Melding the Worlds of Conspiracy Theory, Blockchain, and Collective Intelligence
Stephen Francis
Conspiracy theorists, a pejorative contrived by the elite, have the
same challenge that all those who engage in investigative journalism
have, that being, how to gain the maximum credibility of their work.
Presenting the best objective evidence is probably the best tactic, but
something that could really bolster this effort, especially in this age
of ‘fake news’ and disingenuous ‘fact-checking’, is now added to the
mix.
Enter Collective Intelligence (CI). It has a nearly 150-year history (Wikipedia)
in aiding credibility to any technical effort and is ‘scientific’, that
overused but important word. Add blockchain technology, which has
gained international acceptance now, and you have a great combination of
forces to ensure credibility.
Introducing: ConspiracyCoin.io
ConspiracyCoin (CC) is, as far as I’m aware, is the
first-ever attempt to create a software program that accomplishes the
goal of melding these three entities. Its main premise is to aggregate
and evaluate theorists. It’s a community platform really, where
theorists can exchange ideas (through a social media component), and
then (numerically) judge each other’s work. Algorithms are incorporated
to aid in this evaluation process allowing the ‘best’ to rise to the top
of reports (blockchain explorer) if so desired. The program refers to
theorists as ‘experts’. The technology resides on cloud servers where
multiple nodes can accomplish the distributed nature of, in this case, a
private permissioned blockchain (no mining or gas). The private and
permissioned aspect means that members and their data can be deleted
while maintaining data integrity. Many corporations use this form of
blockchain.
At the end of this article, I’ll tackle the treatment of specific
‘conspiracy theories, including the Plandemic, The Great Reset, JFK
Assassination, 9-11 Truth ..et al.
Experts and Public Rate Experts
The most important sentence describing CC is “Experts and Public
Rate Experts”. It takes a bit to absorb the meaning of this phrase and
in terms of programming code is also somewhat tangled, but it is
probably the most fundamental concept of the site. The word Public
refers to the general public but membership is required. An expert is
defined as anyone who believes that they can be substantially judged on
that status. Obviously, a low rating would discourage this assertion.
One of the intriguing aspects of CC is that it, for a lack of a
better term, forces members to really look at alternatives to their own
work or their habitual reference to just a few sources. Crypto rewards
aid in this encouragement, but ultimately it has to occur, which is not a
bad thing. In the process, members see what materials contributed to
the top-ranked expert’s work that put them in that position. They may
then incorporate those materials in their work (properly credited) and
the result is an ever-increasing quality of collective research. It’s an
adaptation of the scientific method where theories are changed
according to new information.
CC also has a feature named Website Proxy Expert (WPE).
What is this? Ultimately users of CC rate the websites of the experts.
It is assumed that large well-established websites such as The Gateway
Pundit, Infowars, or JamesFetzer.org will not be immediately aware of
CC. This is where WPE comes into play. Experts are allowed to be proxies
for these websites as long as they don’t use the official logo and
credit their work.
It also has a ‘Public’ element where non-experts can voice their
opinion through social media and ranking activity. The program tracks
individual expert ratings which can be presented in sorted lists.
Expert’s and Public lists can be compared, often with surprising
results.
Why evaluate theorists instead of their theories?
Why evaluate theorists instead of their theories? It comes down to a
numbers game really and can be reduced to a simple line of thinking.
There are millions the theories, almost to the point of there being a
theory attached to every person out there. Obviously, this becomes
untenable very quickly trying to categorize and manage. The reality
exists that there are a relatively small amount of ‘experts’ in any
particular conspiracy, possibly only hundreds even on a national scale.
This is a manageable number of quality experts compared to the number of
theories out there.
In the case of CC, experts will undoubtedly have to have a website
in order to be able to showcase their beliefs. The drill-down process of
CC eventually refers to that website. There is a mechanism for experts
to be proxy agents for large national websites that are unaware of CC.
Theory Categorization
Now the next problem is that there are thousands of different
categories of theories and the inevitable subcategories of each
discipline. That leads to filtering and focusing. Just like elections
have a geographic hierarchy (national, state, county city..et al), so
does CC. Upon sign-up, the expert (not public) will declare what areas
of a particular conspiracy they focus on. These declarations depend on a
number (6) of hard-coded subcategories (more below), that the expert
has no immediate input on their creation. These subcategories also
become search criteria when the public wants to find experts in a
particular subcategory. If the member doesn’t like the hard-coded
questions, they can try other versions of the program (explained below)
Domain name segregation
The differentiation of theories is also segregated by the
use of the technology of domain names. For example, JFK theorists would
find their version of the program in the domain: jfkassassination.conspiracy.io or plandemic.conspiracycoin.io …etc. The scope of this system can be wide or narrow ..ie nwo.conpiracycoin.io or fauci.conspiracy.io.
Experts can suggest theory categories and subcategories that may be
incorporated into new versions of the program. Ultimately, all decisions
about the design of the software entail database structure issues. This
is one of those.
Collective Intelligence
CI has been around since 1875. The below image of a jar
of jelly beans may seem simplistic but in reality, it points to a very
sophisticated subject. See Stanford.
In this Stanford study, they analyze the ability of visual technology
to count the number of beans in the jar, not dissimilar to a human doing
the same thing. The results are the same. The collective effort results
in a relatively tight pattern where the correct answer nearly matches
the actual number of beans. Extrapolating this to theory analysis has
proven effective.
CI is easily incorporated into the CC program. All the data collected from rating activity is collected in a MongoDB and BigchainDB databases.
These products are specifically designed to work with blockchains.
Traditional relational databases like MySQL are not as well-suited. CI
is only possible with sophisticated database products for projects of
this scale.
The database schema can be very complicated.
Enough tech stuff. Now I will tackle the politics of CC.
The Politics of ConspiracyCoin
The biggest filtering aspect of CC involves what is
called variable differentiation and it’s also connected to the function
of subcategories to the theory of the particular version of CC … (plandemic.conspiracy.io …
etc). In plain English, this means that the hard-coded subcategories of
a theory (variables like Fauci lies, lab leak, depopulation agenda, 5G
implications …et al in the plandemic.conspiracy.io version) are hardcoded into the version.
When the expert signs up, he or she has to either agree
or disagree (refuse) this subcategory characterization. This is the
filtering. If they refuse to agree then they are effectively eliminated
from the program. This may seem unscientific or political, but choices
have to be made in order to keep garbage out of the database. If
disagreeing members check off on these categories, they will eventually
get bad ratings and will go nowhere.
A broad example of this categorization could be the following: nwo.conpiracycoin.io …
the six subcategories could be City of London, Israeli intelligence
agencies, the Military-Industrial Complex, the Medical Industrial
Complex, the Vatican, and Communism. A narrow interpretation could be
any of these single components. A CC member will probably settle on
actually using a small number of versions. Ultimately, it would mimic a
‘poll of polls’ situation, that often has very accurate results.
Filtering and focusing mechanisms are tricky and the database
programming is even trickier.
Those subcategories are fundamental aspects of the
program. There is a mechanism for all members to suggest versions and
their categories. It takes a lot of research and effort to get them
right. It is desired that they somewhat match the consensus of the
conspiracy community. This is all unavoidable bias.
Recent events prove that America (and the world) have
been under direct attack by the globalist elite (communist-like), which
begs the question, who belongs to that elite layer. This could be
another version of CC that would specifically target countries and
entities such as the UK City of London, Mossad, the MIC, Vatican, China
et al.
References:
Please follow and like us:
No comments:
Post a Comment