TCAST: The Future of Data & AI

Since the dawn of time, people have been trying to make others go the direction they want. Whether a simple path in the grass or specifying people’s place in society.

One of the earliest documented examples of this kind of idea at work is Plato’s Republic. Socrates’ student laid out a society in which all of humanity would be divided up into specific castes, with the philosophers at the top (any time anyone tries to plan a society, his class is always at the top), the warriors next and then workers. Breeding was to be strictly controlled so that the correct offspring would be produced in arguably the first large scale eugenic plan. 

Plenty of others have tried to plan societies from the top down. Every socialist country represents an attempt to do this, always to disastrous results as the failure of the rulers to consider any number of variables results in famines and economic stagnation. China is considered by many to be an exception, but if you follow them at all, you know that they currently are running concentration camps and have been backing off their one child policy for years now, most recently allowing couples to have three kids as they realize they are on the verge of a demographic collapse. This reflects a remarkable lack of foresight.

It doesn’t even work on a small scale. The Puritans who came over on the Mayflower were originally organized in an overly planned way, dictated by those who financed their burgeoning colony. It was a very communal structure and had little incentive for people to work on their own terms, leading to the near-death of the entire colony. It was only when they abandoned the plan and let people find their own path that things turned around. 

Why is that? Why do the plans so seldom work? Most top down plans are simply too rigid. You can have a general layout for a village, or guardrails to keep people from falling off a cliff, but if you get much more granular than that you tend to run up against human nature. 

Here’s the deal, when you try to control people too closely you get one of three responses. One is that people are cowed and lose all motivation to better themselves and the world around them. They become broken by the system. Or people become enamored of the system and their whole life becomes about promoting the system. When the system is too controlling it doesn’t wind up producing anything good, just more people absorbed by it. Finally, there are those who rebel against the control and you wind up with violence against the system, leading eventually to some kind of revolution. 

The same principles apply even down to a very micro level, down to keeping people off the grass. When you just put paths arbitrarily through the grass, it can be very difficult to get people to stay on them. This is something that Princeton University learned the hard way. No matter how much they tried to keep people off the grass, they wouldn’t listen. People walked wherever they wanted and thus tended to ruin the grass. Finally, the university came up with a novel solution – they paid attention to where people were walking on their own. As it turned out, people tended to find their own, more efficient paths when left to themselves. Princeton then set about making new paths to fit what people were doing on their own. That simple change, of backing off and letting people find their own way of doing things and working with that rather than trying to direct it meant a whole lot fewer headaches for the groundskeepers. It also illustrated that trying to wedge people into particular paths doesn’t work all that well. 

Having paths of course is good. And there will always be a need for the occasional guardrail to keep people from doing something stupid. However, most of the time, working with people rather than forcing them will lead to better and more efficient results. All because rather than wedging people into a system, someone observed, gathered the relevant data and adjusted their plans around people, instead of adjusting people around their plans.

What’s your data worth? www.tartle.co

 

Tcast is brought to you by TARTLE. A global personal data marketplace that allows users to sell their personal information anonymously when they want to, while allowing buyers to access clean ready to analyze data sets on digital identities from all across the globe.

 

The show is hosted by Co-Founder and Source Data Pioneer Alexander McCaig and Head of Conscious Marketing Jason Rigby.

 

What's your data worth?

 

Find out at: https://tartle.co/

 

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/TARTLE

 

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TARTLEofficial/

 

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/tartle_official/

 

Twitter: https://twitter.com/TARTLEofficial

 

Spread the word!

Since the dawn of time, people have been trying to make others go the direction they want. Whether a simple path in the grass or specifying people’s place in society.

One of the earliest documented examples of this kind of idea at work is Plato’s Republic. Socrates’ student laid out a society in which all of humanity would be divided up into specific castes, with the philosophers at the top (any time anyone tries to plan a society, his class is always at the top), the warriors next and then workers. Breeding was to be strictly controlled so that the correct offspring would be produced in arguably the first large scale eugenic plan. 

Plenty of others have tried to plan societies from the top down. Every socialist country represents an attempt to do this, always to disastrous results as the failure of the rulers to consider any number of variables results in famines and economic stagnation. China is considered by many to be an exception, but if you follow them at all, you know that they currently are running concentration camps and have been backing off their one child policy for years now, most recently allowing couples to have three kids as they realize they are on the verge of a demographic collapse. This reflects a remarkable lack of foresight.

It doesn’t even work on a small scale. The Puritans who came over on the Mayflower were originally organized in an overly planned way, dictated by those who financed their burgeoning colony. It was a very communal structure and had little incentive for people to work on their own terms, leading to the near-death of the entire colony. It was only when they abandoned the plan and let people find their own path that things turned around. 

Why is that? Why do the plans so seldom work? Most top down plans are simply too rigid. You can have a general layout for a village, or guardrails to keep people from falling off a cliff, but if you get much more granular than that you tend to run up against human nature. 

