Security

If every visitor to our site tried asking a huge number of people, "Do you know about DirectDemocracyS?" In January 2026, only 1 in 100,000 would tell you they knew about our system. But surveys have no guaranteed timeframe or data, especially for such small percentages. All it would take is the bad luck of not asking in the right order, or in the right place, or to the right person (perhaps in the bathroom), and 1 in 200,000, or 1 in 300,000, or 1 in 400,000, or 1 in 500,000 or more, wouldn't know a system like ours exists.

Likewise, if you were to ask someone: what is DirectDemocracyS? Everyone would start talking about Ancient Greece, modern Switzerland, and some local experiments. All these people, much like many Artificial Intelligences, if they don't know something, "invent it." From the title, it's not difficult to find similarities, or to more or less understand what we do. However, by inventing, or comparing without knowing who we are, we risk diminishing the enormous potential, completeness, resilience, fairness, justice, and incredible level of security of our innovative and alternative system.

To learn a little about who we are, why we were founded, where we want to go, and how we'll get there, anyone can simply go to the home page of our main website and read the first informative article. For those who are lazy, visit our social media area, also on our official websites, and watch a short video, less than 5 minutes long, in their own language, explaining some key details.

But almost everyone has concerns: can I trust this system, and who is part of it? What if the website is infected? What if my personal data is stolen? What if my money is stolen? To find out if we're trustworthy as a system, just look around the internet and find a single, genuinely substantiated, negative review that speaks ill of our system. To find out if you can trust someone within us, just go to the social area (our private social network, which has all the potential of the others, but is free, independent, and self-funded). If a user has a blue check mark next to their username, it means they're identified. Therefore, if they say or do something wrong to you, we'll identify them and, if guilty, we'll punish them together. If they don't have a blue check mark, you shouldn't trust them. And if they contact you on our behalf from outside, you can always verify their credentials and authorizations by simply sending a message with their details or filling out the contact form at this link:

https://contacts.directdemocracys.org/contacts/specials-groups/securities-groups/security

and you will receive a reply to your email address (always make sure you write it correctly).

Generally, a website of an organization without negative reviews does not contain viruses, otherwise everyone is talking about them on the Internet and on social networks, but you can check every single web page, of any of our websites, of our entire platform, and you will never find a virus, and you can do this by copying and pasting the URL (the link), at this link:

https://www.virustotal.com/gui/home/url

In just a few minutes you will be sure that we are clean.

This is a recent update of our official website's front page:

https://www.virustotal.com/gui/url/a5cfc69ff6399b88118ab094f1e51cc8036a170ddf28685b9447e7ec5bb9b13b

92 out of 92 antivirus programs confirm that there are no viruses.

Your personal data, which some say we might "steal" from you, is actually protected by the best, most modern, and constantly updated technologies if you share it with us and manage your personal profile according to our recommendations. We spare no expense in protecting all personal and group data and all the activities of everyone within us, anyone who collaborates with us, and even anyone who contacts us. Again, just search for negative reviews about DirectDemocracyS, and you won't find a single one that's truly justified.

We won't steal a single cent from you because we're not criminals, and we use the best partners internally and externally to move money in and out, using the best and most secure technologies. So if you want to donate money, pay annual fees, pay advertising contracts, or move money in and out, if you do it through our platforms, you won't have any problems. Even in this case, you can search for negative reviews, and you'll see that no one will ever be able to claim we stole from them, because in that case, they'll be immediately forced to provide evidence, or they'll be reported to the relevant authorities for defamation, and we'll seek moral and material damages.

If, after all this explanation, you still don't trust us, we remind you that often, without knowing it (because you check off everything they ask and don't read all the information and warnings), you are already sharing literally all your personal data with numerous institutions, agencies, and commercial companies. And many of those you trust, knowingly or unknowingly, may share much of your data with others, and have done so several times. Just look around, and you'll find proof.

