Freedom is used by over 1 million people worldwide to block distracting websites, apps, or the whole Internet

Freedom

In his article, , in Business Insider, Nathan Proctor of the The death of ownership US , writes that "[a]s more devices in our lives run on software, manufacturers have started to exert more control over their products even after the customer has taken them home," he writes. PIRG "Companies are just beginning to monetize this control, with dystopian methods and the assistance of America's unbalanced copyright laws." Alarmingly, he writes that "[c]onsumers are afraid to do anything that displeases manufacturers, knowing that they can be punished," (punished!) and that, in some cases, the terms of service they have to sign to use the product "let the company take back ownership if they don't approve of how customers use [it]". Proctor writes that manufacturers are also using laws like the DMCA to effectively outlaw repairing their own stuff. This trend is big business: Proctor quotes an estimate that "[t]he global market for e-commerce subscriptions is expected to increase from around $73 billion in 2021 to some $904 billion in 2026." So it stands to reason that the problem will get worse before it gets better, if only because there is big money in it. And it is a problem. If a company can control something you’ve already purchased from them, you don’t really own it. Think about your relationship to your house (if you happen to own one) versus, say, a hotel room. Or your car (ditto) versus a rental. There is something qualitatively different about ownership. People love the things they own; they don't care nearly as much about the things they don't. Loving the things they own means they tend to them, and maintain them, and express themselves through them. Ownership is stewardship. In the business world, "owning" something means being responsible for it. So, the attack on ownership is also an attack on caring, devotion, expression, autonomy, and responsibility. Ownership matters*.  This is a moral issue. Software freedom (aka "Free software" or "Libre software") neatly and simply solves these issues.  While the free software movement remains relatively on the fringe (especially compared to the open-source movement), it has never been more important. The defines : the right to run (or not run) the software as you wish, the right to see and change the software code, the right to share the original code, and the right to share changes to the code. Free Software Foundation four fundamental freedoms for software These freedoms intrinsically obviate any potential abuses in software because such abuses can be detected and removed. John Deere, for example, could not lock farmers out of repairing their tractors with free software. own Apple could not use free software to stop customers from repairing their devices with "unauthorized" hardware, etc. That is because people would be free to deactivate those features. own They would actually their stuff, and when people own things, they are the ones controlling them. own This is not academic: I use free software extensively, and therefore have, relatively speaking, much more control over the software I use than I would otherwise. I trust it more. I don't have to agree to onerous terms in order to use it: on the contrary, free software licenses tend to be extremely generous. I can almost always get rid of software I don't like or trust. I feel like I own it - I feel like it's mine. As the title of this article says, if it's not free (as in Freedom), you don't own it. Tractors used to be free. But unfortunately, the lack of software freedom is now increasingly creeping into "the real world" of physical things. The antidote is clear. * I make the same argument about owning media versus streaming it. Feature image credit: Rollins, Beatrice Daily Sun

