I don't think there is a conventional solution to the problem, like something technological or something to do with police training. The problem arises because society is fundamentally ripping itself apart at the seams, because trust between everyone just keeps dropping lower, while tensions keep rising.
You can create "zero trust" privacy implementations, but you can't create "zero trust" societies.
On the contrary, a high trust society is a good thing, and something we should strive towards. Getting back to high trust societies will be an incredibly difficult thing though, for various reasons better left for a different conversation.
When I was a kid, everyone was aware of the concept of prank calling 911, pulling the school fire alarm, etc. We play close to the line too. But the thing that stopped us is that we didn’t want to get caught and punished. The “Technological” part enters the equation because people are finding ways to anonymously make these fake reports.
Ofcourse you can, Russia is a zwr9 trust society. Thats why you cant organise even 3 people to protest without being afraid that someome will rat you outm
Although you could argue its not a society any more.
It is close though, especially in urban areas. My brother worked at Sotchi during the Olympics and in a big city in the south (sorry I forgot the name, it was on a pretty big river though) during the world Cup, and it seemed that everyone was trying to use each other, or was thinking others wanted to use them. Even when the surrounding mood was positive, young people seemed distrustful, and the drunk Russians seemed more violent and paranoid that drunk tourists/workers. It felt like a hard life, for young people at least. Older people seemed doing a lot better tbh.
> I don't think there is a conventional solution to the problem
> he problem arises because society is fundamentally ripping itself apart at the seams, because trust between everyone just keeps dropping lower, while tensions keep rising.
I think that actually shows the problem and solution. If we stop to realize that most people are pretty similar and that your environment plays a huge role, then we have some clear problems and solutions. There are things like us being less communal in person and concentrating into bubbles, but there are bigger issues. Right now we have no trust for our authorities and that's not without good reason. The US has always had a level of distrust, but that is more for a defense mechanism: checks and balances. The fourth and fifth estates.
But there are good reasons to be cynical, not just critical. We've seen our lawmakers diverge from public opinion significantly[0]. We see them being able to play by rules that normal citizens cannot, given them "elite" class status (something antithetical to the founding of the country: no monarchy)[1]. We've seen a growing wealth divide (creating oligarchs or nobles)[2]. And we see an abusive local power structure (police). A big issue is that we can't talk honestly about any of these things because we do divide ourselves into bubbles and are primed to believe anyone slightly deviating from our "correct" opinion is of the other side and so we make sweeping assumptions about their views instead of communicating like fucking adults.
Rome wasn't built in a day, but neither did it collapse overnight. The problems are fixable, but take serious effort, nuance, and long term thinking. Things we generally aren't good at, but also things that separate us from most other animals. We don't need a "zero trust" society, we _need_ trust. Nothing works without trust. But right now we have every reason not to.
[0] You can look at public opinions on a subject and then look at how congress votes on them. This even extra common for the highly debated issues. Look at things like weed legalization, family leave, health care, and more. We often frame things as one of two extremes, but public opinion is often quite okay with something a bit more central, though usually clearly on one side of the isle.
[2] We've just seen an ever increasing growth in the wealth divide. It isn't a "rising tide lifts all ships" situation (like it could be) but that bigger ships are dismantling smaller ones. From 1989 to 2023 (Q1) we've seen the top 0.1% / 99%-99.9% / 90%-99% / 50%-90% / <50% go from 8.6/14.1/37.3/36.2/3.8 to 12.8/18.5/37.7/28.6/2.4 (https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distr...). That's +4.2% / +4.4% / +0.4% / -7.6% / -1.4%. That's the shrinking middle class, and by a lot! We don't see this in other western countries.
[other note] You don't see violent crimes or petty theft as common in middle or upper class neighborhoods. The reasoning is because there's high cost and low reward. In low income neighborhoods this reverses. Sometimes in this area you have a better economic advantage by joining a gang than getting an actual job. That's clearly an economic failure. Obviously there is far more nuance to these things and can't be just a single comment in isolation, but we should be realizing that there's a chain of events and some complicated interconnections at play. That things aren't "simple" and we need to think deeply instead of quickly.
