my teen years. I was lazy, had no care for others, only ever cared for what benefited me only. Does this affect me in later life? Possibly.

I think things turned around in my early twenties. Professional work life had kicked in, met my partner who I'm still with today (and appreciate her every day) and I think a combination of these things turned me into who I am today.

Lacking ability to reward your person

A few months prior to attending a counselling session, I had applied for and was provided opportunity for 2 other workplaces. They were promising jobs with incredible self-development and financial opportunities.

I had declined both.

Feeling rewarded for what I saw as a lack of ability to fulfil the role and not understanding why I was rewarded for being myself consumed me and occupied my mind excessively. I felt like everything that had led me to this moment in my professional life was purely based on luck and right-place, right-time.

Because of this, I declined both.

That's not to say I was ever unhappy in my job, hence seeking work elsewhere. I love my job and still work in that role today. Great people, varied work and fantastic self-help are some of the key factors I'm in my role today.

I just wanted the opportunity to show everyone else I am capable of more, but alas, I failed, and that destroyed me.

Is an explicit yes bad?

Absolutely not. Throughout self-reflection on these moments over the years, being kind, helpful, caring to others in their time of need is more important now than ever. We live in a world filled with hate that if I can find an opportunity to make someone's day, I will always take that.

The problem I had to fight was self-respect, self-reward and inability to express how I feel or a need for help from others. Tying my wins and current life achievements not to luck or time and place, but to significant decisions made and the time I spend working on myself. Be it, self-reflections sessions, self studying and tech examinations (something I'm incredibly proud of) and more.

Who am I today?

Here, I want to put out who I am today, not just for me, but for others. I feel like if I'm able to provide a little more insight into my life and overcoming the challenges, someone, even if a single person, may benefit.

I am a person who;

• Is caring and loving.
• Tries to bring joy to others.
• Works hard to develop their skills and capabilities.
• Pushes oneself to excel.
• Takes time to help others, even if it comes at a penalty to one's own time.
• Should be rewarded for life's achievements..

My current situation: how did it happen?

1. Record your achievements and shortcomings.
2. Use a notepad or app. Reflect on these. Praise yourself for your good, and see how you might remedy the failures.
3. Write the positives about yourself and repeat them back to yourself 2-3 times a day.
4. For me, it was;
   1. Your current place in life isn't due to luck its down to ability and self investment.
   2. There is no right place or the right time. Only right decisions, which is why you are who you are today.
   3. I am a caring, loving person.
   4. I take pride in myself, and enjoy bringing joy to others.
5. Get out more.
6. Get out more! I'm a tech nerd and as a result, I spend a lot of time indoors. Take the time, even its half an hour, to walk around, go somewhere new. Grab a coffee at your local coffee shop and take in your surroundings. This will also help get you out of your own thoughts.
7. Exercise
8. Again, as a tech nerd, I spent a lot of my time sat down at a computer. Hardly great for your body or mind.
   1. Go for a run. Get that sense of achievement. Release those endorphins and push yourself each time.
   2. Attend the gym. Go to a gym to complete your exercise, but also meet others.

@ fbf0e434:e1be6a39

DoraHacks 是 全球黑客运动的推动者

DoraHacks 是全球最大的Hackathon社区平台，致力于推动全球范围内的创新变革。在生物科技领域，类似的 Hacker 运动正在形成，并被称为无FDA社会（FDA Free Society）。这是 DoraHacks 在 生物科技领域的核心关注方向，我们相信，医疗和生物技术创新不应受制于官僚主义，而应以更自由、高效的方式加速发展。

FDA：生物科技创新的主要障碍

在全球医疗和生物科技创新的进程中，FDA（美国食品药品监督管理局）长期以来被认为是最大的一道障碍。它的监管模式虽然出发点是确保安全性和有效性，但实际上已经成为医疗创新的桎梏，主要体现在以下几个方面：

1. 审批流程过于冗长和官僚

   新药和新疗法的研发周期极其漫长，通常需要 10-15 年才能上市，使得许多有潜力的创新治疗方案被无情地耗尽在繁杂的审批流程中。

2. 高昂的合规成本

   由于 FDA 监管下的临床试验成本极高，许多潜在的突破性治疗因无法负担昂贵的试验费用而被扼杀，导致病人得不到及时的救治。

3. FDA 与大药企形成的利益护城河

   现行的监管体系更有利于资金雄厚的大型制药公司，而小型生物科技公司和创新团队往往难以突破 FDA 的壁垒，最终导致真正的创新被排挤出市场。

市场驱动的生物科技创新更高效

与官僚机构控制医疗创新相比，市场驱动的模式能够更快速、更灵活地推动医疗技术进步：

1. 市场决定哪些疗法更有价值

   在一个自由竞争的环境下，创新疗法的优劣可以由市场和用户（医生、病人）来决定，而不是被行政机构耗时数年的审批流程所束缚。

2. Right to Try 法案：对现有监管的突破

   美国已经推出 Right to Try（生存权利）法案，允许绝症患者尝试尚未获得 FDA 完全批准的疗法。这一法案证明，现有监管体系的僵化已严重影响患者的治疗机会，而自由市场提供了一种更可行的替代方案。

3. 科技创业公司的加速作用

   在市场的推动下，科技创业公司比政府监管机构更具敏捷性。例如，mRNA 技术的加速发展 正是由于市场驱动的模式，而非 FDA 监管的严格审批。可以预见，未来的新药研发将更依赖市场而非政府干预。

BioHack：突破 FDA 监管的桎梏

在 BioTech 领域，抗衰老和生命延长技术是未来最重要的突破方向之一，但这一领域的发展长期受到 FDA 的巨大阻碍：

1. BioTech 需要 FDA Free 的实验环境

   未来的医疗创新应像 AI 和区块链等开源软件行业一样，采用开放式创新模式，让科学家和创业者自由实验，而非受制于一套过时的审批体系。

2. 自由市场驱动的医疗体系将成为趋势

   未来可能会出现 私人和社区支持的医疗实验室，以及一个更加去中心化的医疗体系，让创业团队和个体用户来决定医学的进步方向，而不是让政府机构和大型制药公司掌控一切。

结语

FDA Free Society 是 BioTech 领域即将发生的黑客运动。我们将确保BioHack发生在DoraHacks。

@ e5de992e:4a95ef85

Overview: Market Rebound Amidst Economic Uncertainty

On Monday, March 17, 2025, U.S. stock markets experienced gains for the second consecutive session, signaling potential stabilization following recent volatility. Key indices reported the following gains:

• S&P 500: Increased by 0.6%
• Dow Jones Industrial Average: Rose by 0.9%
• Nasdaq Composite: Edged up 0.3%
• Russell 2000: Notably rose by 1.2%

Despite these daily gains, year-to-date figures indicate that major indices remain below their previous highs:

• S&P 500: Down 3.5%

• Dow Jones Industrial Average: Down 1.7%

• Nasdaq Composite: Down 7.8%

• Russell 2000: Down 7.3%

---

Key Factors Influencing Market Movements

1. Economic Data and Consumer Behavior

• Recent reports show a marginal rebound in U.S. retail sales for February; however, the increase fell short of expectations.
• Factory activity in New York State experienced its most significant decline in nearly two years.