If It's Not Free (as in Freedom), You Don't Own It

Financial freedom seems to be the ultimate goal for many people. You can read about the blessings of early retirement all over the internet. The motto is: save money for a few years like crazy. Be cheap, invest with a high return, and then give up your hated job. What a dream! Well, there are fewer possibilities until financial independence. But that doesn't matter because consumption doesn’t make you happy anyway. At least, when you listen to those who endeavor an early retirement and financial freedom. Frankly, this hype about early retirement, financial independence, and especially frugality is getting on my nerves. It is time for a counter-speech! The Original Idea Of Retirement At the end of the 19th century, the average life expectancy was only 35 to 38 years. Therefore, people hardly needed to think about retirement. Those, who got significantly older, just continued to work. Or their children took care of them when they could no longer carry on their job. In Europe, the development of a statutory pension system began in the 19th century. In Germany, for example, Chancellor Otto von Bismarck introduced statutory retirement insurance in 1891 in addition to health insurance. It was a modest social net of benefits that Bismarck had created - but it was exemplary in Europe and a novelty at the time. It was more than overdue because industrialization led working people into financial misery. Bismarck recognized the danger. With these first social laws, he attempted to tie workers close to the state and prevent their radicalization. In other words, the social system was based on political calculation rather than charity. This is also reflected in the retirement age: entitlement to a pension was possible from the age of 70 – an age that most workers at the time barely reached. After the First World War, the age limit was lowered to 65 years. But even this age was still difficult to reach at the time. However, this development was very welcome with the industrial revolution. In this way, the factories could elegantly get rid of older workers, whose productivity continued to decline the older they got. To this day, early retirement has remained a popular possibility in business to carry out so-called cost-saving "restructuring.” From 100 to Zero But as great as the idea of retirement sounds nowadays, there is also a downside to this: A found that retirement: study by the Institute of Economic Affairs Decreases the likelihood of 40 percent of people rating their health as very good or excellent. Increases the likelihood of clinical depression by 40 percent. Increases the probability of being diagnosed with at least one physical condition by about 60 percent. Hence, what sense does it make when an arbitrarily chosen age limit is reached to reduce the work from 100 to 0 percent? What are the reasons that motivate people to save money for early retirement voluntarily, considering these facts? Or to ask differently: Why Do People Pursue Financial Freedom? The psychologist presented his theory of the 16 motives in life in the 1990s. These act as a driving force for the human psyche: Steven Reiss The 16 basic needs, according to Steven Reiss: Acceptance: The need to avoid criticism and rejection. Social contact: The need for friendships. Honor: The need to behave with moral integrity among a social (ethnic) group. Romance: The need for sexuality. Eating: The need for food. Family: The need to raise one's own children. Idealism: The need for social justice. Physical Activity: The need to move one's muscles, to exercise. Power: The need to influence other people’s will. Curiosity: The need to learn. Order: The need for structure and stable, predictable environments. Revenge: The need to get even with someone. Calm: The need for inner peace and to be safe. Saving: The need to collect and accumulate material goods (also assets). Status: The need for prestige, for social importance. Independence: The need for self-sufficiency and individuality. What role do these basic psychological needs play in our lives? To simplify it, we feel happy when a basic need is satisfied above average. And we feel unhappy when the same basic need is unmet. So far, so good. The thing is that every person has an individual constellation of basic needs. Someone has an above-average need for physical activity. Without exercise, this person feels bad. Another person has a distinctive need for rest. He or she may go well without sports, but not without reading cozily on the couch. Therefore, anyone who strives for financial freedom or early retirement most likely has an above-average need for independence combined with the urge to save (basic needs 14 and 16). Wow! Do you see where it leads to? Why Don't More People Want to Become Financially Independent? How can it be that some people strive for financial independence, and others do not? Is it because they have not yet found the corresponding financial blogs on the internet? I do not think so. But something else is much more likely: As we have seen above, the basic needs 14 and 16 are not superior psychological motives for everyone! Other needs are more important to them. For some people, the pursuit of power may play a greater role. For others, it may be status considerations that outweigh the need for independence. Those who retire early because of financial freedom would lose these preferred psychological motives. Hence, it’s a question of the individual constellation of basic psychological needs that is behind the pursuit of financial freedom. When the Job Sucks Let's take a closer look at the need for independence. I have spent many hours on financial blogs dealing with financial freedom. I found some statements there that sound something like this: Work. It means spending time on something I only do to make money. Although I enjoy my job, if I didn't have to do it, I probably wouldn't. The system wants you to work until you are 70? "F***ck you!" Your boss sends you to the new subsidiary in the back of beyond? "F*ck you!" Bored with the city you live in? Say “F*ck You!”, and start over somewhere else. Honestly, who doesn't dream about it from time to time? When you get stuck in traffic on the way home in the evening. Or waiting for the bus to work in the drizzle of the winter morning. Then being bawled by the head for trivial things, and having to spend the rest of the day being annoyed by the laziness and stupidity of colleagues. All these impositions will vanish once the promised land of “financial freedom” is reached, right? Therefore, the solution can only be: Suffer at work for a few more years, drastically reduce expenses, and save like a maniac! Anyone who saves 70 percent of the net income can quit the job after 9 years. A great thing, because now you can finally do what you really enjoy. The Question Is: Why Don't You Do it Here and Now? Why are you willing to bear the challenges of this job for another 8, 10, or more years? Are you your own enemy? Do you hate yourself so much that you are willing to torment yourself for many years? What I’m trying to say: Who says that once you've started a job, it's the end of the road? Where is the will for professional development and change? Where is the ambition to try something new in professional life? Becoming self-employed, starting a company? I get the impression that among those people seeking financial freedom are many well-earning academics doing their job without any pleasure. And they seek salvation in financial independence. Of course, you can do it like this. However, I find it quite sad to spend valuable years of life in an unsatisfied situation to be "free" sometime in the future. Consequently, the desire for financial freedom means that you don't feel free today! And I find it whimsical that even younger people who have barely left their teens are already thinking about things like financial independence or "passive income". What kind of impression of work must they have to be seeking an exit before earning any substantial income? 4 Reasons Why Early Financial Independence Is Unimportant to Me The emphasis is on . Of course, it does make sense to become financially independent from a job until old age. This means, around age 60, I want to reach the point where I no longer have to work for money. That's why I build wealth through options trading and investing. early But "early retirement" or even "extreme early retirement" doesn't matter to me for the following reasons: 1. I Don't Like Financial Deprivation I say yes to saving money, investing, and long-term asset accumulation. I pursue financial security and would like to achieve my financial goals. But I definitely say no to frugalism, greed, and penny-pinching. Because that's just not the way I want to live! I don't want to have to ask myself every day what I can live without, like hardcore frugalists. Of course, it’s nonsense to promise happiness from material possessions. And status symbols are more than superfluous. But I don't watch every penny in the supermarket or look for clothes in second-hand shops. And if I feel the need to put money into my hobby or technical gadgets, or visit a fancy restaurant, then that's what I do. 2. I Prefer to Live Here and Now In any case, I want to enjoy my life today and not in the future. Since my work doesn't torture me, it doesn't make me feel unfree or trapped in a hamster wheel. I won't say I love my job more than anything else. But I really like it, and I like to go into the office. The only thing that drives me crazy is when the alarm clock goes off at 6 a.m. But is that the reason for saying I want to be financially independent? Or is it a reason for you? If it’s the case: Do you have any idea when rich people get up? Some at 3 a.m.! You do not believe me? Then look at the daily routine of Mark Wahlberg, Dwayne Johnson, Elon Musk, Marc Zuckerberg, and all the other successful people. My “work-life balance” or rather my “work-leisure balance” is already good today. Why should I change anything about it? And frankly, I can't imagine that being financially independent of employment would make me an even happier person. Especially not if in return, I have to be cheap for several years as a frugalist. 3. Financially, You Are Never Really Free True financial independence (including passive income) is nothing more than an illusion. Because if income from a job no longer finances your life, this "job" must be taken over by capital income like dividends, interest, or rental income. In other words: Even with financial independence, there is a dependency on alternative sources of money. On the one hand, some of them are dependent on market developments. On the other hand, in political decisions, if at some point a socialist-leaning government decides that capital income is an invention of the devil, and must be taxed "more fairly", then the fun will quickly end. Of course, you can still move to another country, provided you didn't focus primarily on real estate. 4. I Would Keep Working Anyway I had a long and challenging career at the beginning. But I have continuously worked to optimize my income situation, workload, and working conditions. By and options trading, I built up a second financial pillar, which gives me an additional, time-independent "passive" income. I don't make any money from my blog right now. But I'm working on building a third source of income with it. It all takes time. investing in stocks Maybe it will take 10 years. But I like writing blog posts, and that's why I keep going. I had to learn it the hard way. But I finally accepted it because one day, I realized I don’t want to retire in the traditional sense. I don't want to be one of those retired people who just languish, get bored on cruises, and then end up dying in an old people’s home. I never will! I would maybe reduce the working time at my regular job to have more free time. But I would still go to work. And if the universe will provide me with a fortune of a millionaire, maybe I will quit my job. However, the reason for quitting my regular job would be to do other work, like getting involved in some projects for environmental protection. And that’s the point. Most people associate financial freedom with quitting a job and then doing nothing, or doing something else but work. This is for sure a pleasure and a lot of fun. But in my opinion, it’s just like eating every day the same food. One day they will get tired of doing nothing. Conclusion If you feel a strong desire for financial freedom, ask yourself first: Do I have a problem with my job? If so, what can I change so I no longer see work as a nuisance? If the job is not your problem: It is, of course, a legitimate goal to achieve financial freedom well before retirement age! It’s as legitimate as running a marathon in under four hours, crossing the desert on foot, or walking the Camino de Santiago. If the idea intrigues you, and you're motivated enough to save more than half of your net income every month: go for it! But don't assume other people will show the same enthusiasm or even want to emulate you. After all, not everyone likes oysters, sushi, or foie gras in the same way. Not everyone has a high priority for Reiss’ needs Nr. 14 and 16! What you should pursue, in any case, is financial independence from employment when you retire. In my opinion, financial freedom is when you go to work because you want to, and not because you have to do it. You can also achieve a fortune with normal savings rates of between 10 and 25 percent and a solid investment strategy. It’s just important that you keep the balance between living in the here and now, and the future.