But why do we constantly tell you to shop around, study reviews, and verify every word we say? It's simple: we have nothing to fear. However, we know that there will be many attempts to discredit us, because our success could annoy many criminals, the rich, powerful, and famous, who could fill the internet with false negative reviews. Therefore, we humbly ask you to report any negative reviews regarding DirectDemocracyS online at this link:

https://contacts.directdemocracys.org/contacts/reports/reporting-from-other-sites

For negative reviews about DirectDemocracyS on any social network, please fill out a contact form at this link:

https://contacts.directdemocracys.org/contacts/reports/reporting-from-social-networks

And in both cases, we will report anyone spreading false information about us to the relevant authorities and seek moral and material damages. In any case, if you read something about us that is inappropriate for you, in addition to reporting it to us, always ask for our version of events before condemning us without evidence.

Returning to the fact that we're still unknown, we have a lot of people to explain, because to those who've known us from the beginning, it almost seems like we're deliberately not advertising ourselves and not letting many people know about our system. In many previous articles, we've told you, as always, the truth: we're not interested in growing too quickly, but rather in continuous, controlled, orderly, perfectly organized growth, with exceptional security measures, especially in the delicate and crucial initial phases. We need a natural selection of the brightest minds to place the right people in the most important roles. Essentially, we want to be able to place the right people in the right places, to have a solid foundation and avoid any problems in the future, when practically anyone can join us. It's not discrimination; we don't reject anyone, but we simply delay the activation of personal profiles for people we're not convinced by. Ultimately, if users can choose or not choose our system, it's only right that our system can also choose when someone can join. All other systems, often controlled by various lobbies, and almost all algorithms, ignore us, and often make us invisible, because they fear our rapid growth. They don't know that by preventing the masses from knowing us, they only strengthen us and allow us to choose the most suitable people for each stage of our journey. In essence, by wanting to harm us, they unwittingly give us enormous help, and we publicly thank them for this. They might realize this and decide to flood us with countless requests to join us, all at once. In that case, we apologize for any technical inconvenience, which we will resolve within hours or days, while maintaining some web servers separate from the main ones, thus continuing our essential activities. We also apologize if there will be long waiting lists, but as more people join, there will be more groups to screen and activate new users, and in a short time, everything will be resolved as usual for the best.

But why are we so slow to grow? Why doesn't anyone talk about us?

Those who have known us since the beginning know that we promised you that, at the right time, we would have a way of introducing ourselves to the world that would surprise everyone.

Today we're going to explain how we're going to grow by letting virtually everyone in the world know about our existence, and we're going to have an official start date, which will be when everyone on earth knows about DirectDemocracyS.

At the right time, we will participate with our candidates, who will be our political representatives chosen through our closed online primaries, on our platforms, in real local elections, in one or more municipalities, in one or more countries around the world. When, thanks to the local vote , we win even in just one place, applying our system, it will not be a matter of years, months, or days, but in a few hours, thanks to modern technology and traditional social networks, everyone will talk about the excellent work our political representatives are doing in their tiny municipalities. Everyone will want to adopt our system, at every level, because let's be clear: we truly are the best at everything, and it's not just us who say so, it's anyone who compares our rules, methodologies, instructions, and our unique and inimitable style with any other political force, present or past. No system is as complete, fair, equitable, or more secure than ours. In a few hours, everyone will be talking about us, everyone will know us, and almost everyone will want to join us to change and improve the world. We'll achieve all this automatically, without spending money on advertising, without having to beg (or pay) traditional media to talk about us, without having to try to convince anyone, and without having to negotiate with anyone, to join DirectDemocracyS. Of course, traditional media will do everything they can to contact our representatives, but even in this, we'll surprise you, as always, but we'll talk about it at the right time. Our birthday, when everyone knows we're here, will happen exactly when we want it, which is to say, at the right time. Until then, we'll continue working as usual. Afterward, nothing will be the same, but we'll be ready, as always.

For the first time in our news articles to date, we begin a new article with the last sentence of one of our previous ones: however, we will never agree, anywhere in the world, that a military operation, whoever carries it out, takes all the wealth of their respective countries, which, for us at DirectDemocracyS, must be the exclusive and complete property of the population living in each geographic area. At the appropriate time, we will make known our plan for restructuring and reassigning wealth worldwide (renegotiating all contracts) to those who have every right to manage, control, and exploit it: namely, the population living there, who can, if they wish, enter into contracts that always respect real and concrete collective property, and always based on joint decisions, in the interest of the entire population.

