This feels somewhat similar to the idea of "separation of concerns" in software engineering: the notion that each component should have one job, and we should tackle complex problems by composing such components rather than by complicating them (literally binding them together, if you dig in to the etymology of "complicate"*).
Once you've complicated something with something else, it becomes a lot harder to hold that thing accountable for what you might assume to be its primary responsibility, because it now has this other responsibility and might end up trading these off against each other in surprising ways. A lot of "computer says no" scenarios are precisely that: some apparently simple request is denied because that request has become complicated with a bunch of other concerns that you might not even know exist, and which you would find hard to reason about even if you did.
As soon as there's an editorial selection procedure (automating such a procedure doesn't make it an "algorithm") neutrality is a nonsense. We almost reached this recognition with, the mainstream media, then with X and FB, and now we are having to relearn it with LLMs where people imagine that "ask ChatGPT" gives you an objective answer. Grok and DeepSeek will disabuse them of this sooner or later.
The only neutral way of doing this is to let people select who to follow and present a sequential feed.
One of my heterodox economics follows (forgot which one, ofc.) tried to sound the alarm on this when the Canadian government used banking access restrictions as a weapon against the trucker convoy that gummed up Ottawa back in the day. You don't need to sympathize with the truckers to see this as a very dangerous escalation by the government. Afaik it has not gotten much coverage since.
As regards CBDC, presented as an alternative to banks, ApplePay etc, they sound pretty appealing. According to Krugman, Brazil has one that is doing great.
IIRC, it was this surveillance aspect of digital transactions that was the impetus for Bitcoin. I think the Bush II administration floated the idea of making all transactions have to be by card and not cash. Clearly, that was a privacy problem, let alone the weaponization of the system. While cryptocurrencies are mostly used nefariously to hide transactions from the authorities, I have sympathy with those of us who would rather not be fully monitored by Big Brother. Inevitably transaction costs are also incurred, catnip to teh banking industry, always looking to squeeze extra income from transactions. Willingly allowing oneself to be tracked in the minutest detail through transactions, and then adding injury by potentially making it impossible to do any transactions strikes me as teh very opposite of liberty.
To be fair bitcoin is pseudonymous not anonymous in that every wallet is a serialised number and a bitcoin a serialised entry all in a ledger where all transactions are recorded. The state just needs to figure out the pseudonym the user is operating it under and they have a comprehensive record of use. You are taking bitcoin promoters at their word so they are either fools, delusional ideologues or knaves to not understand what they have built.
Additionally if an entity gets hold of 51% of the miners/hashrate (or less based on some analysis) they can do what they want. So say if the Chinese government decides it wants a CBDC it can take control of the bitcoin miners within its territory and it has control over bitcoin (which they control the majority of issuance). Theres this notion that bitcoin is decentralised but the miners that make it tick are increasingly centralised.
TLDR; crypto currencies/digital currencies are already what their proponents fear about governmnet issued currencies, comprehensive tracking and centralisable.
Also even if decentralisation wins out a bitcoin type currency offers a panopticon just not with a government issuer. Not a shield against tyranny as after all the Soviets and Nazi's existed in a pre Bretton woods era gold standard world. I.e. Nazi collected gold teeth but didn't have the potential to view every Jews finances but they could conceal diamonds. Soviets sent there future space program heads (Korolev) to mine gold in Siberia to trade with the world but couldn't view every form of Blat
You are preaching to the choir. I don't and won't use Bitcoin or any cryptocurrency. However, I do want the option of paying with banknotes if necessary, although, in reality, I am already paying for 99% of everything online or at a POS with a debit/credit card. With various algorithms (and AI) to monitor my transactions, I am vulnerable to a "Black Mirror" scenario.
This feels somewhat similar to the idea of "separation of concerns" in software engineering: the notion that each component should have one job, and we should tackle complex problems by composing such components rather than by complicating them (literally binding them together, if you dig in to the etymology of "complicate"*).
Once you've complicated something with something else, it becomes a lot harder to hold that thing accountable for what you might assume to be its primary responsibility, because it now has this other responsibility and might end up trading these off against each other in surprising ways. A lot of "computer says no" scenarios are precisely that: some apparently simple request is denied because that request has become complicated with a bunch of other concerns that you might not even know exist, and which you would find hard to reason about even if you did.
* I got this from Rich Hickey - this talk is an hour long but the etymological bit is in the first 10 minutes or so: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxdOUGdseq4
As soon as there's an editorial selection procedure (automating such a procedure doesn't make it an "algorithm") neutrality is a nonsense. We almost reached this recognition with, the mainstream media, then with X and FB, and now we are having to relearn it with LLMs where people imagine that "ask ChatGPT" gives you an objective answer. Grok and DeepSeek will disabuse them of this sooner or later.
The only neutral way of doing this is to let people select who to follow and present a sequential feed.
Have you ever read about Brazilian PIX?
One of my heterodox economics follows (forgot which one, ofc.) tried to sound the alarm on this when the Canadian government used banking access restrictions as a weapon against the trucker convoy that gummed up Ottawa back in the day. You don't need to sympathize with the truckers to see this as a very dangerous escalation by the government. Afaik it has not gotten much coverage since.
As regards CBDC, presented as an alternative to banks, ApplePay etc, they sound pretty appealing. According to Krugman, Brazil has one that is doing great.
IIRC, it was this surveillance aspect of digital transactions that was the impetus for Bitcoin. I think the Bush II administration floated the idea of making all transactions have to be by card and not cash. Clearly, that was a privacy problem, let alone the weaponization of the system. While cryptocurrencies are mostly used nefariously to hide transactions from the authorities, I have sympathy with those of us who would rather not be fully monitored by Big Brother. Inevitably transaction costs are also incurred, catnip to teh banking industry, always looking to squeeze extra income from transactions. Willingly allowing oneself to be tracked in the minutest detail through transactions, and then adding injury by potentially making it impossible to do any transactions strikes me as teh very opposite of liberty.
To be fair bitcoin is pseudonymous not anonymous in that every wallet is a serialised number and a bitcoin a serialised entry all in a ledger where all transactions are recorded. The state just needs to figure out the pseudonym the user is operating it under and they have a comprehensive record of use. You are taking bitcoin promoters at their word so they are either fools, delusional ideologues or knaves to not understand what they have built.
Additionally if an entity gets hold of 51% of the miners/hashrate (or less based on some analysis) they can do what they want. So say if the Chinese government decides it wants a CBDC it can take control of the bitcoin miners within its territory and it has control over bitcoin (which they control the majority of issuance). Theres this notion that bitcoin is decentralised but the miners that make it tick are increasingly centralised.
TLDR; crypto currencies/digital currencies are already what their proponents fear about governmnet issued currencies, comprehensive tracking and centralisable.
Also even if decentralisation wins out a bitcoin type currency offers a panopticon just not with a government issuer. Not a shield against tyranny as after all the Soviets and Nazi's existed in a pre Bretton woods era gold standard world. I.e. Nazi collected gold teeth but didn't have the potential to view every Jews finances but they could conceal diamonds. Soviets sent there future space program heads (Korolev) to mine gold in Siberia to trade with the world but couldn't view every form of Blat
You are preaching to the choir. I don't and won't use Bitcoin or any cryptocurrency. However, I do want the option of paying with banknotes if necessary, although, in reality, I am already paying for 99% of everything online or at a POS with a debit/credit card. With various algorithms (and AI) to monitor my transactions, I am vulnerable to a "Black Mirror" scenario.