Here’s the deal, when you try to control people too closely you get one of three responses. One is that people are cowed and lose all motivation to better themselves and the world around them. They become broken by the system. Or people become enamored of the system and their whole life becomes about promoting the system. When the system is too controlling it doesn’t wind up producing anything good, just more people absorbed by it. Finally, there are those who rebel against the control and you wind up with violence against the system, leading eventually to some kind of revolution. 

The same principles apply even down to a very micro level, down to keeping people off the grass. When you just put paths arbitrarily through the grass, it can be very difficult to get people to stay on them. This is something that Princeton University learned the hard way. No matter how much they tried to keep people off the grass, they wouldn’t listen. People walked wherever they wanted and thus tended to ruin the grass. Finally, the university came up with a novel solution – they paid attention to where people were walking on their own. As it turned out, people tended to find their own, more efficient paths when left to themselves. Princeton then set about making new paths to fit what people were doing on their own. That simple change, of backing off and letting people find their own way of doing things and working with that rather than trying to direct it meant a whole lot fewer headaches for the groundskeepers. It also illustrated that trying to wedge people into particular paths doesn’t work all that well. 

Having paths of course is good. And there will always be a need for the occasional guardrail to keep people from doing something stupid. However, most of the time, working with people rather than forcing them will lead to better and more efficient results. All because rather than wedging people into a system, someone observed, gathered the relevant data and adjusted their plans around people, instead of adjusting people around their plans.

What’s your data worth? www.tartle.co

 

Tcast is brought to you by TARTLE. A global personal data marketplace that allows users to sell their personal information anonymously when they want to, while allowing buyers to access clean ready to analyze data sets on digital identities from all across the globe.

 

The show is hosted by Co-Founder and Source Data Pioneer Alexander McCaig and Head of Conscious Marketing Jason Rigby.

 

What's your data worth?

 

Find out at: https://tartle.co/

 

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/TARTLE

 

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TARTLEofficial/

 

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/tartle_official/

 

Twitter: https://twitter.com/TARTLEofficial

 

Spread the word!

Here’s a bit of a head scratcher – there are multiple forms of deforestation. Wait? Isn’t deforestation just about cutting down trees? You’d think so, but it isn’t necessarily that simple. Deforestation isn’t simply loggers cutting down trees to be turned into houses, furniture, and paper. It is also clearing out trees for farms, both crops and cattle. Cattle farming for instance accounts for a lot of the deforestation occurring in the world, especially in Brazil. The crops the forest might get cleared out include rubber trees and cocoa plants, both of which are major cash crops in South America where much of the world’s rainforest is located. All of it takes away a significant part of the world’s oxygen-producing trees. 

There have been lots of victories though. There are people who remember that once upon a time, vast swaths of forest were cut down, with no plans to replenish them. Back in the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, it’s easy to see how Europeans would see the vast forests of this seemingly endless continent and act as though the supply of wood were endless. As we know, we learned differently. Fortunately, most logging companies in the West have some sort of replanting program. It takes time to replenish, especially when cutting down full-grown oaks and other slow growth trees. It can take forty years or more before reaching full growth. Various pines grow faster but the wood isn’t as desirable for a variety of reasons. Some of those plans were not the best either. Part of FDR’s New Deal was a number of government programs designed to get people back to work. 

One of those programs was a replanting effort. One of the areas that it helped reforest was Northern Michigan. While it certainly accomplished that goal, anyone who has spent any time there will tell you a lot of the forests aren’t all that pretty. They’re full of jack pines planted almost in rows or scattered and clustered in ways you don’t see in an old growth forest. That’s because the people doing the planting didn’t know what they were doing. They were either throwing seeds randomly on the ground or trying to plant them in a mechanistically efficient way. The results aren’t what one would hope.

Still, all of those replanting initiatives – government and business alike - were a step in the right direction and it came about at a time when it was possible for environmentalists, businesses, and government to find middle ground. The environmentalists could be made to understand that trees meant homes for people and the businesses could be made to understand the need for replanting, and governments and businesses could be made to see that doing things like cutting all the trees next to a river led to problems later as erosion accelerated immensely without the tree’s root systems to both use the water and hold the soil. 

Unfortunately, times are different now. The positions are more extreme and every side is more intractable than ever. Yet, it is clear that some kind of middle ground has to be found. As vast as the South American rainforests are, they are not infinite. We have to figure out some way to get the resources we need to house, feed, and clothe nearly 8 billion people while still leaving something for future generations. Part of that will likely be simply consuming less. Rather than buying a new piece of furniture, it might be worth refurbishing what you have. Or build new out of scrap like pallet wood. A few less hamburgers wouldn’t hurt either. That means less forest is cut down to make room for more cows. 