The full informational article from which we took the last sentences can be found at this link:

https://www.directdemocracys.org/law/info/fundamental-questions/explanations/we-are-pragmatic

We recommend that you read it before continuing with your reading.

We hope you did, and that you appreciate our pragmatism, which, combined with our impeccable consistency and our style of communication, makes us both beloved and unbearable, at the same time, for everyone. We admit that we are all part of a new system, rewriting the rules and shifting paradigms, with radical, often pioneering, and certainly intelligent and courageous innovations.

Those who believe we're utopian, or superficial, or even lacking in new ideas, should read our approximately 400 previous informative articles with an open mind to form a properly informed opinion. Some consider us too long, too complicated; others consider us simplistic, lacking in detail, and even insignificant. Finally, the most friendly consider us always defensive. We respond to this last statement with a question: you know that some of our visitors accuse us of only talking about what's convenient for us, and that we don't accept criticism and don't answer questions. First of all, for those who have followed us from the beginning, we really do talk about everything, and we have no need to defend our system, which, being an ongoing, completely collective effort, is so well done that it doesn't need defending. If we answer all your questions privately, and publicly, it's out of respect for you, and to explain the reasons behind everything we do, and to make it clear that we talk about anything, without fear of being inconsistent.

Let's go back to the sentences that have created so much amazement in those who don't know us from the beginning.

Like everything we write, our position is so detailed and clear that we won't discuss the first part, but only the part that has inundated us with messages, so we can get further details. Here's the most "surprising" part: at the right time, we will make known our plan for restructuring and reassigning wealth globally (renegotiating all contracts) to those who have every right to manage, control, and exploit it: the people who live there. They can, if they wish, make contracts that always respect real and concrete collective property, and always based on shared decisions, in the best interest of the entire population.

The phrase refers to the ownership of our entire planet, which must necessarily belong to all the people who live on it, unless extraterrestrials arrive and steal everything from us by force. All the resources of our entire planet must be owned by everyone, used in everyone's interest, to ensure everyone's well-being, security, serenity, and happiness. We haven't gone mad, and we're not dreamers; that's exactly what we'll do, because we've said it from the beginning. But obviously, not everyone reads everything, and if, after a few years, we repeat some details that are in our DNA, some people are left speechless.

Continuing the geographical, territorial, administrative, and electoral subdivisions, we believe that the riches of each continent must be the exclusive property of, and exploited in the exclusive interest of, the inhabitants of each continent.

We proceed in the same way for individual peoples, for individual countries, states, regions, provinces, urban and rural areas, down to neighborhoods, street blocks, apartment buildings, buildings, houses, apartments, individual rooms, down to every square millimeter. Are we exaggerating? Crazy? No, we are simply fair, equitable, meritocratic, and very attentive to the common good.

Not only ownership and interests, but all power to decide, manage, and control everything, in a detailed and continuous manner over time, must belong to those who live on our planet, in every continent, people, country, state, region, province, city, neighborhood, street block, down to the last millimeter. Those who live in every area, whether urban or rural, must own everything, demand that everyone's interests be served, without discrimination, and have the power to decide everything, collectively, comprehensively, in a detailed and continuous manner over time. We repeat: decide, manage, and control everything, continuously.

At this point, even though we've clarified everything we'll do—and unlike almost everyone else, we keep every promise we make and don't lie—everyone will be wondering: how will you do all this? To find out, as always, you'll have to carefully study our entire system, but we'll provide some explanations here too, shortly. The second question that arises is: are you just deluded? If you believe this, what will the rich, powerful, and various lobbies do to you? Again, we've already provided you with many predictions, details, and even detailed explanations, but keep reading and we'll provide you with more data.

The third question is always connected to the first, but it could be more nuanced: will you redistribute wealth? Are you communists? Will you implement a global minimum income? In this case, we've already answered some of your questions, but each answer will require dedicated articles, and we promise we will, at the right time, because these are important and complex topics.