Financial Freedom Is an Illusion

Sampada "Sam" Kapoor recently led a presentation on Freedom in the Law for the Mississippi Humanities Council's "Ideas on Tap" Series. Ms. Kapoor gave the perspective of freedom through the lens of a litigator and discussed concepts of law and liberty. She was joined by co-panelists Rob Hill (American Civil Legal Union or "ACLU" Director), Russ Latino (Business and Constitutional Lawyer), and Charles Taylor (political data analyst). The three panelists were chosen for their expertise and background in policy and/or law. Ms. Kapoor was selected as a panelist due to her extensive experience in the law as a seasoned litigator. Ms. Kapoor is a 2017 graduate of the University of Mississippi School of Law, where she graduated with distinction. Ms. Kapoor currently works at Forman Watkins & Krutz, LLP, one of the premier law firms in Mississippi. Up to recently, she was teaching simultaneously at the University of Mississippi School of Law, using a combination of legal research and litigation experience to connect law students with real-world cases. Who Is Sampada "Sam" Kapoor? Sam is a talented young attorney who has shown extraordinary competence in her short legal career. After getting full scholarships in both college and law school and graduating with distinction, Sampada has shown an equal amount of proficiency in her legal practice. In just a short span of time, she has successfully defended large corporations, including Fortune 500 companies like Google, Chevron, International Paper Company, Georgia-Pacific, and Weyerhaeuser Company, among others. Her legal prowess is also reflected in numerous awards that she has won both during her legal education time and her practice. In her firm Forman Watkins & Krutz, LLP, Sam was invited to become a senior associate. Recently, Sam was listed in the 2023 Best Lawyers "Ones to Watch." list, which basically selects the best of the best lawyers in the USA who have been practicing law for less than 10 years. This is just one feather on her hat, and she was also recognized by the Mid-South Super Lawyers as a "Rising Start" in the year 2020. She has been getting recognized for this title ever since 2020. She was also recognized as one of the top 40 under 40 leaders in law by the Mississippi Bar Journal. Serving On The Board of Directors of Mississippi Bar's Young Lawyer Division (2021-2022) Sam has served on the Board of Directors of the Mississippi Bar Young Lawyers Division. Appointment to the board is done by the president of the Mississippi Bar and undergoes a rigorous process. The Division plays a crucial role in the overall legal workings of the Bar and the Courts. Sam was appointed to the 'Budget and Fi Committee' of the Mississippi Bar as well as the High School Mock Trial Committee. She actively worked on preparing and presenting the annual budget for the Mississippi Bar Board of Commissioners Her role included other activities like budgeting for all projects of The Mississippi Bar, allocating funds to the Young Lawyers Division, special work committees, pro-bono activities, community outreach, as well as planning and funding the Mississippi Bar's annual conference in Sandestin, Florida. Launching a Legal Pipeline Program For Minority Students Sam has been experiencing a huge gap in terms of diversity in both law schools and legal firms. As a first-generation attorney, she experienced the challenges a student and lawyer faces during the start of their career and law school. To address these challenges and contribute back to society, Sam designed a legal pipeline program at the local HBCU. This program gives minority students the opportunities they need to enter law school and build promising legal careers. This program is helping a lot of students, and in 2021 alone, 8 students were able to join reputed law schools with the help of this program. 3 of the 8 students were selected for Ivy League schools. Going forward, Sam plans to further increase her societal contributions through student mentoring and pro bono volunteerism, along with building her labor and employment legal experience.