---

2. Federal Reserve's Upcoming Meeting

• The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) is set to meet on March 18-19, 2025.
• Although current interest rates are expected to remain between 4.25% and 4.50%, investors are keenly awaiting signals for potential future adjustments.

---

3. Geopolitical Tensions and Trade Policies

• President Donald Trump's evolving tariff strategies—particularly concerning trade with Canada and Mexico—have heightened market uncertainty.
• These policies complicate the Federal Reserve's data-dependent approach to interest rate decisions, as tariffs could drive inflation while weakening the job market.

---

4. Sector-Specific Developments

• Technology:
  Companies such as Nvidia and Tesla have experienced declines; Nvidia fell 1% ahead of its GTC AI conference, while Tesla dropped nearly 3%.

• Defense:
  Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc. saw a significant increase of 5.6%, outperforming competitors during a positive trading session.

---

Commodity Markets

• Oil:
  Prices increased, with West Texas Intermediate (WTI) futures nearing $67.85 per barrel, reflecting stability in energy markets.

• Gold:
  Prices remained near $3,000 per ounce, continuing their rally amidst market uncertainty.

---

Market Outlook

As markets navigate a complex landscape of economic indicators and geopolitical events, investor attention remains focused on the upcoming Federal Reserve meeting and related economic data releases. The outcomes of the FOMC meeting—coupled with ongoing trade policy developments—are expected to play pivotal roles in shaping market trajectories in the near term.

@ 1d7ff02a:d042b5be

ອາຫານທີ່ມີທາດແປ້ງຕ່ຳ (low-carb) ແລະ ອາຫານແບບຄີໂຕ (keto) ເປັນປະເດັນຂັດແຍ້ງກັນມາດົນນານ. ບາງຄົນຍົກຍ້ອງວ່າມັນຊ່ວຍໃນການຫຼຸດນ້ຳໜັກ ແລະ ສຸຂະພາບຂອງລະບົບເມຕາບໍລິກ, ໃນຂະນະທີ່ຄົນອື່ນເຕືອນກ່ຽວກັບຄວາມສ່ຽງທີ່ອາດເກີດຂຶ້ນ. ບົດຄວາມວິທະຍາສາດລ່າສຸດທີ່ມີຊື່ວ່າ "ຄວາມເຊື່ອທີ່ຜິດ ແລະ ຄວາມຈິງກ່ຽວກັບອາຫານທີ່ມີທາດແປ້ງຕ່ຳ" ທ້າທາຍຄວາມເຂົ້າໃຈຜິດຫຼາຍຢ່າງ ແລະ ນຳສະເໜີຫຼັກຖານທາງວິທະຍາສາດທີ່ແໜ້ນແຟ້ນສະໜັບສະໜູນອາຫານປະເພດນີ້.

ອາຫານທີ່ມີທາດແປ້ງຕ່ຳແມ່ນຫຍັງກັນແທ້?

ເຮົາມາເລີ່ມຕົ້ນດ້ວຍຄຳນິຍາມກ່ອນ. ອາຫານທີ່ມີທາດແປ້ງຕ່ຳຈຳກັດທາດແປ້ງໃຫ້ບໍ່ເກີນ 130 ກຣາມຕໍ່ວັນ (25% ຂອງພະລັງງານ), ໃນຂະນະທີ່ອາຫານແບບຄີໂຕຈຳກັດທາດແປ້ງໃຫ້ນ້ອຍລົງຄື 20-50 ກຣາມ (10% ຂອງພະລັງງານ). ເຖິງແມ່ນວ່າຈະມີຊື່ສຽງວ່າເປັນ "ອາຫານແຟຊັ່ນ", ວິທີການເຫຼົ່ານີ້ໄດ້ສະສົມການສະໜັບສະໜູນຈາກການຄົ້ນຄວ້າທີ່ສຳຄັນໃນເກືອບສາມທົດສະວັດ.

ເປັນຫຍັງອາຫານທີ່ມີທາດແປ້ງຕ່ຳຈຶ່ງສຳຄັນ

ໃນເມື່ອພາວະອ້ວນ, ເບົາຫວານ, ແລະ ພະຍາດຫົວໃຈ ແລະ ຫຼອດເລືອດໄດ້ເຖິງລະດັບການລະບາດ, ຄວາມຕ້ອງການການແຊກແຊງທາງອາຫານທີ່ມີປະສິດທິພາບບໍ່ເຄີຍສຳຄັນເທົ່ານີ້ມາກ່ອນ. ບົດຄວາມນີ້ລະບຸວ່າອາຫານທີ່ມີທາດແປ້ງຕ່ຳບໍ່ພຽງແຕ່ເປັນກະແສທີ່ຜ່ານໄປ ແຕ່ເປັນຍຸດທະສາດທີ່ໄດ້ຮັບການຄົ້ນຄວ້າຢ່າງດີສຳລັບການຈັດການສຸຂະພາບຂອງລະບົບເມຕາບໍລິກ.

ການຍອມຮັບທາງການແພດເພີ່ມຂຶ້ນ

ກະແສກຳລັງປ່ຽນໃນວົງການແພດກະແສຫຼັກ. ອົງການໃຫຍ່ໆລວມທັງສະມາຄົມເບົາຫວານອາເມລິກາ ປັດຈຸບັນຍອມຮັບອາຫານທີ່ມີທາດແປ້ງຕ່ຳວ່າເປັນທີ່ຍອມຮັບໄດ້ສຳລັບການຈັດການເບົາຫວານປະເພດ 2. ສະມາຄົມຫົວໃຈອາເມລິກາໄດ້ຍອມຮັບວ່າອາຫານທີ່ມີທາດແປ້ງຕ່ຳຫຼາຍນຳໄປສູ່ "ການຫຼຸດລົງຂອງ A1c ຫຼາຍກວ່າ, ການຫຼຸດນ້ຳໜັກຫຼາຍກວ່າ, ແລະ ໃຊ້ຢາເບົາຫວານໜ້ອຍກວ່າ" ເມື່ອປຽບທຽບກັບວິທີການທີ່ໃຊ້ທາດແປ້ງປານກາງ.