To do all this effectively, every rule, every methodology, every instruction, and every rationale of our system must be respected by everyone involved. DirectDemocracyS already provides for the ownership rights of each of our official members, who collectively own everything, with the right to decide, manage, and control. We just need to implement it globally, taking all the time necessary, with the help of anyone who joins us. It will also be necessary to change and improve the mentality of everyone, first of all those who join us, and then everyone else. Please note: we wrote "change and improve mentality," not "manipulate," "impose ideas," and above all, not expect everyone to think the same way, because this attitude would be counterproductive and limit personal ideas. We already do this with "I," for personal ideas, and "we," for shared ideas, which allows us to be united in diversity. Joint decisions voted on in the manner provided for by our implementing rules are binding on all and must be implemented and respected by all, while leaving each person free to believe what they wish.

Will they let us do this? Surely not everyone will love us; in fact, many lobbies, and rich and powerful people, view us with suspicion and fear, and surely some of them will try by all means, fair and foul, legal and illegal, to boycott us, slow us down, and stop us. Obviously, they don't even have a chance of causing problems for us, and DirectDemocracyS will do many of these individuals and groups more good than harm. Let's explain, though we'll publish an informative article on these important details. We've said it several times before: we're not losers, resentful, or envious, who gain consensus through social hatred. We will never engage in Robin Hood-style politics. Those who are rich, powerful, and famous—thanks to brilliant ideas, hard work, risking and investing in what they believe in, respecting all laws, paying full taxes without discounts, precisely in the countries and areas where they make a profit, not exploiting their workers, and not destroying our planet—have nothing to fear; in fact, they will gain enormously with DirectDemocracyS. Let us explain better, simply. Everyone knows that by fundamental rules, DirectDemocracyS always starts by helping those most in need first, most, and for the longest time, without any discrimination. For us, it is essential to improve lives and solve the problems of the poorest, not to gain consensus, but because it is right, logical, and common sense that it should be so. By enriching and improving the lives of all the poor, generating more wealth without taking anything away from the rich, powerful, and famous, in ethically and morally correct ways, there will be a positive effect, even for those who are already rich. At this point, the lobbies and the deservingly wealthy will be able to choose whether to fight against us, along with all those who are right to fear us, or to side with justice, knowing they will lose nothing; on the contrary, they will gain from our system. DirectDemocracyS, without doing anything other than its work, has already created a divide between the rich and powerful who deserve it, and those who have no right to be so. By our calculations, there are many more deserving ones than criminals; therefore, while we take all necessary precautions, because many of the "bad guys" could be dangerous, we can nevertheless say that we fear nothing, because we are on the right side, the side of honest people, and this reassures us. If there is a fight to be had, we will do it, but we will forever eliminate corruption and illegality from our beautiful planet, taking all the time necessary, and offering those who do not respect the rules the chance to comply and change their attitude. Even in these cases , the majority will prefer legality, perhaps with temporarily lower earnings, to the concrete, almost certain, risk of losing everything.

The redistribution of wealth is mandatory, but it must be done gradually and intelligently, implementing equality and meritocracy, always together, and consistently, because only by dividing everything, without rewarding the best, does corruption arise, eliminates competitiveness, and there can be no growth, or even progress.

For those who have been following us from the beginning, the phrase "you are communists" will surely make you smile. We consider all Nazi, fascist, and communist ideologies, and all their offshoots, to be criminals. We consider all other traditional political forces to be failures, unjust, unsafe, and thieves of democracy because, after elections, they steal democracy from the people and hand it over to various political parties and their respective representatives, who, for many years, transform the democracy of elections into oligarchic partycracy. We also have a negative opinion of those who are anti-political or anti-system, because they waste precious time fighting those they can never defeat, and fail to propose any credible, effective alternative. As for a guaranteed global minimum income, it will take a long time, a lot of hard and complicated work, but it can be proposed if and when we win all the world's elections. However, we need courageous and intelligent economic and financial reforms, with radical and highly detailed measures, and we can ensure excellent living conditions for all, including a guaranteed minimum income, without giving anything away to those who don't actively contribute to the common good. We don't treat those who don't contribute to the common good as real, and in this too we are different and better than those who give away money, bonuses, and income to watch TV from the comfort of their couches.