Finding the best solutions that will keep people working and not living in a van down by the river while also protecting the planet as a whole will not be easy, it will take a lot of data. Data that you can share and purchase on TARTLE. Data on what conservation efforts are most effective, data on the effect of various practices and policies, data that can point the way to solutions for everyone. 

What’s your data worth? www.tartle.co

 

Tcast is brought to you by TARTLE. A global personal data marketplace that allows users to sell their personal information anonymously when they want to, while allowing buyers to access clean ready to analyze data sets on digital identities from all across the globe.

 

The show is hosted by Co-Founder and Source Data Pioneer Alexander McCaig and Head of Conscious Marketing Jason Rigby.

 

What's your data worth?

 

Find out at: https://tartle.co/

 

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/TARTLE

 

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TARTLEofficial/

 

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/tartle_official/

 

Twitter: https://twitter.com/TARTLEofficial

 

Spread the word!

Here’s a bit of a head scratcher – there are multiple forms of deforestation. Wait? Isn’t deforestation just about cutting down trees? You’d think so, but it isn’t necessarily that simple. Deforestation isn’t simply loggers cutting down trees to be turned into houses, furniture, and paper. It is also clearing out trees for farms, both crops and cattle. Cattle farming for instance accounts for a lot of the deforestation occurring in the world, especially in Brazil. The crops the forest might get cleared out include rubber trees and cocoa plants, both of which are major cash crops in South America where much of the world’s rainforest is located. All of it takes away a significant part of the world’s oxygen-producing trees. 

There have been lots of victories though. There are people who remember that once upon a time, vast swaths of forest were cut down, with no plans to replenish them. Back in the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, it’s easy to see how Europeans would see the vast forests of this seemingly endless continent and act as though the supply of wood were endless. As we know, we learned differently. Fortunately, most logging companies in the West have some sort of replanting program. It takes time to replenish, especially when cutting down full-grown oaks and other slow growth trees. It can take forty years or more before reaching full growth. Various pines grow faster but the wood isn’t as desirable for a variety of reasons. Some of those plans were not the best either. Part of FDR’s New Deal was a number of government programs designed to get people back to work. 

One of those programs was a replanting effort. One of the areas that it helped reforest was Northern Michigan. While it certainly accomplished that goal, anyone who has spent any time there will tell you a lot of the forests aren’t all that pretty. They’re full of jack pines planted almost in rows or scattered and clustered in ways you don’t see in an old growth forest. That’s because the people doing the planting didn’t know what they were doing. They were either throwing seeds randomly on the ground or trying to plant them in a mechanistically efficient way. The results aren’t what one would hope.

Still, all of those replanting initiatives – government and business alike - were a step in the right direction and it came about at a time when it was possible for environmentalists, businesses, and government to find middle ground. The environmentalists could be made to understand that trees meant homes for people and the businesses could be made to understand the need for replanting, and governments and businesses could be made to see that doing things like cutting all the trees next to a river led to problems later as erosion accelerated immensely without the tree’s root systems to both use the water and hold the soil. 

Unfortunately, times are different now. The positions are more extreme and every side is more intractable than ever. Yet, it is clear that some kind of middle ground has to be found. As vast as the South American rainforests are, they are not infinite. We have to figure out some way to get the resources we need to house, feed, and clothe nearly 8 billion people while still leaving something for future generations. Part of that will likely be simply consuming less. Rather than buying a new piece of furniture, it might be worth refurbishing what you have. Or build new out of scrap like pallet wood. A few less hamburgers wouldn’t hurt either. That means less forest is cut down to make room for more cows. 

Finding the best solutions that will keep people working and not living in a van down by the river while also protecting the planet as a whole will not be easy, it will take a lot of data. Data that you can share and purchase on TARTLE. Data on what conservation efforts are most effective, data on the effect of various practices and policies, data that can point the way to solutions for everyone. 

What’s your data worth? www.tartle.co

 

Tcast is brought to you by TARTLE. A global personal data marketplace that allows users to sell their personal information anonymously when they want to, while allowing buyers to access clean ready to analyze data sets on digital identities from all across the globe.

 

The show is hosted by Co-Founder and Source Data Pioneer Alexander McCaig and Head of Conscious Marketing Jason Rigby.

 

What's your data worth?

 

Find out at: https://tartle.co/

 

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/TARTLE

 

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TARTLEofficial/

 

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/tartle_official/

 

Twitter: https://twitter.com/TARTLEofficial

 

Spread the word!

Last time in this brief series on the concept of sovereignism, we explored in depth how every political system thus far devised involves individuals giving up some of their sovereignty to a collective government in the hopes of getting increased security in return. While that works at least for a while, eventually the government tends to grow and take more and more control for itself until some sort of despotism takes hold. That despotism can take many forms but the important part is that it means individuals no longer have control over much of their own lives. 

