There is quite a bit of information to unpack here. So i'm going to try to do some short summaries. I think this trade off as it were. Where facebook and major social media platforms pay for all the servers and marketing etc., and the end user gets to use it free, maybe becomes a huge problem as the end user lacks the option to either decide to sell their data and share in the profits.

The option to opt out of data sharing and ads appearing etc., would be more idea to some. So i don't think the problem is that the data is sold. I think the issue is that we're not the benefactors. In a product where everything is produced almost by the end user. This seems to be a tough pill to swallow. So for us that believe data is the oil of the 21st century. We're not receiving our tech check. Someone else is.

When it comes to censorship resistance and privacy concerns. Well my experience around many social media sites are they can't wait to share their info with the world. They want people to know who they are etc., We had private networks like 20 years ago and if this was a great concern the option existed for people to use those. So i don't think that's the biggest issue right now selling of data.. personal privacy violations etc., I don't think that's really what the end user is complaining about.

I think the problem with cryptocurrency has been that the structure and system as it were hasn't changed a great deal as much as the players have. Now you're dealing with the developers, miners, exchanges and centralization of wealth issues. So this has taken another form.

So a commentor on this thread mentioned

stayoutoftherz 71 5 hours ago

Hmm, I have the impression that even here on Hive a minority of whales/inner circle members are melking >90% of the reward pool and leave crumbs for the minnows.

So now the issue of who pays for the network has shifted from vc's and institutions to this inner circle of whales. Another thing interesting without getting too far off track is i find that almost every successful crypto project had ridiculously large startup capital from venture capital. So crypto's biggest strenght of being grassroots and decentralized in many important aspects in actuality hasn't happened yet. Although bitcoin started off very promising. Development teams working for free just based on the idea of changing the system. Well it became this totally capitalized model where the average person could not mine and now the people who need to own btc the most don't.

I feel like we still don't get it. Ideas like the Ownership Society..where we own everything.. we own our own products and means of production sounds similar to another "ism" we use in society lol. Somone in the thread mentioned Star Trek where money is actually pointless because they have replicators. The interesting idea about all these ideas is that one already exist that doesn't require star trek tech or sophisticated technology or anything.

One such idea lies in ubi and in the " social network" the "social" the dynamics at play of swe use social media and we own it. Well to me whether its a network of servers or a network of people. The idea and concept is the same we all own it. So one statistic suggest that every person in the world could own 7 acres of land. The earth is that big and plentiful now tech could work out the logistical concerns but you come to a point where there is this global ownership where you don't per se even need money. You need to logistically move resources but not really money. So then an idea like ubi on the blockchain is not a machination or a broken capitalistic model but a new 21st century model that works well with social networks.

So ownership can't work in a way where i can manipulate your ownership from you. It maybe shouldn't work where i sit up here all day trading trying to find a way to get your money. That doesn't make the world better and it produces no real useful by product. So if tokenization is ownership of all we rightful control and use. Then there shouldn't exist a way for certain power vaccuums to control much more than they need or it should exist an ownership that your value remains in as a participant in that system and your place in an participatory economy and not a manufactured one to be controlled by the value of a few reducing the "human" value to an aggregate value of zero.

Posted Using LeoFinance ^Beta