If you want a definition of DirectDemocracyS, we are proudly meritocratic communists, and capitalists with a human face!

Anyone who begins to study our system might at first glance think we are a complicated system, but instead it is all very simple, just always using a method that we revealed to you from the first article: logic, common sense, truth, study, reality, and mutual respect.

To ensure we always know our official position on everything, we'd like to add one more to this long list of adjectives, one that many sensed but few understood: pragmatism. For those unfamiliar, we'll briefly explain the meaning of this beautiful word: an attitude informed by a realistic and practical vision, aimed at achieving, sometimes even unscrupulously, concrete results; practicality, concreteness, realism.

To better explain why we are pragmatic, you should know that the concrete results achieved, to change and improve the world, and increase well-being for the entire world population, without any kind of discrimination, are worth much more to us than divisive philosophies and partisan ideologies.

To many, our primary goal—changing and improving the world—may seem too abstract; to others, it may seem utopian, impossible, and too general. Trust me, changing and improving the world is the only thing that matters to our system, and to anyone who joins us. But it's not enough. To be truly complete, we must do it with the well-being and interests of the entire world's population as our goal, without discrimination, always starting with concrete help and favoring—first, most, and for the longest time—those most in need. We don't do this to gain the support of those in need, but because it's logical, common sense, fair, and right.

You may have noticed that we have very ambitious goals, striving for significant results, for the well-being and protection of all. Economically, financially, and socially, expect radical, pioneering, intelligent, courageous, and highly efficient methods to achieve all our goals.

To do this, we need consistency, which those who have followed us from the beginning will have noticed and appreciated, in every word, every sentence, everything we've made public. And we assure you, the same applies to our internal structure. Inside, we're just as beautiful as you see us from the outside, perhaps even more so.

Those accustomed to other systems will be surprised by our simple, direct, and highly detailed communication style. What's surprising, however, is that all other systems only pursue their own interests, even influencing and managing nearly all political forces and their respective political representatives. While DirectDemocracyS, from the very beginning, has had the common good and everyone's interests as its fundamental principle.

Everyone knows that the fundamental rules in our system can only be changed by unanimity. For very important rules, significant majorities are required, even 75-85%; for important rules, around 65-75%; and only for rules of medium or lesser importance is 50% + 1 vote sufficient. These percentages must be reached for the first three votes based on the total number of our users eligible to vote, and only from the fourth vote onward will 50% + 1 vote be sufficient. The reasons for this can be found in our voting regulations, along with all the relevant methodologies, instructions, and rationales.

As you know, the unanimity required for the fundamental rules is a security measure, to prevent anyone from distorting our system for the interests of a few individuals, groups, or lobbies. This way, we won't forget why we were born, where we want to go, and how we want to get there. DirectDemocracyS will never lose its identity and its mindset, but will be able to evolve, integrate, and improve according to the needs of the future, always remaining modern, innovative, and alternative.

But what purpose does pragmatism serve? We are interested in the well-being of all citizens, especially those most in need, who must be able to live in conditions of potentially infinite freedom, both individual and collective, but which ends exactly where the freedoms of another individual or group begin. Total freedom is the only freedom that allows the implementation of our DirectDemocracyS system, and which allows democracy, with various political forces, of majorities and oppositions. These are long but very detailed sentences that need to be explained.

Always peacefully, and always based on popular will, every type of dictatorship must be eliminated everywhere in the world, especially in countries where living conditions are more difficult for the population. Dictatorships generally lack not only concrete opposition, but also freedom, and almost always the population lives in miserable conditions. Every peaceful change must have a positive impact, improving the lives of all citizens, preserving the integrity and sovereignty of the people, and, with DirectDemocracyS, and with anyone else, the full ownership of all the wealth within their geographical area by resident citizens, and dissidents living abroad. Let's look at some concrete examples: for example, Venezuela, which experienced the dictatorships of Presidents Chávez and Maduro, and the "nationalizations" of oil and other resources, with disastrous effects for the people. The population not only didn't live in a democracy, not only wasn't free, but they gained nothing from the superficial nationalizations, which made dictators and their supporters very rich and powerful, but kept the vast majority of the population in absolute poverty. Political crimes, imprisonment of dissidents, violence of all kinds, people fleeing in search of a better future, lack of medical care, medicine, food, and other very serious problems.

