The current trend in connected technology is for the public to act as micro broadcasters. Being an influencer as a career, the volume of followers and likes on social posts is super important. Everyone is an armchair politician, and everyone is an expert. People can be as hateful as they like.

All this is causing damage that is increasingly visible - from increased cases of depression to suicidality rates.

It's also at an expense that's increasingly visible. That expense is your online identity being misused and information being biased by controlling forces that adjust what info you're exposed to and therefore influenced by.

In terms of cost benefit, the benefit of being socially connected and 'seen' outweighs the cost as our ego is the driving force.

For that to change, as a human race we'd need to forego the fiction of ego (and therefore greed and comparison) so it isn't a determining factor. Or, the damage of identity abuse and information bias would need to be way more visible/material/palpable.

I'd love for us to move further from the ego-driven state into a higher consciousness and understanding...and perhaps we're moving towards that...but what I suspect will happen sooner is proper negative outcomes that are unarguably linked to how we as a society are being coerced and manipulated by technologically controlling forces.

We should consider Nick Bostrom's book Superintelligence as a warning sign, and as an analogy; just as the fate of the gorillas depends more on humans than on the species itself, so would the fate of humankind depend on the actions of the machine superintelligence.

Or - How to Survive a Robot Uprising by Daniel Wilson - a darkly humerous book which could be more accurate than we think. Both speak to outcomes that, by the day, become more possible.

What I'm involved in building at SELF (https://self.app) and ENTIRETY (https://entiretychain.com) are solutions for a world that's become aware that our digital identity, privacy and ultimately data sovereignty is as important as our physical versions. In the same way as we don't want someone or something to invade our physical body, I'm betting we will eventually feel that way about someone or something invading our digital self.

I imagine a time when we don't just enter our details randomly into 'free' services that are only free because we're the product.

I imagine a time when we know the value of our digital identity and won't sacrafice it without thought.

I imagine a time when the cost benefit of using social tools is explicitly known and not taken lightly.

I imagine a time when we view standard technology platforms with a significant degree of skepticism.

I imagine a time when we see and feel the absolute consequences of losing control of our identity and privacy - in a way that isn't covered up by the egotistical 'benefit' of popularity or gain.

When or if this time happens, what will be needed is self-sovereign tools and platofrms - self-sovereign meaning we, individually, are in control, we have the ultimate power over the tools and platforms.

We will need modern technology that serves us individually rather than large, faceless organisations making billions of our private information.

We will need operating systems that connect our lives digitally, whilst retaining our individual rights in the process.

We will need a digital connectivity tissue that interfaces with the online world whilst insulates us in the meantime.

If I'm right, then what we're building at SELF and ENTIRETY will be part of that new world. We will have the answers for when the questions come to light, and we will have solutions for the problems that become eventually or suddenly apparent.

If I'm wrong, then what we're building will only be relevant for those who are already of the mindset that our digitally connected world isn't serving our best interests. Rhat may be a minority of us - maybe 10% (820m) or 1% (82m) who knows?

Either way, I feel duty bound to build for the alternate future as it's my life's mission - I don't have an option - I can't tell my kids that I just sat and watched the world burn.

Success or failure in this isn't about whether what we're building is popular - it's based on whether it exists or not.

If our platforms exist then we've 'won' as we've presented an alternative to the current solutions that use humans as batteries.

If it turns out that more than 1 or 10% of people think what we're doing is relevant, then great...but the ambition isn't dominion, the ambition isn't market share. The ambition is humane alternatives. Options for the future.

If this resonates then let me know - there's opportunities to get invovled and even invest - my email is j@self.app

Maybe bookmark this for the future - you may find the video becomes historically relevant as we march headlong into an exponentially changing future, hell bent on replacing humans with smarter machines, forgoing our privacy for convenience, and accepting the loss of ourself in exchange for slick platforms which are basically comparison machines where we can seek actualisation through egotistical popularity.

Let's see how it plays out and I'll see you there.

‍