ການລົບລ້າງຄວາມເຊື່ອທີ່ຜິດທົ່ວໄປ

"ທ່ານຕ້ອງການທາດແປ້ງເພື່ອການມີຊີວິດຢູ່"

ແປກໃຈບໍ່! ສະຖາບັນວິທະຍາສາດແຫ່ງຊາດສະຫຼຸບວ່າປະລິມານທາດແປ້ງທີ່ຈຳເປັນແມ່ນສູນ. ຮ່າງກາຍຂອງທ່ານສາມາດສ້າງນ້ຳຕານກລູໂຄສຜ່ານຂະບວນການ gluconeogenesis.

"ມັນຈະເຮັດໃຫ້ຄໍເລສເຕີຣອນຂອງທ່ານສູງຂຶ້ນ ແລະ ເຮັດໃຫ້ເກີດອາການຫົວໃຈວາຍ"

ໃນຂະນະທີ່ຄໍເລສເຕີຣອນ LDL ບາງຄັ້ງສູງຂຶ້ນ (ໂດຍສະເພາະໃນຄົນຜອມ), ການສຶກສາຫຼ້າສຸດພົບວ່າສິ່ງນີ້ບໍ່ໄດ້ແປວ່າຈະເຮັດໃຫ້ຮ່າງກາຍສະສົມຄາບຕິດໃນຫຼອດເລືອດເພີ່ມຂຶ້ນ. ໃນຂະນະດຽວກັນ, ອາຫານທີ່ມີທາດແປ້ງຕ່ຳປັບປຸງຕົວຊີ້ວັດພະຍາດຫົວໃຈອື່ນໆຫຼາຍຢ່າງ, ລວມທັງໄຂມັນໃນເລືອດ, HDL, ການອັກເສບ, ແລະ ຄວາມດັນເລືອດສູງ.

"ຊີ້ນແດງໃນອາຫານທີ່ມີທາດແປ້ງຕ່ຳເພີ່ມຄວາມສ່ຽງຂອງມະເຮັງ"

ການທົບທວນຄຸນນະພາບສູງສຸດຂອງເອກະສານທາງວິທະຍາສາດພົບວ່າມີຫຼັກຖານທີ່ເຊື່ອຖືໄດ້ພຽງເລັກນ້ອຍຫາບໍ່ມີເລີຍທີ່ເຊື່ອມໂຍງການບໍລິໂພກຊີ້ນແດງກັບມະເຮັງ. ການສຶກສາໃນອະດີດຫຼາຍຄັ້ງອີງໃສ່ຂໍ້ມູນການສັງເກດທີ່ອ່ອນແອແທນທີ່ຈະເປັນການທົດລອງທາງຄລີນິກທີ່ມີການຄວບຄຸມ.

"ມັນບໍ່ສາມາດຮັກສາໄດ້ໃນໄລຍະຍາວ"

ການສຳຫຼວດກ່ຽວກັບຄົນ 1,580 ຄົນພົບວ່າສ່ວນໃຫຍ່ຮັກສາອາຫານທີ່ມີທາດແປ້ງຕ່ຳໄດ້ເປັນເວລາຫຼາຍກວ່າໜຶ່ງປີ, ໂດຍ 34% ຮັກສາໄດ້ 2+ ປີ. ຄວາມຮູ້ສຶກອີ່ມຈາກໂປຣຕີນ ແລະ ໄຂມັນຊ່ວຍໃຫ້ຄົນບໍ່ຮູ້ສຶກຫິວລະຫວ່າງຄາບອາຫານ.

"ມັນມີລາຄາແພງເກີນໄປ"

ການວິເຄາະຕົ້ນທຶນພົບວ່າອາຫານທີ່ມີທາດແປ້ງຕ່ຳມີຄ່າໃຊ້ຈ່າຍຫຼາຍກວ່າພຽງແຕ່ປະມານ $1.27 ຕໍ່ຄົນຕໍ່ວັນເມື່ອທຽບກັບຄຳແນະນຳມາດຕະຖານ. ແມ່ນແຕ່ປະຊາກອນທີ່ມີລາຍໄດ້ຕ່ຳກໍສາມາດປັບຮັບເອົາວິທີການກິນແບບນີ້ໄດ້ສຳເລັດ.

"ທ່າແຮງໃນການປິ່ນປົວເບົາຫວານ"

ອາດຈະໜ້າປະທັບໃຈທີ່ສຸດ: ການທົດລອງທາງຄລີນິກສະແດງໃຫ້ເຫັນວ່າຫຼາຍກວ່າ 50% ຂອງຜູ້ເຂົ້າຮ່ວມທີ່ມີເບົາຫວານປະເພດ 2 ສາມາດກັບຄືນມາດີຂຶ້ນໄດ້ດ້ວຍອາຫານແບບຄີໂຕ, ໂດຍສ່ວນໃຫຍ່ຫຼຸດລົງຫຼືຢຸດເຊົາໃຊ້ຢາພາຍໃນພຽງແຕ່ 10 ອາທິດ.

ທີ່ມາ: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/17/6/1047#B4-nutrients-17-01047 ສະຫລຸບ ແລະ ແປໂດຍ: ChatGPT, Claude

@ 7252ad94:d19de472

![[BTC March 17 25.jpg]]#Bitcoin #btccharts #BitcoinCharts

@ 7252ad94:d19de472

![[BTC March 17 25.jpg]]#Bitcoin #btccharts #BitcoinCharts

@ d6c48950:54d57756

Theres a popular trend among people who never grew up with old tech to suddenly embrace it as rebellion against enshitification and capitalism but as someone who actually grew up with old phones and old tech theres a reason why iphones and social media won, because they're better. 

---

This doesn't mean they don't have flaws, it means that even with the flaws they still outperform; dumbphones are a bandaid but smartphones have comprehensive features built in that work more like a bandage - ironically the solution smart phones have to the problem of smartphones is still better than using a dumbphone as a solution to smartphones - parental control and screen time features work and they're incredibly robust, if you set them up in a well thought out way you can get an insane amount of utility from your smartphone and none of the downsides, if you have a friend setup the parental features according to your wishes it can be setup in such a way that you as the owner of the device cannot get around it, limiting how long you can spend on social media, limiting what apps you can install, what websites you can go on but without losing any of the insane value of smartphones such as

• signal: private communications
• camera: not needing to carry a camera
• ability to send photos quickly and easily to friends
• ability to share what your doing with others publicly
• ability to pay for things without needing to carry a card
• uber
• bus/train apps
• note taking apps that're searchable and instantly backed up
• maps app
• weather app

These are just some of the things on my phone that provide high value, think about how much clutter I would have to carry if I switched to a dumbphone and not only that, the cluttered separate items would perform worse and cost more (since I already own a smartphone).