That control takes a lot of energy. For a state to maintain control over a population the amount of energy that gets expended is nuts. And that isn’t to grow, to expand, or to increase prosperity, it’s just to control and keep things where they are at. That’s why the state keeps trying to control more. It and the people who run it believe that controlling more will mean there is more energy to direct towards growth. The problem is that it works in the short term. The state pulls in more and for a while can do more work with that infusion of energy. Yet, before long, that energy again gets sucked up in maintaining control. So it tries to get more energy until the people who make up the state’s population aren’t giving any more. Either because they have no more to give or because they just aren’t having it. When that point is reached, the state begins to crumble, breaking down under the strain of maintaining control.

So, what is energy? In this reading, you could say energy is control. It is used to maintain control, either by the state over people or by people over themselves. It is also power. Power over others, over things. Power to accomplish goals, whatever they might be. All that might be small thinking though. Why? Because energy is at the root of everything. The computer I’m writing this on obviously requires electricity, which most likely comes from a fossil fuel plant. Those fossil fuels were once plants and animals that pulled nutrients from the ground with the help of the sun. 

The energy from the sun is therefore at the base of everything that happens here on earth. Yet, that is not the real base, you can keep going back all the way to the big bang, which was all the energy still in the universe contained in an infinitesimal point. We get to study that energy in the Cosmic Background Radiation, microwaves that carry a record of the first moments of the universe. It’s the energy signature of the creation of the universe. Do you want to know the truth about what happened in those first moments? Study the energy. So perhaps, ultimately energy is a signpost to the truth. Not only is this true when it comes to understanding the truths of the universe, it works to a degree with people too. What to know about what a person really wants? What a person thinks is important? Look at what they do, where they spend their energy. Especially their energy when the necessities are met. What do people do with their energy after they have food and shelter? No matter what they say then, that is a big indicator of what they really find important. That’s the truth. 

Why then would we give any of that up? Why give up truth, power or control to a centralized entity that will likely use it against you? Whether it be a business or a government, chances are anything you give them can and will be used against you. That’s why people should be moving to systems like TARTLE and cryptocurrency. Take back control of your data, the record of how you spend your energy. Get away from the systems of the centralized entities that don’t have your interests at heart. Why do you think they want your data so much? It isn’t for your benefit, it’s for theirs.

What’s your data worth? www.tartle.co

Tcast is brought to you by TARTLE. A global personal data marketplace that allows users to sell their personal information anonymously when they want to, while allowing buyers to access clean ready to analyze data sets on digital identities from all across the globe.

 

The show is hosted by Co-Founder and Source Data Pioneer Alexander McCaig and Head of Conscious Marketing Jason Rigby.

 

What's your data worth?

 

Find out at: https://tartle.co/

 

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/TARTLE

 

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TARTLEofficial/

 

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/tartle_official/

 

Twitter: https://twitter.com/TARTLEofficial

 

Spread the word!

Last time in this brief series on the concept of sovereignism, we explored in depth how every political system thus far devised involves individuals giving up some of their sovereignty to a collective government in the hopes of getting increased security in return. While that works at least for a while, eventually the government tends to grow and take more and more control for itself until some sort of despotism takes hold. That despotism can take many forms but the important part is that it means individuals no longer have control over much of their own lives. 

That control takes a lot of energy. For a state to maintain control over a population the amount of energy that gets expended is nuts. And that isn’t to grow, to expand, or to increase prosperity, it’s just to control and keep things where they are at. That’s why the state keeps trying to control more. It and the people who run it believe that controlling more will mean there is more energy to direct towards growth. The problem is that it works in the short term. The state pulls in more and for a while can do more work with that infusion of energy. Yet, before long, that energy again gets sucked up in maintaining control. So it tries to get more energy until the people who make up the state’s population aren’t giving any more. Either because they have no more to give or because they just aren’t having it. When that point is reached, the state begins to crumble, breaking down under the strain of maintaining control.

So, what is energy? In this reading, you could say energy is control. It is used to maintain control, either by the state over people or by people over themselves. It is also power. Power over others, over things. Power to accomplish goals, whatever they might be. All that might be small thinking though. Why? Because energy is at the root of everything. The computer I’m writing this on obviously requires electricity, which most likely comes from a fossil fuel plant. Those fossil fuels were once plants and animals that pulled nutrients from the ground with the help of the sun. 

The energy from the sun is therefore at the base of everything that happens here on earth. Yet, that is not the real base, you can keep going back all the way to the big bang, which was all the energy still in the universe contained in an infinitesimal point. We get to study that energy in the Cosmic Background Radiation, microwaves that carry a record of the first moments of the universe. It’s the energy signature of the creation of the universe. Do you want to know the truth about what happened in those first moments? Study the energy. So perhaps, ultimately energy is a signpost to the truth. Not only is this true when it comes to understanding the truths of the universe, it works to a degree with people too. What to know about what a person really wants? What a person thinks is important? Look at what they do, where they spend their energy. Especially their energy when the necessities are met. What do people do with their energy after they have food and shelter? No matter what they say then, that is a big indicator of what they really find important. That’s the truth. 

