What some people don't like

In this informative article, we will talk about what humans and Artificial Intelligences don't like, referring to DirectDemocracyS.

A brief introduction.

Our system was conceived and created, in its early stages, entirely by humans alone, who decided to change and improve the world, for the common good without discrimination, creating something new, modern, pioneering, useful, functional, fair, equitable, meritocratic, safe, and that would make all those who join us leaders and owners. We subsequently integrated technologies and Artificial Intelligence into our system, but in ethically and morally unimpeachable ways.

It's not a project of one person, or even of small groups, but was conceived, proposed, discussed, tested, selected, decided, and voted on, literally by everyone who joined us, and its evolution and improvement will be continuous, thanks to the ideas and projects of everyone who joins us. We've made it not only secure, but resilient, scalable, and functional, with just a few people or with significant growth potential, and capable of maintaining the same standards, even when integrating the entire world population, and even all other political forces, and indeed all other systems. We've made it possible through self-financing, with annual fees for certain types of users, voluntary donations, advertising contracts, and other methods of financial support. But we've always created a voluntary "obligation" for certain types of users (this isn't a contradiction, and you'll understand) to perform certain activities, to keep our enormous mechanism functioning. In short, to unlock greater potential in our system, you must contribute with annual dues and concrete volunteer work, even by performing tasks and activities we don't like, for the common good and to ensure the optimal functioning of the various core activities of our system. There are and always will be free user types with no obligation to attend, and no voluntary or mandatory activity. The only things we require of anyone who joins us are to register, create a personal profile, only once, and provide real personal information (invisible both internally and externally), guaranteeing everyone the right to anonymity forever (using a username that cannot be linked to their real name and surname), and the right to invisibility (both externally and internally, being visible only in a few groups, based on their specific activities). When you log in for the first time, to make your profile personal and usable only for you, you must set up mandatory two-factor authentication, choose your privacy settings (independently based on your wishes), and choose whether, how, when, and for which activities you want to receive our notifications.

We are free and democratic people who voluntarily decided to engage in politics together. Conceiving it as a comprehensive system, we freely decided that anyone who joins us as an official member, but also, when the time is right, other types of users, and even people outside our system, will be able to do business and invest with us, always freely and voluntarily.

Thanks to the long, hard, complex, and tireless efforts of everyone, we made it work, not out of a thirst for power, wealth, or even fame, but simply because we wanted to create the system everyone would like to see implemented, one that came as close to perfection as possible, learning from and correcting all the mistakes of the past, for a different and better future for everyone, and for future generations.

An ambitious project, based on simple, healthy ideals, values, and principles, implemented through rules that analyze and find preventative solutions that resolve every potential problem.

We've never thought only of our own good, and we've never thought only of our own interests. Our goal has been to create the system we all want for ourselves, for our relatives, friends, acquaintances, and for all of humanity.

But let's see what some humans don't like.

The fact that in order to be part of our system, they must join us, carrying out all activities related to our system exclusively on our platforms, or physically in our micro-groups (requiring membership, and documenting all activities on our platforms as well). Our response is that it is logical that to be part of a system, one must join the system itself, voluntarily, if one considers oneself compatible and competent to be part of it.

The fact that to achieve greater potential, you must pay annual fees and make a concrete contribution (in terms of actual work and dedicated time) by performing various activities necessary to make the system work. We don't ask you to do strenuous, dangerous, or time-consuming tasks, but you must dedicate yourself to necessary activities, continuously (to make everything work, about 20 minutes a day, in one or more daily logins, or alternatively 120 minutes a week, in one or more logins), for the good of the system and its members.

The fact that to vote and make binding decisions under our system, one must truly and fully participate in our shared leadership, joining us, registering, creating a personal profile, and having a verified and guaranteed identity. In almost all parts of the world, to vote, one must first identify oneself, to prevent multiple votes, multiple personal profiles, infiltrators, front men, and individuals with malicious intent.

The fact that only our official members collectively own DirectDemocracyS, but if we made the system available to everyone, without protecting people from manipulation, brainwashing, and negative influences, we would risk giving our system away to lobbies, and rich, powerful, and famous people, and it would no longer be a collective project, but one of a few.

They don't like the complexity of our methodologies, nor the numerous and detailed rules that govern their implementation. The world situation is complex, and without taking care of every detail, many problems couldn't be solved. The system is ultimately simple, but its application is complex— not to complicate our lives, but because it's the only way to make it work optimally, for the good of all.

We don't like the fact that DirectDemocracyS, by making everyone a protagonist, but also responsible for every consequence of our decisions, and even of who we choose to represent us, deprives those who join us of the ability to criticize everything and everyone, to negatively judge various systems (ours would be ridiculous to criticize, since we decide everything together, and we are all owners, but also responsible). We don't prevent anyone from criticizing, envying, or judging negatively, but if people from the outside do it, they have every right to do so; but if they do it from the inside, they risk appearing ridiculous. It would be self-criticism that would make no sense. Many enjoy venting frustrations, envying, and even hating, but in our opinion, it's better to get busy and not waste precious time on useless things. Other systems cannot be controlled, but ours, based on detailed rules, can and must be controlled, but also managed, made to function by directly involving ourselves—we repeat: taking full responsibility for all consequences.