Sam Kapoor Leads Presentation On Freedom And The Law

I have a dream. I have a dream that humankind finally mastered its existence as infinite beings. Kind. And generous. Able to handle freedom. When we allow the idea of web3, we have to take a dear look at how ready this humankind is for freedom. How willing is every single knot of this potentially utopian web to take over their lives... to really own it. When you ask me: I dreamt this dream for a very long time. I mean think of it! A decentralized, self-sustaining living. Connected. In tune to (our) nature. I mean, I dream of this way beyond tech. But the tech possibilities come in handy. In my eyes, we are staring at the dazzling outline of a truly self-organizing system. There are questions we have to answer ourselves, though, and everyone willing to step into it. It's about keeping privacy transparent. It's a matter of trusting the anonymity. Who Are the People and Which Intentions Are Set? Is it peace? Or is it a mere hunger for an anonymous might shift? Is it about making anything that makes life lively and accessible to anyone? Or is it just another veil, keeping masses busy and confused in complexity whilst preaching shortage behind the scene of abundance. And again, only an elite, a given amount of initiated and (tech and information-wise) privileged elite, hold the strings tight. A new elite though... well, maybe. It clearly is a tightrope walk. Holy grail and holy sh*t. Where does the pendulum swing? Coders and users will both always be human (I guess). Let us have a short excursion to 20th-century economics. There was this guy dreaming of free markets where the invisible hand will sort it all. He was dreaming of the wealth of nations. Not many people who like to imply that Adam Smith got it all wrong read the book he wrote BEFORE he introduced his idea of the wealth of nations. He has adorably been pointing out that empathy is the key to life. He made it quite clear that it’s the moral sentiments - let me call it the intention, simplified - on which behalf we are thinking and acting is essential. And to be conscious about what is going on inside of us. So Go Ahead! And Ask the Questions That Matter: Are we ready to be the change we want to see in the world? Are you ready for freedom? Do you really want this? Think for yourself. Be aware. Own your life. And create it. How free are you now? Really! Look into you. Now. What are your deepest truest intentions? And be freaking honest. Otherwise, we'll take the leap to a web2 revisited. No tech will ever save us. But the opportunities look bright. Anything goes.
Let's make it paradise then.