 

I'm not saying dumbphones are useless but they solve nothing, setting up a smartphone to remove risk and harm whilst maximising value forces you to give careful consideration to the problem 

• Can I trust myself to not turn this off?
• How much time do I want to spend on instagram?
• Do I want notifications on for this person?
• Do I ever want notifications from twitter?
• What value does my phone even provide?

Now you might say you asked those questions before switching to a dumbphone but my point is it's optional, you can not think about any of those things and switch to a dumbphone whereas in something approximating irony when doing it on a smartphone you have to be intentional, mindful, honest and self aware. You have to give serious thought to can you control yourself or self limit certain behaviours and if not would moderation or complete abstinence be better?

In my case I struggle with instagram, but I didn't want to get rid of it because it's how I keep in touch with some friends and keep up to date on their life and them on mine, it also is a good point of contact for new people I meet or people who want to get in touch - but if I average this out i.e messaging (occasional) , posting and looking at friends posts it should only really take me maybe 10 minutes per day maximum - I set a ten minute lock, what happens if I spend 10 minutes scrolling reels and then want to post something? I can't, I'm punished for the behaviour which discourages me from doing it next time.

 

dumbphones feel like a punishment for a problem you haven't tried to fix and for a behaviour you can't clearly articulate - you know you're doing something wrong and might be able to name the action (wasting time on tiktok) but you have no actual understanding of the behaviour (i.e why you do it or why it's even bad beyond some vague harm you ironically heard on tiktok).

you're spending money for no additional value beyond social value (wow a flip phone how quirky) and I've yet to meet a single logn term dumbphone user with an active social life - ironically I do know a person who makes tiktoks about living with a dumbphone - they film the tiktoks on an iphone they take with them everwhere and use as their daily phone. I'm not saying all dumbphone influencers are lying but I'm skeptical someone whos embraced the dumbphone would spend their free time making tiktoks or online content at all really, maybe they would at the start but long term? I doubt it.

 

smartphones have tons of apps and all those apps have shitty subscription services and each update makes the app worse but there is still untapped value to be found in them - look at it as a tool that exists to perform functions and it'll make your life a lot better. You have to be mindful and intentional with technology or it will just do whatever large corporations want it to do.

@ 2f4550b0:95f20096

Networking is often misunderstood as a transactional exchange: handing out business cards or adding contacts on LinkedIn with the hope of an immediate payoff. But at its core, networking is something more dynamic and human. I like to define it as the nexus between "I know a person for that" and being bold enough to ask. It’s about building a web of relationships where knowledge, opportunity, and courage intersect. Whether in professional or personal spheres, networking thrives on trust, mutual benefit, and the willingness to step out of your comfort zone. Let’s unpack this idea and see how it plays out in real life.

Professionally, networking is the lifeblood of career growth. It’s not just about who you know, but who knows you and what they know you can do. Imagine you’re at a conference, coffee in hand, scanning a room full of strangers. You overhear someone mention a challenge their company is facing: they need a creative solution for a marketing campaign, and their team is stumped. Your brain lights up because you know a person for that! A brilliant graphic designer you met at a workshop last year. The easy part is making the mental connection. The harder part? Walking over, introducing yourself, and saying, “Hey, I couldn’t help but overhear. I might know someone who can help.” That’s where the boldness comes in. It’s not about selling yourself or your contact; it’s about offering value and starting a conversation. Over time, those small acts of courage build a reputation: you become the person who connects dots.

I saw this play out vividly a few years ago when a colleague, Sarah, turned a casual chat into a career-defining moment. We were at a local industry meetup, and she struck up a conversation with a startup founder who was frustrated about their lagging sales. Sarah didn’t have the answer herself, but she remembered a sales strategist she’d met at a previous event. Instead of letting the moment pass, she said, “I know someone who’s tackled this exact problem. Mind if I connect you?” The founder agreed, and within a week, Sarah had facilitated an introduction that led to a six-figure consulting gig for her contact and a glowing referral for herself. She didn’t ask for anything in return, but her willingness to bridge the gap earned her trust and credibility. That’s networking at its finest: knowing the right people and having the guts to act.

On the personal side, networking takes a softer, but no less impactful form. It’s less about career ladders and more about enriching your life and community. Think about the last time you needed a recommendation, for a plumber, a babysitter, or even a good book. You probably turned to a friend or neighbor, someone whose judgment you trust. That’s "I know a person for that" in action. But the boldness piece still applies. Asking for help or advice can feel vulnerable, especially if it’s not a close relationship. Yet, those small asks often deepen bonds.

I recently moved to a new city. Last week, I hesitantly asked a distant acquaintance if he could make an introduction to a local hair stylist he uses. I was nervous that I would bother him, or that he would ignore my note. Instead, he got back to me the same day, checked with the stylist to see if she had openings, then shared her contact information with me. I had an appointment for a haircut within 24 hours! Networking personally is about leaning into your circle,and sometimes expanding it, without overthinking the imposition.

In other words, it’s okay to ask. The beauty of this definition is its universality. Whether you’re pitching yourself for a job or seeking a hiking buddy, networking hinges on two things: relationships and initiative. Research backs this up tangentially. Studies like those from Harvard Business Review suggest that successful networking isn’t about extroversion or schmoozing, but about creating genuine connections and following through. It’s less about a polished elevator pitch and more about being useful and present.

Of course, it’s not always smooth sailing. The fear of rejection or coming off as pushy can paralyze even the best intentions. I’ve fumbled plenty of networking moments myself—once freezing mid-sentence while trying to pitch a collaboration to a senior exec at a mixer. But the stumbles teach you resilience. Networking isn’t a one-and-done; it’s a muscle you build over time.

Each time you say, “I know someone who can help,” or “Can you point me in the right direction?” you’re weaving a stronger web. So, the next time you’re at a crossroads, think of networking as that nexus. It’s knowing who’s in your orbit and daring to reach out. It’s less about collecting contacts and more about cultivating possibilities. The magic happens when you connect the dots and take the leap.

