Governments are on the attack. Confidence is on the collapse and the control is fading. As this happens, they are asserting more effort to shut down dissent.
This is something that was brewing for a number of years. It is also part of a larger collapse cycle. The numbers for the mainstream media are waning, which is no surprising since it is really nothing more than the propaganda arm for governments and major corporations.
People are turning to other sources. Platforms that allow discussion are a threat.
The latest move is the arrest of Telegram founder and CEO Pavel Durov.
As more of this occurs, we see the need for open, permissionless blockchains grow in importance.
Telegram Arrest: Free Speech Attack
Government approved speech is what they seek. The hijacking of the media is one way for governments to control this. We saw this throughout history and it certainly is the case today.
With Telegram, the leaders have a problem. Both Russians and Ukrainians can share freely about what they are experiencing. This goes against the narrative which is nothing more than propaganda.
After all, the first casualty of war is the truth.
The same is true with Israel and Hamas. Both sides can use the platform for distributing their information (propaganda). This goes against the age old tactic of the only propaganda a government wants is its own.
Of course, technical design of these platforms makes them susceptible to these actions. They are based upon the client-server architecture. As we discussed in the past, that means the data is owned by the company that has the servers.
This also means there is a target.
Removing The Attack Vector
A year ago, Rumble was getting a fair bit of attention as an alternative to YouTube. While that might have been the case with regards to some of the policy, the challenge is that it is still the same type of system.
Rumble can take whatever stance it wants, there is still a point of vulnerability. It is a company with a door to knock on. That means the government can show up, if it is inclined, and take action.
There is nothing decentralized about Rumble. It controls its infrastructure and whatever is posted on there, as far as I know, is resident on centralized servers. The company behind Rumble might own the infrastructure but it is still owned by a single entity.
With blockchain, we are looking at something different. In fact, we have a system that is the opposite of what we see with the client-server framework.
The data, which is text for the most part, is resident on unrelated nodes. This means that it cannot be erased. Once it is in the database, it is basically immutable. The added benefit is that no single person or company is responsible for the data.
This aligns with the free speech discussion.
When something is truly decentralized, it is beyond attack. We saw this with open source software which simply spread, morphed, and grew over time. Blockchains such as Bitcoin were attacked for years, with no impact. The data in the network is unchanged, with new transactions added each day.
This means anyone can read the information. The only thing required is a block explorer, which also can be created as open source.
The Hive Blockchain
While Telegram is a multi-feature application, meaning that it provides a host of activities that often extend past the abilities of blockchain. For example, there is a private messenger feature that allows people to engage directly. There are naturally some conversations that people do not want public.
Thus, we are not looking at a direct comparison.
However, we see the ability to write to a permissionless database as an alternative to what we commonly interact with, i.e. the client-server architecture.
Hive allows for anyone with some basic stake to post to the database. The text is placed in blocks every few seconds and is mostly irreversible is another couple seconds. This means the information is resident on unrelated nodes spread throughout the world.
Applications are centralized. That said, some are open source which can be used by anyone. This means it could become a game of whack-a-mole as new aones open up. Governments showed their inability to keep pace with the file sharing programs a couple decades back.
Since the data is not tied to the application, killing it does nothing. The information still exists. It is a radical concept in terms of the architecture. Governments (and corporations) are accustomed to dealing with entities they can focus upon. The decentralized design is a problem.
The Case Against Durov
The problem for Durov is that he (his company) is forced to comply with the laws. When they are passed, if he wants to operate, compliance is necessary.
Here is the basis for his arrest:
The offences levelled at Durov by France’s OFMIN, an agency that deals with the prevention of violence against minors, include fraud, drug trafficking, cyberbullying, and organised crime, according to the AFP news agency, which quoted officials speaking on condition of anonymity.
Certainly I have no knowledge of French law but it is evident they decide this is what the platform is responsible for. Of course, it is not beyond governments to accuse an individual of one things while targeting for something completely different.
Misdirection is something governments specialize in.
We are facing wars that are used to basically hide the fact that the system they are operating is unsustainable. Historically, war is a great way to default. We see Zelenskyy doing this now as he suspends payment on the Ukrainian debt.
As I said a couple years ago, the EU is ground zero for this. It is only being outpaced by Japan in the race kick off the sovereign debt crisis. War can provide the cover to take action in a way that doesn't upset the masses.
At least that is the hope.
If one cannot sell the debt, it becomes impossible to keep using it as a funding mechanism. Much of what is produced by the EU ends up on the balances sheets of its own banks. This is a problem if it is not being spread throughout the world. It means buyers are drying up.
Of course, this is not something the politicians and bureaucrats what out there. It is all a confidence game and if people stop believing, then a host of issues quickly arise.
This is why controlling the message is vital.