A Tightrope Walk to Freedom

In the information age, the that many companies want. The best way to gather the most personal information is from social media apps installed on mobile devices (i.e. smartphones). To say that we have freedom when using our phones is actually an accurate statement. Yet, that freedom comes in exchange for our personal data. user of the product becomes the product In reality, when you are using a paid subscription service to a telco provider you have already agreed to their terms to allow them to monitor certain personal data (e.g. billing, location, data usage) they need to provide you service. When you install apps, it opens up even more collection of your data. This means there is less privacy. means being able to use your phone to access anything you want. There is actually nothing preventing you from doing so. Some like to equate freedom and privacy. They should not be taken with the same meaning, because privacy can actually limit your freedom. Let us take a look at what the tradeoffs are and what that could mean for users. Freedom Personal Data Collection In exchange for free use of an app, the user will have to opt in to providing their data to the company. Big tech companies gather user data, which is part of the that allow free service. This can be as simple as the amount of data, time and engagement consumed on the app. They can also include , like user preferences, browsing history and cached data. These analytics are then studied and shared with third parties. The third party are often companies involved in marketing research who work for top brands in the industry. They make use of that data to analyze consumer behavior in order to better target certain markets for advertising. (Terms of Service Agreement) TOS more personal data Social media apps gather so much personal data that users may not even be aware of. These apps record locations and activities other users can see. This is what happens when a user "checks in" to a location. This requires the app to have access to location services that is enabled from the smartphone. Other data includes what a user likes based on their engagement with other user's contents. If you "liked" a photo of a certain shoe brand that was tagged, the data can be collected and used later to create a target profile used by advertisers. Facebook has been notorious for allowing third parties to from their platform in the past, without the user's direct consent. Even from users, but for the purpose of better providing services (e.g. understanding how to serve content to a user). Most of the data collection came from using their apps or website using data analytics and AI techniques. It has led to where executives from these companies were grilled before the public. The collection of some personal user data has led to more distrust of Big Tech since it violated the rights to user privacy. collect user data Google collects personal data US senate hearings Data protection and regulation have been put in place now to provide some consumer protections. The in the EU are an example of this. This requires companies that collect data from the web to provide disclosure to their visitors regarding the data they collect. While this applies to the EU, it has global impact since visitors to websites are from many regions around the world. This still means that companies can collect data, but they must disclose what data they are collecting and users can decide to opt out. GDPR laws User Privacy Freedom and privacy are basic human rights we all can understand. These were included in the ideals that shaped modern democratic values that led to the American and French revolution. Most of our communications from smartphones to Internet use can be tracked and monitored. The right to privacy is under threat from surveillance states and big tech interests. Is there even such thing as totally private, anonymous and non-monitored communication? The answer is yes, it is possible. However, it will require some effort on the user's part. It does not require buying devices labeled "Freedom Phones". It is more likely than not, those phones are not totally free from monitoring and tracking. If it uses a public network service from a reputable provider (e.g. Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile), it can be tracked. If it has apps installed from Big Tech companies, that also makes it less private (knowing how they collect data). What I want to explain is that there is a difference between and . User privacy does not necessarily equate to more freedom. It limits access to certain websites and services for the sake of not sharing your data.  You will have to rely more on direct encrypted communications to get or share information. It gives you the privacy you need but it is less open to popular public services on a network. freedom privacy Digital Fingerprints And Footprints When surfing the web or visiting a website, users leave behind what are called or . This is evidence that shows a user visited or accessed a website based on metadata that is specific to that user. This can include IP address, username on the account (if logged in), geographical location based on the Internet gateway router and even personal preferences on the browser settings (e.g. language, fonts, etc.). The data is collected and can be used for analytical purposes for ad targeting and consumer behavior research. digital fingerprints footprints Other ways data can be collected is from the web browser and the device. If a user accepts a cookie from their web browser, it initiates settings that can be specific to what the user wants. This data can be collected and sent back to the company that runs the website. The user can also be tracked by a third party through an API, which can send back more personal data like the last website a user visited, browsing history and most visited website. Devices that have location tracking enabled allows and share this data with a third party for ads and marketing. tracking users All of this is happening and it is not against any law, so long as there is a disclosure from the company (based on GDPR laws from the EU). This is done by notifying users during their visit to the website, or via the TOS which is found somewhere on the company website (sometimes hard to find). If no such agreement was made then a company cannot collect data, but sometimes that can be hard to find out. It becomes a matter of trust and most of the time users just visit the website because of the content or service it provides. It comes with sacrificing a little or more privacy. An Independent Phone If you want more freedom and privacy, then what is needed is an . In the context of modern telecommunications, this is a device that is not tied to a subscription service by a telco provider or third party app. It is independent of the provider and connects by way of a public data network (i.e. the Internet) or direct peer-to-peer (P2P) communications. All the phone needs is access to an open network protocol (e.g. WiFi) for example, and it can communicate with other devices. independent phone A that removes all traces of the operating system and apps installed by the service provider would be required. There are rootkits available that allow users to reformat the smartphone storage and then install a non-proprietary (e.g. LineageOS ). The choice of an open source operating system means it is not controlled by any company, whether it is source code or licensing. A user has the most amount of freedom to do whatever they can with their phones, like choosing the services they want to enable without a third party tracking their activity. rooted phone open source operating system AOSP After the operating system, consider using non-subscription based open source apps. Not all apps will track you unless there is a catch. In general, open source apps are ideal for independent phones. These are also open source and made free to the public. The use case for these apps are their privacy features that don't allow tracking and collecting of data. Developers of these apps make the source code available as well for more transparency. Browsing the web is usually the most tracked user activity. A more privacy-centric browser will help. and would be highly recommended. These browsers provide anonymity for users, preventing websites from collecting data.  