@ 878dff7c:037d18bc

Treasurer Warns of Economic Risks Amid Global Trade Tensions

Summary:

Treasurer Jim Chalmers has highlighted significant risks to Australia's economic recovery due to escalating global trade tensions, particularly stemming from U.S. President Donald Trump's new tariff policies. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) forecasts a slowdown in global GDP growth, with Australia's growth projected at 1.9% in 2025 and 1.8% in 2026. Chalmers emphasizes the need for resilience over retaliation in economic strategies to mitigate these challenges. Sources: The Australian - March 18, 2025, News.com.au - March 18, 2025, ABC News - March 18, 2025, Michael West Media - March 18, 2025

Rising Energy Costs Impact Australian Households Ahead of Election

Summary:

As the upcoming federal election approaches, escalating energy costs have become a critical issue. Opposition leader Peter Dutton has criticized Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's government for rising living expenses, linking them to investments in renewable energy. Despite government subsidies, electricity bills have soared, partly due to the Ukraine conflict, placing financial strain on households and influencing voter sentiment. Sources: Financial Times - March 18, 2025

Flood Warnings Issued as Heavy Rain Blankets North Queensland

Summary:

Heavy rainfall and potential thunderstorms are forecasted for North Queensland, especially around Townsville, with expected accumulations between 10 to 250mm on Wednesday. This has led to rising water levels in the Bohle River catchment, with minor flooding reaching 4 meters from Tuesday morning and potential moderate flooding during the day. The Tully River is also experiencing minor flooding at Euramo. Hinchinbrook Mayor Ramon Jayo has advised residents to remain vigilant as heavy rain continues. Further updates and warnings about rainfall, river conditions, and weather forecasts are available on the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) website. Sources: Courier Mail - March 18, 2025

Treasurer Jim Chalmers Warns of Economic Impact from Global Trade Tensions

Summary:

Treasurer Jim Chalmers has raised concerns about the potential negative effects of escalating global trade tensions on Australia's economy. He emphasized that ongoing tariff disputes could lead to increased inflation and hinder economic growth. This warning aligns with the latest OECD outlook, which has revised up global inflation forecasts and downgraded GDP growth projections for 2025 and 2026. Sources: The Guardian - March 18, 2025, The Saturday Paper - March 18, 2025

Prime Minister Albanese's Approval Rating Hits 18-Month High

Summary:

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has achieved his highest approval rating in nearly 18 months, with 46% of respondents expressing satisfaction with his performance. In contrast, opposition leader Peter Dutton's disapproval rating has risen to 46%. If an election were held today, 29% of voters would support the Labor Party, while 35% would favor the Coalition. On a two-party preferred basis, both major parties are tied at 47%. Sources: The Guardian - March 18, 2025

Crackdown on CFMEU Amid Corruption Allegations

Summary:

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has proposed stringent measures against the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) following fresh allegations of corruption and criminal behavior. The proposed actions include:

• Deregistration of the CFMEU: Dutton advocates for disbanding the union due to its alleged misconduct.
• Establishment of an AFP-Led Taskforce: A specialized unit within the Australian Federal Police to investigate and address the union's activities.
• Introduction of RICO-Style Laws: Implementing laws similar to the U.S. Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act to target organized crime within unions.

These measures aim to tackle issues such as collaboration with outlaw motorcycle gangs and misuse of funds. Critics argue that existing Australian laws are sufficient, and that deregistering the union could be counterproductive.

Sources: The Guardian - March 17, 2025, News.com.au - March 17, 2025, The Australian - March 17, 2025

U.S. and China Engage in High-Stakes Trade Negotiations Amid Rising Tensions

Summary:

The United States and China have entered into critical trade negotiations to address escalating tariffs and trade barriers. The discussions aim to de-escalate tensions that have impacted global markets. Both nations are striving to find common ground on issues such as intellectual property rights, market access, and trade imbalances. The outcome of these talks is expected to have significant implications for the global economy. Sources: Center for Strategic and International Studies - March 14, 2025, Stratfor - March 17, 2025

High Rates of Sexual Violence Among Female International Students in Australia

Summary:

A national study conducted between 2021 and 2023 revealed that over half of female international students in Australia experienced sexual or intimate partner violence in the past year. The survey of nearly 1,500 students found that about 54% encountered such violence, often from intimate partners or friends. Researchers are calling for tertiary institutions and governments to take greater responsibility in addressing these issues, emphasizing the need for culturally appropriate support services and addressing structural issues that heighten risks for international students. Sources: The Australian - March 18, 2025

Opposition Leader Proposes Referendum to Deport Dual Citizens Convicted of Serious Crimes

Summary:

Opposition leader Peter Dutton has proposed a referendum to allow the government to deport dual citizens convicted of serious crimes. Despite criticism over the cost, Dutton emphasizes that safety is paramount. This proposal is part of broader discussions on strengthening national security measures. Sources: The Guardian - March 18, 2025

Melbourne Residents Offered $200,000 for Information on Pro-Democracy Activist

Summary:

Several Melbourne residents have received anonymous letters offering a police bounty of $203,000 for information on Kevin Yam, an Australian pro-democracy activist wanted by Hong Kong for alleged national security crimes. The letters, mailed from Hong Kong, provided a photograph and details of Yam, urging recipients to inform Hong Kong police of his whereabouts. The Australian government condemned the targeting of an Australian citizen and vowed to address the matter with Chinese and Hong Kong authorities. The letters' language mirrored a notice on the Hong Kong police website and included a UK phone number linked to the Hong Kong police. Similar letters were also sent to neighbors of another activist, Carmen Lau, in the UK. The incident highlights concerns over Hong Kong's national security law being used to target pro-democracy activists globally. Yam criticized his targeting as interference with his democratic rights and called for Australian government sanctions against Chinese officials. Sources: The Guardian - 17 March 2025

Mystery Foam Causes Illnesses Among Surfers in South Australia

Summary:

Beaches from Victor Harbor to Waitpinga, south of Adelaide, have been affected by a yellowish foam washing ashore, accompanied by dead marine life such as fish, sea dragons, and octopuses. Surfers and beachgoers have reported symptoms like itchy throats, raspy coughs, eye infections, and blurry vision after visiting these beaches. Authorities suspect the foam results from an algal bloom, influenced by hot temperatures, still water, and an ongoing marine heatwave with sea temperatures 2.5°C warmer than usual. Investigations by the Department of Primary Industries and Regions (PIRSA) and the South Australian Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are underway to determine the exact cause.