Why then would we give any of that up? Why give up truth, power or control to a centralized entity that will likely use it against you? Whether it be a business or a government, chances are anything you give them can and will be used against you. That’s why people should be moving to systems like TARTLE and cryptocurrency. Take back control of your data, the record of how you spend your energy. Get away from the systems of the centralized entities that don’t have your interests at heart. Why do you think they want your data so much? It isn’t for your benefit, it’s for theirs.

What’s your data worth? www.tartle.co

Tcast is brought to you by TARTLE. A global personal data marketplace that allows users to sell their personal information anonymously when they want to, while allowing buyers to access clean ready to analyze data sets on digital identities from all across the globe.

 

The show is hosted by Co-Founder and Source Data Pioneer Alexander McCaig and Head of Conscious Marketing Jason Rigby.

 

What's your data worth?

 

Find out at: https://tartle.co/

 

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/TARTLE

 

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TARTLEofficial/

 

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/tartle_official/

 

Twitter: https://twitter.com/TARTLEofficial

 

Spread the word!

Statism is a general term that applies to some degree to just about every type of socio-economic structure you can think of. That’s because in all of them, from capitalism to fascism to communism, there is some level of state control. Obviously more in some than in others. Certainly, capitalism allows for a lot more individual freedom than the other two isms mentioned and pretty much any other that has been tried before. Still, there is some level of control that is given up by sovereign individuals. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say they are individuals who should be sovereign. 

What is interesting is that all of these systems at least begin by people choosing to give up some control to a centralized government. Eventually, the government is given enough control that it begins to take whatever more control it wants regardless of what the people have actually chosen. That’s when you get various forms of despotism, from those we are most familiar with like fascism and communism to oligarchies like what the capitalism of the West is fast becoming if it isn’t already there. 

It naturally has to be recognized that anarchy (not in the chaos in the streets sense, but in the complete lack of government sense) isn’t really feasible. People will organize themselves into groups. We’re hardwired to do so. And unfortunately, that means we are going to need to be protected from other groups at some point. You can be as peaceful as you want in group A but group B down the other side of the valley may just decide your grass is greener. That means there will be some kind of provision for the military and an apparatus for trade with different groups. Peaceful, free, and fair trade, coupled with the backing of military have probably prevented more wars than we will ever know. If there is no need to get the stuff needed by force with fair and free trade and if trying to do so would be met with an equal or greater force, then peace is maintained. Regardless, this basic society doesn’t actually require much in the way of a federal, centralized government. In fact, the necessary government would be pretty small. 

That is exactly how the United States was originally set up. The Federal Government was meant to deal with foreign nations, preferably through trade but also through war if we were to be attacked. These minimal activities didn’t require much in the way of taxes to support them either. Yet, we have clearly gotten very far afield from those golden days. 

Now, it looks like we are moving into something different. Digital technology is empowering and returning power back to individuals in ways that haven’t been possible before. It has opened up communication and resource sharing beyond borders. The TARTLE team is just one example we happen to be familiar with. We have team members from New Mexico to the Philippines. Massive corporations shift their own resources and finances around with a few keystrokes. Individuals can start their own businesses, earn, sell, and make purchases with Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. The world is becoming decentralized in a way that actually makes the familiar nation-state look like a dinosaur. 

Like the dinosaurs, the nation-state is slow to react to changes while individuals can be much more flexible. That’s why states and major businesses are trying to control technology and data, both the development and distribution of it. In a sense, both business and government (which Chesterton referred to as Hudge and Gudge, two entities that inevitably merge) rely on people to be their technology creation labor force and then use that technology to increase their level of control. 

Next time, we’ll get deeper into sovereignism and the question of what energy is.

What’s your data worth? www.tartle.co

 

Tcast is brought to you by TARTLE. A global personal data marketplace that allows users to sell their personal information anonymously when they want to, while allowing buyers to access clean ready to analyze data sets on digital identities from all across the globe.

 

The show is hosted by Co-Founder and Source Data Pioneer Alexander McCaig and Head of Conscious Marketing Jason Rigby.

 

What's your data worth?

 

Find out at: https://tartle.co/

 

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/TARTLE

 

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TARTLEofficial/

 

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/tartle_official/

 

Twitter: https://twitter.com/TARTLEofficial

 

Spread the word!

Statism is a general term that applies to some degree to just about every type of socio-economic structure you can think of. That’s because in all of them, from capitalism to fascism to communism, there is some level of state control. Obviously more in some than in others. Certainly, capitalism allows for a lot more individual freedom than the other two isms mentioned and pretty much any other that has been tried before. Still, there is some level of control that is given up by sovereign individuals. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say they are individuals who should be sovereign. 