If data collection is required, users can disable it from these browser. A connection is also reliable for secure communications links, especially when using a public network. While it secures a connection, data collection can still occur with websites. The good thing is users can opt out, thanks to GDPR laws for data privacy in the EU. Brave Tor VPN (Virtual Private Network) Most messaging apps used in the mainstream do not offer robust protection for user privacy. Communications apps like messengers and chat programs are not fully encrypted (e.g. or E2EE). Choosing the right app is important, but it must provide E2EE to prevent third party from eavesdropping or listening in on a conversation. There are some open source apps available like and then there is the more popular . It does provide full encryption for users at both ends (as claimed by the developers). End-to-End Encryption Signal WhatsApp would probably be a better choice for independent phones when it comes to both freedom and privacy. These include software that make use of to verify among other things, data and identity. There are now many examples of this which integrate with digital wallets for cryptocurrency. Other decentralized apps don't need a blockchain, which include messaging apps. It is just direct peer-to-peer communication using software that users have installed on their device. The good thing about it is that no third party can control these applications, giving users full control of their data or communication. DApps (Decentralized Applications) blockchain-based technology Some users may be wondering if an independent phone is the same as a . They are actually not, though they can both be used to provide more privacy. A burner phone was meant to be used temporarily for communications on data access, but never as the primary driver for daily life. It also connects to a network provider using a SIM card, so the communications can be monitored if not encrypted. A burner phone can be discarded after use, making it a better choice for privacy since a user can avoid detection. This is probably not for your average person who wants privacy since they need to keep their phone. burner phone The Caveats With browsers that protect user privacy, it may not work with certain websites that require data collection.  That is why users can opt out of browsing a website that requires your data. At least they have to be up front about it now due to GDPR requirements. If a user refuses to provide their data, then they will have no access to a website. This is unfortunate to accessing information or using a service. At times you really do have to provide some data (e.g. location, browser used, operating system, etc.), but nothing too personal. Since the web works on plenty of data collection, if a user blocks certain ads they may not have access to a website. Users who don't want to be tracked would have to stay away from such websites. Most of these websites are related to news and culture, and they do want to have information about their visitors. These are all for analytics to allow for keeping statistics on whether content is getting enough traffic and engagement from users. Certain websites and services also want to track users. They will need this either for ads or for billing purposes. A telco needs to know a user's location in order to apply charges to calls. Social media platforms need to know user preferences so they can set the data in cookies to give user's easier access to the app. The data being gathered is not nefarious at all, but rather beneficial for user experiences. By not installing these apps, users do have more freedom from being tracked but will have no access to social communications and connections. Open source apps also fall into a niche market. They are not easy to use and sometimes even harder to figure out. Their privacy-centric feature is the main reason for their use case, but users are more often tech savvy than the average user. There is also limited support to expect from these apps since they are provided as is. No guarantees, no liabilities and certainly no compensation provided for any damages caused to the user (physical or digital). This can be exploited by bad actors to spread malware and computer viruses, so be very careful. An independent phone can be used to access the Internet securely via public data networks, but there is still exposure to data collection from surfing websites. Even if a user were to use a VPN or a browser like Brave, there are certain websites that will still require access to your data for purposes they can specify based on GDPR laws. Unfortunately for smartphone users, if they subscribe to a plan from a telecom provider they will be tracked by the network. An independent phone would thus require no access to telecom and ISP provider networks, and rely on the Internet for all communications. decentralized Final Thoughts There is not much freedom anymore since services (e.g. telecom) and Internet (e.g. ISP) access are controlled by big companies. Even the devices used (e.g. tablets and smartphones) can be tracked by the vendors who developed them. The access to information and communications is controlled by centralized organizations that are the tech companies. They still provide you the freedom to use their service, but in exchange for less privacy. A truly independent phone is one that is not connected or controlled by any network or vendor. It would rely on a decentralized manner of connectivity that is not running on a single network. There must also be no backdoors or vectors for forced access by any entity. It is hard to fully certify any device, be it smartphone or computer, that is totally free from these controls. It can truly be independent if the user can also encrypt their information and communications. This also gives more freedom to the user, but there is a tradeoff. It is a matter of choice on what sort of tradeoff there is for an individual for using an independent phone. If a user wants to truly disappear in the hopes of not being tracked, an independent phone is the way to go. It just requires so much more effort on the part of the user to hide their digital fingerprints and footprints, it must really be for valid reasons (e.g. politically exposed person, legitimate spy). You would have to give up certain things in order to achieve this. Going through all those steps would be necessary but does it really give them more freedom? It means no access to very popular apps and websites. Most people will remain with what they already have  through a paid subscription. It is just the way life works, because these are now essential to modern living. Subscriptions offer convenience and easy access to information and communications services. Consider the tradeoff with more privacy vs. lesser access to services on the Internet. That would mean having to give up using popular apps (e.g. social media), many free services on the web (e.g. e-mail) and no more cellular phone subscription (e.g. voice calls, SMS text). That could mean less freedom of access to information and communication if it is being limited by more privacy measures. The good thing to know is that there are still , even if you are not using an independent phone. ways to protect your privacy Credits: (Photo Banner Credit by ) Artem Podrez Figure 1 -  Photo by Giftpundits.com Figure 2 - Photo by Eren Li Figure 3 - Photo by Karolina Grabowska

