How trusting are you? Who would you put your faith in?
I think that these are interesting questions to ask here since many border on anonymity yet are trying to build a society of trust. It is a paradox of sorts since to do what they want to do requires cooperation with others but, people are less willing to trust them enough to cooperate.
Humans are more 'seeing is believing' when it comes to trust and this is part of the reason why so many can have the wool pulled over their eyes with visual propaganda. It is only going to get worse of course as the technology gets better.
Can change happen in anonymity, behind the veils and in the shadows? Of course it can. But, what kind of change will it be? What do the shadows encourage? If no one is looking and one thinks they will not be discovered, does human nature encourage good action for the many, or poor action for the few?
I find it interesting to think about especially since there is a degree of conspiracy leaning in the people who cover themselves the most. Many believe that there are unseen forces at play working to influence the outcomes in their favour. Perhaps it is the banks, or the Illuminati, the mafia or the field of science and medicine but, it doesn't really matter which.
The belief is that there is are groups that act unseen to manipulate and this causes a lot of the suffering and problems in the world as they work towards gaining vast amounts of wealth and power of the many.
But, what is the difference in those hiding now, those acting in a lot more for their best interests than that of the many? Aren't they just doing the same?
Here is the problem, they may be fundamentally different but, they look a lot like what people expect the nefarious to look like which means, many may not stay long enough to hear what is to be said.
The interesting thing however tends to be that those who act the worst, do it in plain site and nothing sticks when caught and they just keep marching along to live another day. Perhaps this is because their supporters feel that they 'know' them even if they have only paid attention to a very narrow view of their activity.
This is perhaps why politicians can have so much scandal and yet survive as they can create large user bases and a significant part will either never become aware or, dismiss any of their negative aspects. It could also be that there is a sunk cost fallacy at play saying that, 'we have come this far together'.
It is an interesting problem to deal with as anonymity may be important for a future in a life dictated heavily by an authority but, that future is more likely because the anonymous working against it are untrusted by society.
We can see this in the way the average person views Cryptocurrencies as many seem to believe there is something shady going on but, who informs them? The people they trust, people they can see, the politicians, the bankers, the financial experts. They have been largely led to believe is that cryptocurrencies are the gateway drug to crime of some sort or another or, dangerous and when they do investigate for themselves, most hide their faces.
Look at the estimated top 10 of Blackmarket values in the world:
If they are using a lot of crypto, all would be to the moon. US alone is almost double the current market capacity. That doesn't mean there is no shady business but, it does point to a few other things such as, what currencies are they using? Now, this has no real relevance and isn't an indicator of anything but is an interesting thing to consider. What happens if government corruption is included in those figures, over-payments for defence contractors or the donations made by lobby groups across the world?
It takes a lot of work to trust someone you have never met, never talked to and never even seen a picture of their face. Introduce money into that mix and suddenly it adds another factor of complexity to the mix that complicates the relationship even more. Then, watch the large scale abuse taking place and the community's inability or unwillingness to deal with it and it puts more barriers in the way of acceptance.
There are many things to consider when it comes to being part of a decentralised, largely anonymous, financial incentive driven social media. Trusting our own judgement over who is worthy of that trust is a difficult process which means, many relationships go undeveloped.
Many here have become little islands that only look out for themselves but, do not have all the resources necessary to satisfy their wants. This means they find a myriad ways to influence others, scam others and then bury their faces to avoid detection and identification. Is it a minority or a majority here? How is a (mostly poorly) hidden voting circle any different to a secret society working only to empower themselves?
I wonder, will a point come where people feel safe enough (or brave enough) to come out of the shadows and what will the cost be when they do? Will transparency of person lead to better interactions or worse, improved behaviours or worse?
We will see in time.
Taraz
[ a Steemit original ]