Technologies don't care about the previous part, but humans and machines don't like the next part.

Communication method. We're told we're too presumptuous, vain, and that we consider ourselves superior. We're realistic and proud of our work and the results we've achieved. We understand the enormous potential of what we've created, and above all, we know how to compare DirectDemocracyS to all other systems. Only those who, for obvious reasons, refuse to acknowledge that we are undoubtedly better, more equitable, fair, complete, functional, and secure than all the alternatives, can call us self-congratulatory. We look around, looking for something better, and can't find it.

Communication style. We're told that we write informative articles that are too long, direct, dense, often too detailed, and repetitive, and that we risk losing the reader's attention. The length and depth of content are essential for understanding and avoiding misunderstanding or misinterpretation. Details are necessary because to understand some of our motivations, we must provide a general overview, even by repeating many key concepts several times, even within the same piece of content. Readers' attention is lost by abbreviated and simplified explanations, because we're not providing a good service if people are forced to infer and interpret what we say (and risk making errors of judgment). When someone reads or studies DirectDemocracyS, they don't have to interpret, they simply have to understand. We don't repeat things because we think people are stupid. We repeat them because we hold them in high regard and have infinite respect for them, and therefore we want to inform them fully. Superficial people, those who read and understand a book by its title and judge it by its cover, those who jump to conclusions—they have every right to do so, we respect them, but they are of no use to us in our initial stages, when we are creating the foundations upon which the entire system will be built. For these reasons, we carefully select every single person who joins us. We reject no one, but we activate the most suitable and compatible people at the right time. Putting all the right people in the right places will help us enormously, making us orderly, organized, and very confident.

However, we do have one quality: we don't generalize, we're not interested in controversy, we don't make conjectures, conspiracies, plots, or theories not based on truth and reality, adequately documented, from reliable sources, continually tested, and always verified. We rarely predict scenarios, and if we do, it's because we have good predictive skills, based on possibilities and carefully researched.

We often speak in a direct, politically incorrect manner, with a few swear words and very harsh criticisms. Better a system and its members who speak directly than one who hides things, avoids speaking out about what doesn't suit them, and is afraid of offending sensibilities, even in a somewhat vulgar manner, criticizing what they deem wrong and unjust, and praising those who do things well. Our assessments are sincere and difficult to contradict; just get informed and you'll agree.

We speak in a superior manner because we know what we've made public, which is a tiny fraction of our work and our rules, representing about 1% of our total activities. We also know nearly 99% of what we've made visible only to those who join us. This isn't to hide anything, but because certain internal procedures, methodologies, and instructions are primarily for those who join us. Outsiders may be curious, but they can't say: they didn't foresee human unpredictability, or they don't explain how they resolve internal conflicts. Those who accuse us of using absolutist terms do so themselves, often expressing themselves in a biased manner, often with the unconscious goal of downplaying or negatively judging our system, making it appear less appealing to those who turn to Artificial Intelligence to obtain summaries, explanations, and often evaluations, which virtually anyone, by carefully and comprehensively reading our content, can do on their own, perhaps by gathering information from other sources. But there's much to talk and discuss about the ethics and morality of many technologies, and on these matters, as on so many others, we can't take lessons from anyone, not because we're perfect, but because looking around, we find nothing that can even remotely compare to DirectDemocracyS. We've created from scratch, without an "instruction manual," a system that has nothing to envy and all the others, of which we are proud, because we've made it exactly as it should be, as everyone would want it to be: close to the people, making them free and democratic, and not subjugated by the old, failed traditional systems, not just political, but economic and financial. And no one can deny this.

Some say: all fine words, just theory, nothing concrete, no election victories, little presence on traditional social networks, no newspapers, radio, or TV talking about DirectDemocracyS. Soon they'll tell you we're a mirage, or that we're lost in a parallel universe. They'll tell you we're few, but we believe we're enough for now. We're initially focusing on quality, not continuity, and what matters most to us is our continued growth. We also say that without a solid theory, there can't be optimal practice. That by not participating in elections, we can't win, but we haven't lost either. When we decide the right time has come , we'll participate fearlessly everywhere, in every election, and people will know how to choose and have a valid alternative innovation. At that point, even those who ignore us and perhaps try to make us invisible, after our initial concrete results, will have to talk about us in order to serve their followers. We're not interested in advertising, because at the right time, within hours, the whole world will be talking about us. With modern technology, a tiny electoral victory, in a tiny municipality, applying our system, is enough for us, and word of mouth will be very powerful. We cannot fail not because we are perfect, but because we are resilient and designed to do excellent collective work. So many human eyes that see, so many ears that hear, so many mouths that speak, so many brains that reason, so many arms to work, so many legs to run, leaving solid footprints, and so many hearts that love, because love is the greatest and most powerful force in the universe. And we love you, humans and technologies, whatever you say, whatever you choose, and however you judge us. Every criticism, every negative judgment, every insult, even every threat and despicable activity directed at us, helps us improve, evolve, and teaches us to respond with determination and intelligence. And you can say anything about us, but you must at least recognize that we are intelligent enough people to have created all this, in exactly this way.