The Independent Phone :  More Privacy, Less Freedom?

"A statement may be both true and dangerous. The previous sentence is such a statement." - David Friedman Freedom of speech is a topic that many internet communities have struggled with over the last two decades. Cryptocurrency and blockchain communities, a major part of their raison d'etre being censorship resistance, are especially poised to value free speech very highly, and yet, over the last few years, the extremely rapid growth of these communities and the very high financial and social stakes involved have repeatedly tested the application and the limits of the concept. In this post, I aim to disentangle some of the contradictions, and make a case what the norm of "free speech" really stands for. "Free speech laws" vs "free speech" A common, and in my own view frustrating, argument that I often hear is that "freedom of speech" is exclusively a legal restriction on what can act against, and has nothing to say regarding the actions of private entities such as corporations, privately-owned platforms, internet forums and conferences. governments One of the larger examples of "private censorship" in cryptocurrency communities was the decision of Theymos, the moderator of the subreddit, to start heavily moderating the subreddit, forbidding arguments in favor of increasing the Bitcoin blockchain's transaction capacity via a hard fork. /r/bitcoin Here is a timeline of the censorship as catalogued by John Blocke: https://medium.com/johnblocke/a-brief-and-incomplete-history-of-censorship-in-r-bitcoin-c85a290fe43 Here is Theymos's post defending his policies: , including the now infamous line "If 90% of /r/Bitcoin users find these policies to be intolerable, then I want these 90% of /r/Bitcoin users to leave". https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3h9cq4/its_time_for_a_break_about_the_recent_mess/ A common strategy used by defenders of Theymos's censorship was to say that heavy-handed moderation is okay because /r/bitcoin is "a private forum" owned by Theymos, and so he has the right to do whatever he wants in it; those who dislike it should move to other forums: And it's true that Theymos has not by moderating his forum in this way. But to most people, it's clear that there is still some kind of free speech violation going on. So what gives? First of all, it's crucially important to recognize that freedom of speech is not just a . It's also a social principle. broken any laws law in some countries And the underlying goal of the social principle is the same as the underlying goal of the law: to foster an environment where the ideas that win are ideas that are good, rather than just ideas that happen to be favored by people in a position of power. And governmental power is not the only kind of power that we need to protect from; there is also a corporation's power to fire someone, an internet forum moderator's power to , and many other kinds of power hard and soft. delete almost every post in a discussion thread So what is the underlying social principle here? : Quoting Eliezer Yudkowsky There are a very few injunctions in the human art of rationality that have no ifs, ands, buts, or escape clauses. This is one of them. Bad argument gets counterargument. Does not get bullet. Never. Never ever never for ever. : Slatestarcodex elaborates What does "bullet" mean in the quote above? Are other projectiles covered? Arrows? Boulders launched from catapults? What about melee weapons like swords or maces? Where exactly do we draw the line for "inappropriate responses to an argument"? A good response to an argument is one that addresses an idea; a bad argument is one that silences it. If you try to address an idea, your success depends on how good the idea is; if you try to silence it, your success depends on how powerful you are and how many pitchforks and torches you can provide on short notice. Shooting bullets is a good way to silence an idea without addressing it. So is firing stones from catapults, or slicing people open with swords, or gathering a pitchfork-wielding mob. But trying to get someone fired for holding an idea is also a way of silencing an idea without addressing it. That said, sometimes there is a rationale for "safe spaces" where people who, for whatever reason, just don't want to deal with arguments of a particular type, can congregate and where those arguments actually do get silenced. Perhaps the most innocuous of all is spaces like where posts get silenced just for being "off topic" to keep the discussion focused. But there's also a dark side to the concept of "safe spaces"; as : ethresear.ch Ken White writes This may come as a surprise, but I’m a supporter of 'safe spaces.' I support safe spaces because I support freedom of association. Safe spaces, if designed in a principled way, are just an application of that freedom... But not everyone imagines "safe spaces" like that. Some use the concept of "safe spaces" as a sword, wielded to annex public spaces and demand that people within those spaces conform to their private norms. That’s not freedom of association Aha. So making your own safe space off in a corner is totally fine, but there is also this concept of a "public space", and trying to turn a public space into a safe space for one particular special interest is wrong. So what is a "public space"? It's definitely clear that a public space is just "a space owned and/or run by a government"; the concept of is a well-established one. not privately owned public spaces This is true even informally: it's a common moral intuition, for example, that it's less bad for a private individual to commit violations such as discriminating against races and genders than it is for, say, a shopping mall to do the same. In the case or the /r/bitcoin subreddit, one can make the case, regardless of who technically owns the top moderator position in the subreddit, that the subreddit very much is a public space. A few arguments particularly stand out: It occupies "prime real estate", specifically the word "bitcoin", which makes people consider it to be default place to discuss Bitcoin. the The value of the space was created not just by Theymos, but by thousands of people who arrived on the subreddit to discuss Bitcoin with an implicit expectation that it is, and will continue, to be a public space for discussing Bitcoin. Theymos's shift in policy was a surprise to many people, and it was foreseeable ahead of time that it would take place. not If, instead, Theymos had created a subreddit called /r/bitcoinsmallblockers, and explicitly said that it was a curated space for small block proponents and attempting to instigate controversial hard forks was not welcome, then it seems likely that very few people would have seen anything wrong about this. They would have opposed his ideology, but few (at least in blockchain communities) would try to claim that it's for people with ideologies opposed to their own to have spaces for internal discussion. But back in reality, Theymos tried to "annex a public space and demand that people within the space confirm to his private norms", and so we have the Bitcoin community block size schism, a highly acrimonious fork and chain split, and now a cold peace between Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash. improper Deplatforming About a year ago at Deconomy I publicly shouted down Craig Wright, , finishing my explanation of why the things he says make no sense with the question "why is this fraud allowed to speak at this conference?" a scammer claiming to be Satoshi Nakamoto Of course, Craig Wright's partisans replied back with.... : accusations of censorship Did I try to "silence" Craig Wright? I would argue, no. One could argue that this is because "Deconomy is not a public space", but I think the much better argument is that a conference is fundamentally different from an internet forum. An internet forum can actually try to be a fully neutral medium for discussion where anything goes; a conference, on the other hand, is by its very nature a highly curated list of presentations, allocating a limited number of speaking slots and actively channeling a large amount of attention to those lucky enough to get a chance to speak. A conference is an editorial act by the organizers, saying "here are some ideas and views that we think people really should be exposed to and hear". Every conference "censors" almost every viewpoint because there's not enough space to give them all a chance to speak, and this is inherent to the format; so raising an objection to a conference's judgement in making its selections is absolutely a legitimate act. This extends to other kinds of selective platforms. Online platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and Youtube already engage in active selection through algorithms that influence what people are more likely to be recommended. Typically, they do this for selfish reasons, setting up their algorithms to maximize "engagement" with their platform, often with unintended byproducts like . promoting flat earth conspiracy theories So given that these platforms are already engaging in (automated) selective presentation, it seems eminently reasonable to criticize them for not directing these same levers toward more pro-social objectives, or at the least pro-social objectives that all major reasonable political tribes agree on (eg. quality intellectual discourse). Additionally, the "censorship" doesn't seriously block anyone's ability to learn Craig Wright's side of the story; you can just go visit their website, here you go: . . https://coingeek.com/ If someone is already operating a platform that makes editorial decisions, asking them to make such decisions with the same magnitude but with more pro-social criteria seems like a very reasonable thing to do A more recent example of this principle at work is the #DelistBSV ampaign, where some cryptocurrency exchanges, most famously , removed support for trading BSV (the Bitcoin fork promoted by Craig Weight). Once again, many people, even , accused this campaign of being an exercise in censorship, raising parallels to credit card companies blocking Wikileaks: Binance reasonable people I personally have been a . Should I oppose #DelistBSV on free speech grounds? I would argue no, it's ok to support it, but this is definitely a much closer call. critic of the power wielded by centralized exchanges Many #DelistBSV participants like Kraken are definitely not "anything-goes" platforms; they already make many editorial decisions about which currencies they accept and refuse. Kraken only , so they are passively "censoring" almost everyone. Shapeshift supports more currencies but it does not support , or even . So in these two cases, delisting BSV is more like reallocation of a scarce resource (attention/legitimacy) than it is censorship. accepts about a dozen currencies SPANK KNC Binance is a bit different; it does accept a very large array of cryptocurrencies, adopting a philosophy much closer to anything-goes, and it does have a unique position as market leader with a lot of liquidity. That said, one can argue two things in Binance's favor. First of all, censorship is retaliating against a truly malicious exercise of censorship on the part of core BSV community members when they threatened critics like Peter McCormack with legal letters (see ); in "anarchic" environments with large disagreements on what the norms are, "an eye for an eye" in-kind retaliation is one of the better social norms to have because it ensures that people only face punishments that they in some sense have through their own actions demonstrated they believe are legitimate. Peter's response Furthermore, the delistings won't make it that hard for people to buy or sell BSV; Coinex has said that (and I would actually oppose second-tier "anything-goes" exchanges delisting). But the delistings send a strong message of social condemnation of BSV, which is useful and needed. So there's a case to support all delistings so far, though on reflection, Binance refusing to delist "because freedom" would have also been not as unreasonable as it seems at first glance. they will not delist do It's in general absolutely potentially reasonable to oppose the existence of a concentration of power, but support that concentration of power being used for purposes that you consider prosocial as long as that concentration exists; see Bryan Caplan's exposition on supporting open borders and also supporting anti-ebola restrictions for an example in a different field. reconciling Opposing concentrations of power only requires that one believe those concentrations of power to be harmful and abusive; it does not mean that one must oppose things that those concentrations of power do. on balance all If someone manages to make a cross-chain decentralized exchange that facilitates trade between any asset and any other asset, then being "listed" on the exchange would send a social signal, because everyone is listed; and I would support such an exchange existing even if it supports trading BSV. The thing that I do support is BSV being removed from already exclusive positions that confer higher tiers of legitimacy than simple existence. completely permissionless not So to conclude: censorship in public spaces bad, even if the public spaces are non-governmental; censorship in genuinely private spaces (especially spaces that are "defaults" for a broader community) can be okay; ostracizing projects with the goal and effect of denying access to them, bad; ostracizing projects with the goal and effect of denying them scarce legitimacy can be okay. not Originally published as “ On Free Speech ” with the WTFPL license