Sources: The Advertiser - 18th March 2025

@ 2e8970de:63345c7a

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5108105

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/916063

@ 7d33ba57:1b82db35

Borkum Island

Borkum is the largest of the East Frisian Islands, located in the North Sea, near the Dutch border. Known for its wide sandy beaches, fresh sea air, and natural beauty, it’s a perfect destination for relaxation, wellness, and outdoor activities. Borkum is part of the Wadden Sea National Park (UNESCO World Heritage Site), making it an excellent spot for nature lovers.

🏖️ Best Things to Do on Borkum Island

1️⃣ Relax on the Beautiful Beaches

Borkum has 26 km of sandy beaches, with designated areas for swimming, surfing, and even dog-friendly sections. The main beach near the promenade is perfect for sunbathing and walking.

2️⃣ Visit the Borkum Lighthouses

• New Lighthouse (Neuer Leuchtturm) – A 60m tall lighthouse offering panoramic views of the island.
• Old Lighthouse (Alter Leuchtturm) – The oldest lighthouse in East Frisia, dating back to 1576.

3️⃣ Explore the Wadden Sea (Wattenmeer)

Join a mudflat hiking tour and discover the unique tidal ecosystem of the Wadden Sea, home to seals, crabs, and rare birds.

4️⃣ Take a Ride on the Borkumer Kleinbahn

This historic narrow-gauge railway connects the harbor to the town center and is a fun way to experience the island’s charm.

5️⃣ Seal Watching at Nordstrand

Borkum is known for its seal colonies! Head to Nordstrand or take a boat tour to see these adorable creatures in their natural habitat.

6️⃣ Enjoy Wellness & Thalassotherapy

Borkum’s fresh sea air and saltwater treatments make it a popular destination for health and wellness retreats. Visit the Gezeitenland Spa for a relaxing day.

🍽️ What to Eat on Borkum

• Frisian seafood – Try fresh herring, shrimp, and fish sandwiches. 🐟
• Ostfriesentee (East Frisian tea) – Served with rock sugar and cream. ☕
• Labskaus – A traditional sailor’s dish with mashed potatoes, corned beef, and pickled herring.
• Frisian beer – Local brews are a must-try! 🍺

🚢 How to Get to Borkum

🚢 By Ferry:
- From Emden (Germany) – ~2-hour ferry or 1-hour fast ferry
- From Eemshaven (Netherlands) – ~50-minute ferry

🚂 By Train:
- Take a train to Emden and transfer to the ferry terminal.

🚘 By Car:
- You can bring your car on the ferry, but the island is mostly car-free, so biking is the best way to get around.

💡 Tips for Visiting Borkum

✅ Best time to visit? Summer for beach activities, spring & autumn for hiking and fewer crowds. 🌞
✅ Rent a bike – Borkum is best explored by bicycle 🚲
✅ Pack for the wind – The North Sea can be breezy! 🌬️

@ da0b9bc3:4e30a4a9

Hello Stackers!

It's Monday so we're back doing "Meta Music Mondays" 😉.

From before the territory existed there was just one post a week in a ~meta take over. Now each month we have a different theme and bring music from that theme.

This month is March and we're doing March Madness. So give me those Wacky and Weird crazy artists and songs. The weirder the better!

Let's have fun.

How about Weird and Wonderful J-Pop Metal mixed with German Techno Metal.

Baby Metal with Electric Callboy - Ratatata

https://youtu.be/EDnIEWyVIlE?si=DLV4-tOTx6TipGv

Talk Music. Share Tracks. Zap Sats.

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/915965

@ edf0da8b:b2652fa3

One remarkable thing the Wim Hof Method stirs in me is that I increasingly feel the desire to connect with pure nature. Now, what does that mean?

You may know that slight feeling of eeriness when looking at deep moving waters or that tiny insecurity when darkness creeps up around you alone among the trees? You are sure there's nothing to worry about. But still, these little old conditioned anxieties, these unreasonable mind scenarios, they keep coming up and make you seek safety.

They are different for everyone, but these anxieties in the foreground are a sign for inner blockages that deprive us from expressing our power and creativity. What's more, they separate us from nature. They suggest, everything around us is potentially dangerous. Is it though?

When practicing the Wim Hof Method, and especially right after the breathing exercises, I can immediately feel a clarity emerging, a stronger awareness of presence in the moment. Anxieties are caringly pushed back to their rightful place, but do not control my actions and no longer dominate my state of being.

And so suddenly, the world view shifts. Eerie deep moving waters become fascinating, the darkness around reveals the beauty of trees casting soft moonlight shadows. I deeply appreciate what is, I want to touch the waters, I want to merge with the shadows, I feel that power. Instead of running away I want to connect with nature. I'm more aware of the present and should danger reveal itself, I have the confidence that I can properly react when it arises. But until then, I can enjoy beauty and connectedness. The powerful shift is from scenarios about potential threats around me to curiosity and beautiful opportunity everywhere.

There are countless great techniques and traditions that guide us to such shifts. But with regular practice, I find the Wim Hof Method to be particularly simple, accessible and effective.

wimhofmethod

@ 06bc9ab7:427c48f5

Bitcoin Safe - A bitcoin savings wallet for the entire family

Designed for both beginners and power users, Bitcoin Safe combines security with an intuitive user experience. In this article, we dive deep into its features, unique benefits, and the powerful tools that make managing your Bitcoin wallet simple and secure.

Built for Learners

✔️ Step-by-step wallet setup wizard + PDF backup sheets 📄 🧪 Test transactions to ensure all hardware signers are ready 🔑 🛡️ Secure: Hardware signers only – no hot wallet risks 🚫🔥 🌍 Multi-language support: 🇺🇸 🇨🇳 🇪🇸 🇯🇵 🇷🇺 🇵🇹 🇮🇳 🇮🇹 🇫🇷 🇩🇪 🇲🇲 🇰🇷 📁 Address categories for easy organization ☁️ Label and category synchronization, and cloud backup (optional) 💰 Automatic UTXO merging to save on fees ⚡ Fast syncing with Electrum servers, Compact Block Filters coming soon

Built for Power Users

🔐 Supports Coldcard, Bitbox02, Jade, Trezor, Passport, Keystone & many more 🏦 💬 Multi-party multisig chat & PSBT sharing (optional) 📊 Transaction flow diagrams to trace coin movements 🔍 Instant cross-wallet wallet search ⚙️ Set your own electrum server, mempool instance, and nostr relay

---

Step-by-Step Wallet Setup

Whether you’re setting up a single-signature or multi-signature wallet, the setup wizard guides you every step of the way:

• Single Sig Wizard: Follow the intuitive wizard that walks you through each step. https://youtu.be/m0g6ytYTy0w

Clear instructions paired with hardware signer screen-shots, like the steps for a Coldcard

• Multisig Wizard: The wizard ensures you do all necessary steps for a Multisig wallet in the right order. Afterwards your Multisig is ready to use and all signers are tested. Check out https://bitcoin-safe.org/en/features/setup-multisignature-wallet/

• PDF Backup: The wizard will also generates 3 PDF backup sheets for a 2-of-3 multisig wallet, so ensure you always have your wallet descriptor together with the seed.