>I think that actually shows the problem and solution.
You said a lot of correct things but I failed to see where you presented a solution. "To realize we need to be more communal" is not a solution, a solution would be something like "this is how we become more communal".
One of the largest "meta issues" stopping this being solved is as you mention the political climate: "we make sweeping assumptions about their views instead of communicating like fucking adults.". I primarily hold the mainstream media accountable for this political cold war that has been created, and secondarily politicians of various kinds.
>If we stop to realize that most people are pretty similar and that your environment plays a huge role, then we have some clear problems and solutions.
I disagree with this core assessment, and don't think I should elaborate, because of the aforementioned political cold war.
> You said a lot of correct things but I failed to see where you presented a solution.
On the contrary, I think I have, but I'll try to explain a bit better because I have abstracted a bit for sake of brevity.
> a solution would be something like "this is how we become more communal".
> One of the largest "meta issues" stopping this being solved is as you mention the political climate:
> I primarily hold the mainstream media accountable
They are a big contributor (I'm not going to ignore your qualifier) but it also demonstrates something actionable. __YOU__ stop doing that thing. Sure, you're only one person, but these things tend to be infectious. We infect each other with ideas just as the media infects us with ideas. If you're "above" them, then reverse the situation and infect others to rebuild that community. Get out of the habit of attacking each other and assuming. Build bridges with _specifically_ the people who are not in "your camp." Encourage these kinds of conversations. You'll constantly be told you're only one person and don't have much of an effect but that's no different than saying "you're just one person, how will Facebook/Google make money off of your information?" You are an integral cog in the larger machine and have more effect than your realize. Infect your friends and family to the degree that they too will start to infect others.
[0] mentioned alignment issues. A major issue here is of divide and rule tactics being used. Stop concentrating on your political enemies and their alignment. First get your house in order. If your team isn't aligned with your belief, then you need to either make them or pick a new team. If your team isn't aligned with your goals, then there is no effective way to play against the opposition. A big difference is that you actually have a voice within your team, whereas you have little to none in the opposing team. So start where your voice is stronger and work from there. This is NOT a common tactic, except by outliers (e.g. Sanders/AOC or Trump/DeSantis). It does run the danger of bifurcation, but the choice matters about how aligned you are. I'd say if it is below 80%, it is an easy choice, and I'm almost certain that is true.
[1] Mentions differing rules. This is a good way to build bridges. Neither liberals nor conservatives agree that this is a good thing. But they poke fingers at the other team before they poke at their own (Pelosi being the poster child of insider trading being the perfect example of this when she's doesn't even make the top 5). You can "infiltrate" any team by talking about these things at a slightly more abstracted level. If you just don't mention specific names or teams then the person will fill in the gaps for you. This goes for a lot of hot topics if we're being honest. Replace "police" with "authority" or use the word "politicians" instead of "democrats" or "republicans." If you want to talk about the oligarchs you might need to be more audience aware and use their specific language. But otherwise you can use the exact same talking points with the same exact intent and meaning, but you need to use the correct diction. It's baffling but also fascinating.
[2] Mentioned wealth gap. We often associate this with a liberal sided conversation, but it is significantly discussed on the conservative side too. When they are talking about "liberal media," "green new deal," or other such things, if you listen carefully you'll recognize that this is about corporate capture of agenda setting and control over the economy and public mind. That is the exact same conversation that is being had on the liberal side about corporate greed and crony capitalism.