Does Freedom of Speech Exist in Cryptocurrency Communities?

is the story that got nominated for a 2020 Noonie in (yes, we're also somewhat surprised that's a thing). Read on to learn more about this enigmatic contributor to , who is The Bitcoin Halvening is More Than Just About Money [Deep Dive ] Aleksandar Svetski (Australia), Hacker Noon's Politics content category Hacker Noon "resisting the chip, the pod, the bugs, the soy and fiat." 🚀 This Year's Noonies were made possible by: Sustany Capital , .TECH Domains , Grant for the Web , Skillsoft , Flipside Crypto , Udacity , and Beyondskills ! VOTE until 12 Oct 2020 at NOONIES.TECH ! 🚀 1.  Which 2020 Noonie have you been nominated for? Hacker Noon Contributor of the Year - POLITICS . 2. Tell us a bit about yourself. University dropout turned serial entrepreneur. Have been writing since I was young (in private), and in public since 2016. Freedom Maximalist. Stateless. Resisting the chip, the pod, the bugs, the soy & fiat. Will not bend the knee. # Bitcoin only. 3. Tell us about the things you make / write / manage / build. Founder at Amber, the world's first Bitcoin DCA App. Launched The Bitcoin Times, the home of long form essays on Bitcoin and its impact on the world, economics, philosophy, society and more. Currently launching the "Wake Up" Podcast and YouTube channel. 4. What are you most excited about right now? Bitcoin is the most important thing happening in the world right now. 5. What are you worried about right now? State-overreach, and potential violence as they lose grip. 6. What's the most useful advice you've ever given somebody? Think longer term. We overestimate what we can do in a short period of time, and underestimate what we can do in longer periods of time. ALSO: Embrace the pain. It's a necessary part of the process. Whatever is worth keeping is worth earning - and that requires sacrifice. 7. How has the pandemic changed your life and/or career? Not much. I was already mobile. It's probably just accelerated the move to a new paradigm, and also perhaps shown me who can think clearly during more chaotic times, and who's willing to give up on or bend their values when the fear hits. 8. If we gave you $10 million to invest in one thing right now, where would you put it? Bitcoin. 9. What's an opinion you have that most people don't agree with? Equality is a scam. It is a moronic concept that only arrogant humans think they can create, and there is nothing in the natural world that is equal. Equality leads to conformity, whereas a system optimised for freedom creates opportunity and allows for the natural, dynamic ebb & flow of life .Again. Bitcoin is going to form the basis for a new world where no individual, or group can get an unfair advantage, and it will adjust the base incentives such that merit, effort, intelligence, integrity and stronger human values are rewarded. BUT - It will NOT fix equality, because equality is bullshit. It's a made up notion and the path to hell. 10. Which apps can't you live without? Notes - the basic apple app. 11. What are you currently learning? Anthropology and also Product Ownership Principles. VOTE for Aleksandar Svetski as Hacker Noon Contributor of the Year - POLITICS before voting closes on 12 October, 2020! 🚀 With gratitude to Hacker Noon 's 2020 Noonies Partners: Sustany Capital , .TECH Domains , Grant for the Web , Skillsoft , Flipside Crypto , Udacity , and Beyondskills !

Aleksandar Svetski Is A Stateless Freedom Maximalist; Will Not Bend

Do you know what does 404 means in China? lol It means websites that are filtered by the great censorship. And if “they”, (allow me to use “they” because I don’t want to be censored lol), don’t want some voice be heard, it will be 404ed or whipped out. But might change this. blockchain technology Check this out!!! _Ethereum (ETH) detailed transaction info for 0x2d6a7b0f6adeff38423d4c62cd8b6ccb708ddad85da5d3d06756ad4d8a04a6a2_etherscan.io Ethereum Transaction 0x2d6a7b0f6adeff38423d4c62cd8b6ccb708ddad85da5d3d06756ad4d8a04a6a2 DAT epic transaction! So yesterday many of my friends shared this, and I couldn’t figure out what it was, I mean honestly I am not that technical… So if you are like me, here is a simple how to: if you open through web, click the convert to UT8 converted!! this magical to me…. as I am really not that technical.. This etherscan thing looks like a good application to read these secrete notes on ETH blockchain. A student of Beijing University wrote his/her story along with a ETH transaction. So now his/her story is open to the world and the note cannot be changed. Basically this student Yue Xin submitted “Information Disclosure Application Form”, and got into problem with the school and da party committee. Me thinking… just asking for disclosure….Of course “they” gave Yue Xin pressure and silence this whole thing, but that didn’t happen successfully because of blockchain…… There are 249 comments now, all supporting the author. Many of them said there is no 404 in blockchain. But… nothing is impossible in China right. Yesterday many people shared it on wechat. But if you try to open this link through wechat now, it is already like this: Duh…. I mean it is kinda expected But if you read the comments are all pretty supportive to this student… For example “there is no 404 on blockchain” well, seems like people kinda support this… To conclude…. I learned…. learn your technology well! Or else can’t even get your voice heard when facing injustice.

FREEDOM

freedom.to

-- employees

Since n.d.

COMPANY RANKING

FREEDOM

EVERGREEN INDEX #4837

Representing this company? Click here to claim and customize this page!

Freedom WIKI

Apply to get your Tech Company News Page live on HackerNoon.com today!

FREEDOM

freedom.to

-- employees

Since n.d.

COMPANY RANKING

FREEDOM

EVERGREEN INDEX #4837

RELATED COMPANIESRANK

STORIES ABOUT FREEDOM

Representing this company? Click here to claim and customize this page!

Freedom WIKI

Apply to get your Tech Company News Page live on HackerNoon.com today!