• Hardware Signer Support: With full support for major hardware signers your keys remain securely offline.

---

Transaction Visualization

Visualize and navigate your transaction history:

• Graphical Explorer: An interactive transaction diagram lets you click on inputs and outputs to follow the money flow intuitively.

• Coin Categories: Organize your addresses into distinct coin categories (e.g., “KYC”, “Work”, “Friends”) so Bitcoin Safe automatically selects the correct inputs when creating PSBTs.

It prevents you accidentally linking coin categories when creating a transaction, and warns you if mistakes happened in the past.

Powerful Wallet Management Tools

• Flexible Fee Selection: Choose fees with one click using an intuitive mempool block preview.
• UTXO Management: Automatically (optional) merge UTXOs when fees are low.
• CSV Table Export: Right click, Drag&Drop, or CTRL+C for immediate CSV export for easy processing in Excel.
• PDF Balance Statement: Export the address balances for easy record keeping on paper.

---

Advanced Features for the Power-User

Sync & Chat is off by default (for the paranoid user), but can be enabled with just one click.

Label Synchronization and Backup

• Seamless Sync: Using encrypted nostr messages, Bitcoin Safe synchronizes your coin categories and labels across multiple devices.
• Easy Backup: A short backup key is all you need to safeguard your coin categories and labels, ensuring your organization remains intact.

Collaborative Multi-party Multisig

• Group Chat Integration: After creating your multisig wallet, Bitcoin Safe offers an encrypted nostr group chat for secure collaboration and one-click PSBT sharing.
• User Authentication: Each participant must authenticate every other user with a simple click, ensuring secure communication.

Watch and Learn: Get Started with Bitcoin Safe

If you’re new to Bitcoin Safe, a short video guide can make all the difference. Learn how to set up your Bitcoin Safe wallet in this detailed walk through:

https://youtu.be/m0g6ytYTy0w

Or see how to verify an address on your hardware singer:

https://youtu.be/h5FkOYj9OT8

Building up a knowledge base: https://bitcoin-safe.org/en/knowledge/

---

Whats next?

• Compact Block Filters!!! They make electrum servers obsolete.
• Why? Compact Block Filters increase the network privacy dramatically, since you're not asking an electrum server to give you your transactions
• Trade-off: They are a little slower than electrum servers. For a savings wallet like Bitcoin Safe this should be OK.
• How do they work? Simply speaking: They ask normal bitcoin core nodes for a short summary of each block. And if the summary shows a transaction belonging to the wallet, the entire block is then downloaded from the bitcoin core node. The bitcoin core node does not learn however which of the many transactions in the block you were interested in. Read more here and of course in the bip.
• When: 2 weeks 😅. Lots of things need to be done until Bitcoin Safe can use the bdk CBF/kyoto client from rustaceanrob, so keep an eye out for updates and please give feedback when you use Bitcoin Safe.

Stay updated on nostr or on GitHub.

Thank you

A huge thanks goes to nostr:npub10pensatlcfwktnvjjw2dtem38n6rvw8g6fv73h84cuacxn4c28eqyfn34f for supporting this project with a grant and nostr:npub1yrnuj56rnen08zp2h9h7p74ghgjx6ma39spmpj6w9hzxywutevsst7k5cx for the Hackathon prize.

This wallet is only possible because it is building upon other peoples open source work. Most notably

• bdk nostr:nprofile1qqsgkmgkmv63djkxmwvdlyaxx0xtsytvkyyg5fwzmp48pwd30f3jtxspzemhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhgqg5waehxw309aex2mrp0yhxgctdw4eju6t0qyt8wumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnwdaehgu3wvfskueqr8vuet
• and especially nostr:npub1thunderat5g552cuy7umk624ct5xe4tpgwr2jcjjq2gc0567wgrqnya79l , nostr:npub1reezn2ctrrg736uqj7mva9lsuwv0kr5asj4vvkwxnrwlhvxf98tsq99ty4 , and nostr:npub1ke470rdgnxg4gjs9cw3tv0dp690wl68f5xak5smflpsksedadd7qtf8jfm for dealing with my many feature requests and questions.
• rustaceanrob building kyoto which implements CBF for BDK; a crucial library and will be able to replace electrum servers for many use cases
• ndk by nostr:nprofile1qqsx3kq3vkgczq9hmfplc28h687py42yvms3zkyxh8nmkvn0vhkyyuspz4mhxue69uhkummnw3ezummcw3ezuer9wchsz9thwden5te0wfjkccte9ejxzmt4wvhxjme0qy88wumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmv9u0uehfp

And of course, secure storage of bitcoin is only possible, because of the hardware signer manufacturers. Thanks to nostr:npub1az9xj85cmxv8e9j9y80lvqp97crsqdu2fpu3srwthd99qfu9qsgstam8y8 Coldcard , Coldcard Q , nostr:npub1tg779rlap8t4qm8lpgn89k7mr7pkxpaulupp0nq5faywr8h28llsj3cxmt Bitbox02 , nostr:npub1jg552aulj07skd6e7y2hu0vl5g8nl5jvfw8jhn6jpjk0vjd0waksvl6n8n Blockstream Jade , Trezor Safe, Foundation Passport, Keystone, Ledger, Specter Shield, and many more.