If we move up just a little bit in abstraction, you will find that we're all very concerned with quite similar things. It really helps to start there before moving down into the weeds. But that's where we start and that's why we fight. Because one person is looking for a red round fruit that grows on a tree and the other is looking for a orange round fruit that grows on a tree. The differences do matter, but there are more similarities than not. We can't discuss the differences of apples and oranges when we're acting as if they aren't both round fruits that grow on trees and provide people with nutrients. But the reality is that you can't be this hyper focused if you aren't also being hyper specific. If you're hungry, either will do just fine but if you have scurvy, then the difference does matter. Unfortunately most of us are just hungry and are too caught up in being picky that we can't agree which tree to plant. Recognizing the similarities in the abstracted level is essential to all of this. To being infectious. To not falling for the media trap. To aligning your own party's values with your own. To building communities. Because if you can't recognize that people are people, then you're just continuing the cycle. It doesn't matter how you bin your enemies: religion, race, political ideologies; it is all painting with a wide brush that divides people that could get along. Many of these things aren't even apparent from the outside and you wouldn't know without asking.
> I disagree with this core assessment
Then in that, I'll give you a testable situation, using what is discussed above. Sit down and have some beers with some {rednecks,libtards}, whichever is the opposite of your camp. Get through the initial bashing, don't engage in that, but just brush it off. Once you've then been able to talk like a normal person, actually engage with them and ask them about their beliefs. Don't tell them yours or why they're wrong, just listen. I think you'll find something interesting. Often their framing of a problem is different than yours. You can think of it like a dual problem in optimization and this is why we can't really converge. If liberals are considering maximizing the personal liberty of a woman conditioned on the personal liberty of a fetus, then conservatives are maximizing the personal liberty of a fetus conditioned on the personal liberty of a woman. They may look like the same optimization problem, but they are distinctly different (and of course there are many other conditional variables). Humans have a tendency to amplify the differences over similarities because it is the differences that make people unique. The rest is redundant and therefore wasting of memory and compute. But this obviously is problematic at times too. But I guarantee you that if you perform this experiment you'll find that the other team isn't so different than you. They are just people after all, and people are pretty fucking similar. But again, you can't fight or educate them, that's not the experiment. Be a researcher, not an educator. You also may find out how to convince people to come to your "side" if you do so.
It is true that when you dig deep into the fundamental beliefs of people, that they hold many things in common. I actually don't believe the political divide we experience today is something organic, as in being part of the human condition, rather it is artificially managed by the aforementioned mainstream media, et al, and to a good extent once they've stoked the fires well enough, we keep it up on our own. But the flames would die down if they just left it alone to be handled by people.
Being the change you want to see in the world is always a good start. But I think it is wishful the point of naivety to claim that it is enough to just be the change you want to see in the world. I can do a great job of not littering by the beach, but as long as the oceans keep getting polluted by plastics from a few certain nations, it really is a fruitless endeavor in the long term.
I don't think being toxic in a political way to your peers is good for any reason at all, it's harmful to you and others around you in every way, but I also don't have any hopes that just because I try to hold a better tone, that the world would actually change. The control that mainstream media holds over democracy is huge, and arguably cannot be overstated.
The true divide as I see it doesn't lie between people left or right leaning, but between people and an international clique of wealthy and influential people that permeate all western nations.
And while there are many issues which people will agree are just different flavors of fruit, some issues are fundamental. You say that:
>It doesn't matter how you bin your enemies: religion, race, political ideologies; it is all painting with a wide brush that divides people that could get along.
And to that I say: We don't ge along. At this point it is a matter of fact statement rather than one of prejudice. The result of the current trajectory in the west is one towards civil war, because we do not get along. It is a fundamental belief among some that all cultures, races, and even ideologies can get along. That some kind of transcendent centrism can bridge all gaps and make everyone happy. I do not subscribe to that belief on a moral or philosophical level, let alone see any evidence of it actually being real in historical terms.
I think it could be possible to get along, if perhaps only one or two of these "religion, race, political ideologies" were present and divergent in the general population. But the current mix of all three, no way.
You can create "zero trust" privacy implementations, but you can't create "zero trust" societies.
On the contrary, a high trust society is a good thing, and something we should strive towards. Getting back to high trust societies will be an incredibly difficult thing though, for various reasons better left for a different conversation.