What is interesting is that all of these systems at least begin by people choosing to give up some control to a centralized government. Eventually, the government is given enough control that it begins to take whatever more control it wants regardless of what the people have actually chosen. That’s when you get various forms of despotism, from those we are most familiar with like fascism and communism to oligarchies like what the capitalism of the West is fast becoming if it isn’t already there. 

It naturally has to be recognized that anarchy (not in the chaos in the streets sense, but in the complete lack of government sense) isn’t really feasible. People will organize themselves into groups. We’re hardwired to do so. And unfortunately, that means we are going to need to be protected from other groups at some point. You can be as peaceful as you want in group A but group B down the other side of the valley may just decide your grass is greener. That means there will be some kind of provision for the military and an apparatus for trade with different groups. Peaceful, free, and fair trade, coupled with the backing of military have probably prevented more wars than we will ever know. If there is no need to get the stuff needed by force with fair and free trade and if trying to do so would be met with an equal or greater force, then peace is maintained. Regardless, this basic society doesn’t actually require much in the way of a federal, centralized government. In fact, the necessary government would be pretty small. 

That is exactly how the United States was originally set up. The Federal Government was meant to deal with foreign nations, preferably through trade but also through war if we were to be attacked. These minimal activities didn’t require much in the way of taxes to support them either. Yet, we have clearly gotten very far afield from those golden days. 

Now, it looks like we are moving into something different. Digital technology is empowering and returning power back to individuals in ways that haven’t been possible before. It has opened up communication and resource sharing beyond borders. The TARTLE team is just one example we happen to be familiar with. We have team members from New Mexico to the Philippines. Massive corporations shift their own resources and finances around with a few keystrokes. Individuals can start their own businesses, earn, sell, and make purchases with Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. The world is becoming decentralized in a way that actually makes the familiar nation-state look like a dinosaur. 

Like the dinosaurs, the nation-state is slow to react to changes while individuals can be much more flexible. That’s why states and major businesses are trying to control technology and data, both the development and distribution of it. In a sense, both business and government (which Chesterton referred to as Hudge and Gudge, two entities that inevitably merge) rely on people to be their technology creation labor force and then use that technology to increase their level of control. 

Next time, we’ll get deeper into sovereignism and the question of what energy is.

What’s your data worth? www.tartle.co

 

Tcast is brought to you by TARTLE. A global personal data marketplace that allows users to sell their personal information anonymously when they want to, while allowing buyers to access clean ready to analyze data sets on digital identities from all across the globe.

 

The show is hosted by Co-Founder and Source Data Pioneer Alexander McCaig and Head of Conscious Marketing Jason Rigby.

 

What's your data worth?

 

Find out at: https://tartle.co/

 

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/TARTLE

 

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TARTLEofficial/

 

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/tartle_official/

 

Twitter: https://twitter.com/TARTLEofficial

 

Spread the word!

One challenging aspect of dealing with speech is that it bridges the gap between an individual’s thoughts and their action. Now that everything is so accessible and the internet is everywhere, it’s important to analyze the kind of influence our words have on each other. 

With so much power to connect and communicate in the palm of our hands, we are pushed to be more proactive and to hold ourselves accountable for the kind of discourse that we allow. Consequently, this also prompts us to think of the level of inclusivity that we promote in our social circles.Today, TARTLE looks into the price of putting limits on speech with Jonathan Zimmerman.

 

Is It Time To Cancel Today’s Cancel Culture?

How has cancel culture and the evolution of what it means to secure social justice, particularly in the context of social media and the internet, changed the way today’s generation navigates speech?

“It’s funny, that when we become emotionally charged...logic seems to fly out the door and we forget the reason for why certain fundamentals were in place that, I guess, allow us to be emotionally outspoken,” Jonathan explained on the podcast. 

Today’s cancel culture can be vicious: anybody can be publicly named and shamed for accountability, and boycotting has become a pivotal part of Gen Z’s definition of social justice. This collective action serves as an opportunity for the masses to voice their concerns to public figures — but also to participate in a greater cause from the comfort of their homes. 

In recent times, Jonathan shared how his Trump-supporting students were afraid of opening up about their political beliefs to the rest of the class. This prompted him to implement a meet and greet from students from another college under a premise that they called “the wedding tables model.” 

Students from the University of Pennsylvania would be assigned to sit in circular tables with students from Cairn University. At the center of the room, a carefully selected roster of students from the two institutions would initiate a conversation on their beliefs, which would be on opposite ends of the spectrum. This gave everyone the opportunity to experience opening up to a perceived political rival or enemy — but without the fear of being judged.

Similarly, TARTLE  also gives people an opportunity to look beyond political affiliations. It gives people and entities around the world the platform needed to share data truthfully, anonymously, and securely about themselves so that they may find common ground over time — what it means, Alex says, to be a human being across all the 220 countries on this planet.

 

The Roots of Limiting Free Speech: The Brandenburg Case

In 1964, an officer in the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) named Clarence Brandenburg held a meeting with fellow members, in the presence of invited media representatives. 