I also want to thank people who gave feedback and helped spread the knowledge of Bitcoin Safe (please forgive me if I forgot to mention you)

• nostr:npub1p5cmlt32vc3jefkl3ymdvm9zk892fsmkq79eq77uvkaqrnyktasqkpkgaw nostr:npub1s07s0h5mwcenfnyagme8shp9trnv964lulgvdmppgenuhtk9p4rsueuk63 nostr:npub18f3g76xc7xs430euwwl9gpn7ue7ux8vmtm9q8htn9s26d8c4neeqdraz3s nostr:npub1mtd7s63xd85ykv09p7y8wvg754jpsfpplxknh5xr0pu938zf86fqygqxas nostr:npub1kysd8m44dhv7ywa75u5z7w2w0gs4t6qzhgvjp555gfknasy3krlqfxde60 nostr:npub185pu2dsgg9d36uvvw7rwuy9aknn8hnknygr7x2yqa60ygvq6r8kqc836k8 nostr:npub1hkcgyqnsuaradq3g5hyvfdekwypc25494nmwggwpygxas7fcs4fst860fu nostr:npub1xsl0msy347vmj8gcpsjum6wwppc4ercvq4xfrhqmek2dqmqm0mtsyf35vx nostr:npub1hxjnw53mhghumt590kgd3fmqme8jzwwflyxesmm50nnapmqdzu7swqagw3 nostr:npub1ke470rdgnxg4gjs9cw3tv0dp690wl68f5xak5smflpsksedadd7qtf8jfm nostr:npub1sk26fxl4fy3vt8m5n0a6aturaql0w20nvh22q0cyaqm28tj7z8ss3lutc9 nostr:npub1r4llq2jcvq4g2tgha5amjz07zk7mrrcj89wllny9xwhhp5zzkklqk4jwja nostr:npub1p9v2zpwl28c0gu0vr2enp3lwdtv29scwpeqsnt0ngqf03vtlyxfqhkae5w nostr:npub1xkym0yaewlz0qfghtt7hjtnu28fxaa5rk3wtcek9d3x3ft2ns3lq775few nostr:npub1r8343wqpra05l3jnc4jud4xz7vlnyeslf7gfsty7ahpf92rhfmpsmqwym8 nostr:npub12zpfs3yq7we83yvypgsrw5f88y2fv780c2kfs89ge5qk6q3sfm7spks880 nostr:npub1yrnuj56rnen08zp2h9h7p74ghgjx6ma39spmpj6w9hzxywutevsst7k5cx https://x.com/91xTx93x2 https://x.com/afilini rustaceanrob

@ 82b30d30:40c6c003

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

@ 06639a38:655f8f71

• My PR#100 for sirn-se/websocket-php got merged and was released in version 3.2.3
• Closed issue #83, reviewed and merged PR#84 for integrating NIP-04 and NIP-44
• Closed issue #85 and merged PR#86 with Event object verification
• 1.6.0 release https://github.com/nostrver-se/nostr-php/releases/tag/1.6.0

Planned for week 12:

• Integrate NIP-19

@ 06639a38:655f8f71

https://ccns.nostrver.se is a (Drupal powered) website that I started to build in January 2024 (source on Github and Gitlab). It's a fork of an earlier (abandoned) project https://cchs.social/.
Currently CCNS is a link aggregration website and for now it's only my who is using it to save and share Nostr related links. When you post a new link, you have the option to cross-post it as a Nostr note (example here).

Kind 39700

Last month Jurjen and Abir have started to work on a social bookmark client built with Nostr (inspired by Del.icio.us from the past). Earlier this month they changed to event kind 39700 for broadcasting the Nostr event with the bookmark / link data accross the network. They did this because Sep already created a social bookmark like client called Pinja when fiatjaf raised this idea.

With these developments to me it was very obvious to integrate the feature that new created CCNS links are now also published as kind 39700 events to the Nostr network. This means that links are now also distributed on multiple relays as kind 39700 events and are accessible in multiple clients (Yumyume and Pinja).

Here you can see the same data, from left to right:

• CCNS
• Pinja
• Yumyume
• njump

Structure

The current data structure for the 39700 kind looks as follow:

• "id": "event_id"
• "pubkey": "pubkey author"
• "created_at": unix_timestamp
• "kind": 39700
• "tags":
  • "description", "description text here"
  • "d", "unique-slug-value"
  • "t", "hashtag"
• "content": "https://book_mark_url"  
• "sig": "signature"

As there is no NIP (yet) for this event kind, I see some possible improvements:

• Use the bookmark URL as d tag so it can be used as a unique identifier for every client
• Use the content field for the description
• Use the a tag for an addressable event following NIP-01: ["a", "39700:pubkey_of_author:", recommended_relay_url_optional]

On short-term I don't have any plans to developer CCNS further, as most of my attention goes to the development of the Nostr-PHP library and Drupal related contribs using that library. That said, CCNS is a Drupal project but all the Nostr stuff is done client-side (Javascript) with NDK and Nostr-PHP is not used (maybe this will change in the future).

@ 2b24a1fa:17750f64

Voices for Gaza – Stimmen, die das Unsagbare singen. Es fehlen die Worte ob der Wut, der Zerstörung, dem tausendfachen Mord, dem unfassbaren Leid, den fortwährenden Intrigen und Strategien. Jetzt werden Geiseln übergeben, es könnte ein Weg zu mehr Frieden sein, aber jede Regung wird benützt, um der anderen Seite Demütigung und Inszenierung zu unterstellen. Wieder werden Vereinbarungen gebrochen. Es macht sprachlos, hilflos und müde. Aber der Musiker und Produzent Jens Fischer Rodrian nimmt all seine Kraft, seine Musikalität und Vernetzung zusammen und wirbt mit einer weiteren, einer dritten CD im Rahmen der Protestnoten um Auflösung von Unrecht, diesmal um Frieden in Gaza.

https://soundcloud.com/radiomuenchen/voices-for-gaza-ein-gespraech

Unsere Kollegin Eva Schmidt hat sich mit Jens Fischer Rodrian über die neue Produktion Voices for Gaza unterhalten, für die er Künstler begeistern konnte wie Dieter Hallervorden, Jakob Heymann, den palästinensischen Poeten Ibrahim Massri, Markus Stockhausen, Diether Dehm, Wolfgang Wodarg, Kilez More, Morgaine oder Äon.

Für „Voices for Gaza“ wurde übrigens ein Crowdfunding ins Leben gerufen wurde, das noch bis zum 15. März läuft. Mehr Informationen gibt’s auf der Seite: protestnoten.de.

www.radiomuenchen.net/​\ @radiomuenchen\ www.facebook.com/radiomuenchen\ www.instagram.com/radio_muenchen/\ twitter.com/RadioMuenchen

Radio München ist eine gemeinnützige Unternehmung.\ Wir freuen uns, wenn Sie unsere Arbeit unterstützen.

GLS-Bank\ IBAN: DE65 4306 0967 8217 9867 00\ BIC: GENODEM1GLS\ Bitcoin (BTC): 3G1wDDH2CDPJ9DHan5TTpsfpSXWhNMCZmQ\ Ethereum (ETH): 0xB41106C0fa3974353Ef86F62B62228A0f4ad7fe9

@ 4c5d5379:3a4383ee

[3]

[4]