Blue-ticking users in the wake of *GPT

So it’s happened, we’re on the other side now; this is the end of “anonymous publicity” as we know it; also, old connections rule!

It was funny the management of Twitter had to put some — pretty harsh in fact — usage limits when they explained the service was being excessively used, particularly, (by AI enthusiasts) for downloading content to feed to their private (GPT) model trainers. Despite what “the general public” believes, chatbots have forever been on all discussion platforms, but now that the “Deep Blue” of chat (OpenAI’s ChatGPT) has just landed, we all, thinking and talking people, have (just like the chess players had) to deal with it.

This touchdown effectively signifies the start of a new era; we’ve now arrived at a two-options world — when it comes to open social discussion (which many view as a pillar of *ocracy) — and the options are:
- blue tick
- no blue tick.

If you do not go for a blue tick —because you don’t care for giving your actual government ID to a particular (foreign?) corporation — you’re most likely going to be a chatbot — both statistically and in the critical eyes of a new contact, and you can irreversibly lose your public credibility even with your old contacts at any point — because those new contacts can actually be chatbots, relentlessly discrediting you in your social-platform circle — with or without conscious malicious intent of their owner towards your person — to the point it isn’t worth to be public for your content anymore (I won’t even claim there’re any circles which may still be difficult for a chatbot to infiltrate — at the time of reading), so yeah, good bye, any sensible anonymous public discourse.

If you do go for a blue tick — like I did for “airBnB” or other physical-world-related services where it actually made sense — not having a problem with formally identifying yourself to a discussion-oriented social network app company — you basically open yourself to any thought police, real or imaginary, government or quackerment — no matter what your subjects of discussion are. In other words, all blue-tickers are conscious public individuals, subject to anything public individuals (e.g. politicians, experts, artists) are subject to, including those chatbot attacks as well, of course.

Do you think it is good and right, actually, to —finally — arrive here? Maybe, it is actually beneficial for a society to have private conversations for private people and public conversations for public people, what do you think? After all, if a government goes after you for your legit social network activity, then the government is broken and you should have it replaced, as simple as that, right? Or if — before any quackerment even has anything to do with it— your social network provider company’s smart bot just makes your content inaccessible to your actual willing human peer users, you can easily “arbitrate” the crap out of that company right away, right?

Well, I think not, I do not like either of these options that centralised (for-profit corporate) social network apps leave me with. That’s why — having lost faith in for-profit social-network companies quite a while ago — I’ve been working on a “persistent social network” built with users’ own “person-centric” “self servers” using only standard parts... Too much quotes there, right, but this is the only third option that I see — that also involves promoting IRL connections — which will take some time to explain (and to accept). I am working on corresponding materials, of course, but if you’re interested to learn more before they come out, drop me a line today.

Oh, some other interesting point — since those corporate social network services’ security is actually not too bad (eh) — the “old” existing “anonymous” user connections are precious, with hacking or other security accidents not being too common, the “old-school” (say, registered before 10 years ago) social users are probably legit — take a think about this — or, if you are registered somewhere more than like 10 years ago, appreciate this too. This can both serve a “gray tick” (he he) for identifying (oldish) human users (though, beware, user accounts has forever been amassed by chatbot owners) — and easily facilitate moving to a (truly decentralised) “p2p” (person-to-person) digital social environment.

Ask me how to maintain direct communication with your IRL peers — any kind, for any purpose — without giving any ID to any (3rd or even 2nd) party — if you will, there’s actually a way.