Here, Brandenburg made several anti-Semitic and anti-black statements; he also made several hints to the possibility of committing “revengeance” if the federal government and the Court continued “suppressing the white Caucasian race.” Finally, he declared that KKK members were set to march on Washington DC, on Independence Day.

While Brandenburg was convicted, fined $1,000, and sentenced to one to ten years in prison, the US Supreme Court later reversed his conviction. It held that a new test, called the “imminent lawless action” test or the Brandenburg test, should be used as a metric for speech.

This new test, which continues to be the standard used by the government to punish inflammatory speech: is composed of three elements: intent to speak, imminence of lawlessness, and likelihood of lawlessness.

Brandenburg’s case was important in enforcing an idea Jonathan mentions in the podcast: that no right is absolute. However, if the state is pushed to limit speech in any situation, it must adhere to an absolutely clear rationale for it.

 

Are Limits To Free Speech, Limits To Peace?

Jonathan pointed out that often, there is plenty of discussion about the legal environment surrounding free speech — but not as much about the educational. With campuses touted as protected areas for speech, he calls for people to be more thoughtful about “modeling a different and a better kind of exchange in our schools.”

In 1965, thirteen-year-old Mary Beth Tinker wore a black armband to school in protest of the United States’ involvement in Vietnam as part of a group protest. She, alongside her brother John, was one of five students that were singled out for punishment. 

Immediately after they were suspended, Tinker reported that her family received multiple threats from the public. Despite the lack of an absolute and immediate threat to learning in the school, the lives of Tinker and her fellow students changed drastically after this simple act of defiance. Incidents like this prompt the need for people, particularly from the younger generation, to have venues where they are free to experience each other’s humanity despite differences in politics. 

  Free Speech Facilitating Self-Reflection

Jonathan shared his realizations about his own prejudice when he came across a religious missionary while volunteering for the Peace Corps in Nepal: when you really get angry with somebody, it's because you see a part of yourself in them that you don't like.

Furthermore, anger clouds the judgment and encourages us to lash out at the individual, instead of the problem at hand. This instinctive emotion pushes us to be aggressive and to defend ourselves against an abstract fear. 

In the podcast, Jonathan posits that increased tolerance for others’ right to free speech — especially from those who hold views and beliefs on the opposite end of the spectrum — is an important part of the authentic human experience because it’s a learning process. Minimizing ideas that are against the ones we hold dear to us as harmful may help protect one’s ego; but it inhibits learning, and a perspective of growth.

 

Closing Thoughts: Free Speech Is A Radical Value — Not A Conservative One

In a world where information is so accessible, we are challenged to evolve beyond the instinctual and reflexive part of human nature and start seeing others as unique, complex individuals with experiences, motivations, and perspectives that are just as compelling as our own.

Inhibitions on free speech become a crutch we grow reliant on, inhibiting our capacity for growth and leading to self-sabotage. Arguing that certain subjects should not be discussed is, according to Jonathan, also arguing that people are not capable of self-governance — which can be seen in areas and countries where censorship is a norm.

Our continued freedom to think, speak, and act is also shaped by the way we choose to respond to other people. When all this is translated into data on the internet, it really makes you think — how much is your data worth? www.tartle.co

 

Tcast is brought to you by TARTLE. A global personal data marketplace that allows users to sell their personal information anonymously when they want to, while allowing buyers to access clean ready to analyze data sets on digital identities from all across the globe.

 

The show is hosted by Co-Founder and Source Data Pioneer Alexander McCaig and Head of Conscious Marketing Jason Rigby.

 

What's your data worth?

 

Find out at: https://tartle.co/

 

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/TARTLE

 

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TARTLEofficial/

 

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/tartle_official/

 

Twitter: https://twitter.com/TARTLEofficial

 

Spread the word!

 

One challenging aspect of dealing with speech is that it bridges the gap between an individual’s thoughts and their action. Now that everything is so accessible and the internet is everywhere, it’s important to analyze the kind of influence our words have on each other. 

With so much power to connect and communicate in the palm of our hands, we are pushed to be more proactive and to hold ourselves accountable for the kind of discourse that we allow. Consequently, this also prompts us to think of the level of inclusivity that we promote in our social circles.Today, TARTLE looks into the price of putting limits on speech with Jonathan Zimmerman.

 

Is It Time To Cancel Today’s Cancel Culture?

How has cancel culture and the evolution of what it means to secure social justice, particularly in the context of social media and the internet, changed the way today’s generation navigates speech?

“It’s funny, that when we become emotionally charged...logic seems to fly out the door and we forget the reason for why certain fundamentals were in place that, I guess, allow us to be emotionally outspoken,” Jonathan explained on the podcast. 

Today’s cancel culture can be vicious: anybody can be publicly named and shamed for accountability, and boycotting has become a pivotal part of Gen Z’s definition of social justice. This collective action serves as an opportunity for the masses to voice their concerns to public figures — but also to participate in a greater cause from the comfort of their homes. 

