Please sign and share the petition 'Tighten regulation on taking, making and faking explicit images' at Change.org initiated by Helen Mort to the w:Law Commission (England and Wales) to properly update UK laws against synthetic filth. Only name and email required to support, no nationality requirement. See Current and possible laws and their application @ #SSF! wiki for more info on the struggle for laws to protect humans.
Dividing the project into three parts:
- ASN.1, some ITU/ISO formal notation from the eighties! Gimme a break. I mean that the ISO/OSI 7-layer network protocol stack works just great on paper and everything, but somehow everybody seems to just use TCP/IP, eventhough it doesn't have a mammoth of an standards organisation saying that it works.
- ASN.1 is a notation, happens to be handy to achieve Minimum Message Length. Has no particular bias towards the OSI stack. That's silly.
- Executables which implement this protocol and data model / schema / foundation ontology; Label data which can and must be consistently gathered and is what is subject to audit most often - there will be a need to withdraw support from labels that are just propaganda and say nothing about actual impact on real bodies.
- I could say that I don't care if some label is just propaganda and I don't want to judge what is just brainwashing and what is not. I want to get a system running that allows people and organisations that have expertise and historical, built trust in things like audit, anti-brainwashing techniques, fair economy and safe economy to have their say.
- I ultimatelly mean that centrally controlled economy has already been tested and I recall that it didn't do so well, so I'd rather not see people trying to turn Consumerium into the Pravda (or centrally controlled information economy) of the market economy.
- They will try to do that. But you best control that by giving them things they *can* control, and making it clear where "your idea of fairness" vs. "their idea" applies.
We only need XML for now as all executables and labels data gathering will take place via very many means, one per faction say. These may create their own consortium with their own consortium license, e.g. Greens will not let weapons companies use theirs.
- This I must think about. Offhandedly you're not making any sense, but on the other hand this tingles as an interesting idea. Proprietary markup as an advantage... outrageous.
- Groups will all want to run their own if they don't have this control. They have to feel like they "own" it
- If you are referring to content in the above, you are making things overly complicated: Like if greens say something about arms that the weapon manufacturers want to contest and they can't because the greens have a license that prohibits associating arms content to theirs..
- If you are referring to markup, then I have to say you are crazy. How can we come out as a place where everyone can have their say if there's proprietary markup.
That problem will solve itself if you get the license and XML schema good enough to create a self-improving protocol. There are many good coders, but they do not contribute to projects where others of different values are allowed to just do damage to their code or twist it to be useful to their enemies. All code is political. Look at WAR FTP if you want to see a good values-driven bit of protocol writing with a licnese to match.
Very important: What is the minimum deliverable? Consumerium "hello world"?
Here is a troll's suggestion:
"Don't buy this.
XML schema establishes what 'buy' means, so all buying decisions are affected by the same Consumerium protocol. If 'this' is undisputed, i.e. there is some barcode that is recognized as attached to 'something like this', then there is some known and limited set of label data which some executable uses to say "Don't buy this" or just say nothing about that buying decision. The label data is known to be compatible with both the XML schema and the executable, and the executable is known to say nothing if the issues with the buying decision are not those the consumer cares about. This is like a ban or a boycott.
A more sophisticated version would set a price to make up for whatever evil was done in creating and disposing of this product, and maybe accept a donation to make up for whatever damage if the buying happens, or suggest an alternative that does not do this damage. It is like a tax, only it expresses consumer not country's ideas of sin, and is again accounted for, and maybe also collected by, an executable the consumer trusts.