In recent times, Jonathan shared how his Trump-supporting students were afraid of opening up about their political beliefs to the rest of the class. This prompted him to implement a meet and greet from students from another college under a premise that they called “the wedding tables model.” 

Students from the University of Pennsylvania would be assigned to sit in circular tables with students from Cairn University. At the center of the room, a carefully selected roster of students from the two institutions would initiate a conversation on their beliefs, which would be on opposite ends of the spectrum. This gave everyone the opportunity to experience opening up to a perceived political rival or enemy — but without the fear of being judged.

Similarly, TARTLE  also gives people an opportunity to look beyond political affiliations. It gives people and entities around the world the platform needed to share data truthfully, anonymously, and securely about themselves so that they may find common ground over time — what it means, Alex says, to be a human being across all the 220 countries on this planet.

 

The Roots of Limiting Free Speech: The Brandenburg Case

In 1964, an officer in the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) named Clarence Brandenburg held a meeting with fellow members, in the presence of invited media representatives. 

Here, Brandenburg made several anti-Semitic and anti-black statements; he also made several hints to the possibility of committing “revengeance” if the federal government and the Court continued “suppressing the white Caucasian race.” Finally, he declared that KKK members were set to march on Washington DC, on Independence Day.

While Brandenburg was convicted, fined $1,000, and sentenced to one to ten years in prison, the US Supreme Court later reversed his conviction. It held that a new test, called the “imminent lawless action” test or the Brandenburg test, should be used as a metric for speech.

This new test, which continues to be the standard used by the government to punish inflammatory speech: is composed of three elements: intent to speak, imminence of lawlessness, and likelihood of lawlessness.

Brandenburg’s case was important in enforcing an idea Jonathan mentions in the podcast: that no right is absolute. However, if the state is pushed to limit speech in any situation, it must adhere to an absolutely clear rationale for it.

 

Are Limits To Free Speech, Limits To Peace?

Jonathan pointed out that often, there is plenty of discussion about the legal environment surrounding free speech — but not as much about the educational. With campuses touted as protected areas for speech, he calls for people to be more thoughtful about “modeling a different and a better kind of exchange in our schools.”

In 1965, thirteen-year-old Mary Beth Tinker wore a black armband to school in protest of the United States’ involvement in Vietnam as part of a group protest. She, alongside her brother John, was one of five students that were singled out for punishment. 

Immediately after they were suspended, Tinker reported that her family received multiple threats from the public. Despite the lack of an absolute and immediate threat to learning in the school, the lives of Tinker and her fellow students changed drastically after this simple act of defiance. Incidents like this prompt the need for people, particularly from the younger generation, to have venues where they are free to experience each other’s humanity despite differences in politics. 

  Free Speech Facilitating Self-Reflection

Jonathan shared his realizations about his own prejudice when he came across a religious missionary while volunteering for the Peace Corps in Nepal: when you really get angry with somebody, it's because you see a part of yourself in them that you don't like.

Furthermore, anger clouds the judgment and encourages us to lash out at the individual, instead of the problem at hand. This instinctive emotion pushes us to be aggressive and to defend ourselves against an abstract fear. 

In the podcast, Jonathan posits that increased tolerance for others’ right to free speech — especially from those who hold views and beliefs on the opposite end of the spectrum — is an important part of the authentic human experience because it’s a learning process. Minimizing ideas that are against the ones we hold dear to us as harmful may help protect one’s ego; but it inhibits learning, and a perspective of growth.

 

Closing Thoughts: Free Speech Is A Radical Value — Not A Conservative One

In a world where information is so accessible, we are challenged to evolve beyond the instinctual and reflexive part of human nature and start seeing others as unique, complex individuals with experiences, motivations, and perspectives that are just as compelling as our own.

Inhibitions on free speech become a crutch we grow reliant on, inhibiting our capacity for growth and leading to self-sabotage. Arguing that certain subjects should not be discussed is, according to Jonathan, also arguing that people are not capable of self-governance — which can be seen in areas and countries where censorship is a norm.

Our continued freedom to think, speak, and act is also shaped by the way we choose to respond to other people. When all this is translated into data on the internet, it really makes you think — how much is your data worth? www.tartle.co

 

Tcast is brought to you by TARTLE. A global personal data marketplace that allows users to sell their personal information anonymously when they want to, while allowing buyers to access clean ready to analyze data sets on digital identities from all across the globe.

 

The show is hosted by Co-Founder and Source Data Pioneer Alexander McCaig and Head of Conscious Marketing Jason Rigby.

 

What's your data worth?

 

Find out at: https://tartle.co/

 

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/TARTLE

 

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TARTLEofficial/

 

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/tartle_official/

 

Twitter: https://twitter.com/TARTLEofficial

 

Spread the word!