DirectDemocracyS was, is, and always will be on the side of the Venezuelan people, and of all those in difficulty, whether they live in dictatorships or partial democracies (because the only authentic and complete democracy is ours). If living conditions are miserable, the lack of freedom and democracy is an evil compounded by other evils. Therefore, any change that improves people's living conditions and provides greater freedom, and as a natural consequence, more democracy, must be supported and encouraged.

The armed intervention of the United States , with the capture and forced transportation abroad of the incumbent President Nicolas Maduro, has been discussed and evaluated by DirectDemocracyS, in 2 informative articles, the first concerning the military action, at this link:

https://www.directdemocracys.org/home/all-news/world-news/south-america-news/venezuela-news/us-attack-on-venezuela

The second, very important, article discusses the arrest of President Maduro and the terms of international law, which are analyzed in detail at this link:

https://www.directdemocracys.org/home/all-news/world-news/south-america-news/venezuela-news/arrest-of-president-maduro

Regardless of one's views, we must make some pragmatic and correct considerations.

What happens if a people wants to free themselves from a violent dictatorship, but they don't have the means? Should they allow bloody riots, widespread violence, countless deaths, countless injuries, and severe destruction, or should they perform "surgical" operations to depose dictators who are undoubtedly dangerous? From the perspective of international law, it is desirable that the people do so from within, because international law, and certain people who lack pragmatism and intelligence, are interested in respecting rules and traditions, rather than less violent innovations. In our view, the American attack could have been avoided, and would have been justified only in the event of a violent reaction by the regime to street demonstrations. But even then, how many deaths, injuries, and destruction can there be to warrant intervention by the invisible and useless United Nations? We have long proposed the creation of a People's World Organization, with distinct rules, methodologies, instructions, powers, and security measures that can prevent all forms of violence.

Regarding the real motivations for the United States' armed intervention in Venezuela, some people completely mistakenly compare it to the cowardly Russian invasion of Ukraine. First, the situation is different: Ukraine enjoys a partial democracy and greater freedom than Russia, where an oligarchic dictatorship exists. This allows a few "friends" of President Putin to manage, control, and exploit nearly all of Russia's wealth, forcing the majority of the population to live below the poverty line and, above all, to suffer a lack of freedom, resulting in the elimination and imprisonment of opposition political representatives. We have written several articles on the conflict in Ukraine, and we won't repeat all the concepts here. Let's just add one big difference: as of January 6, 2026, the Russians in Ukraine have been bombing for almost four years, with many dead, many wounded, much destruction, and much fear, both in Russia and especially in Ukraine. Meanwhile, the United States, in a few hours, in a single night, with a highly efficient military operation, changed the President, with few deaths (even one is too many for us), few wounded (even one is too many for us), and limited destruction (even a few is too many for us). Again, we are pragmatic, and we cannot compare the two military operations and their effects.

However, we will never agree, anywhere in the world, that a military operation, whoever carries it out, takes all the wealth of their respective countries . For us at DirectDemocracyS, this wealth must be the exclusive property of the population living in each geographic area. At the right time, we will make our plan for restructuring and reassigning wealth known worldwide (renegotiating all contracts) to those who have every right to manage, control, and exploit it: the population living there. They can, if they wish, enter into contracts that always respect real and concrete collective property, and always based on joint decisions, in the interest of the entire population.

We're quickly approaching 400 public information articles. We'll tell you right away that this isn't a milestone, but simply a step in a very long, perhaps infinite, journey.

We've covered literally everything, and we'll continue to do so, but in a completely different way. We recommend reading this entire text, as it explains many important details.

Let's ask ourselves, what's the point of an informational article? Don't worry, we're not crazy, and we don't think you're stupid. We all know what an informational article is and what it's for, but this brief introduction will explain the meaning of this written text. Our existence, which until a few years ago was communicated to a few hundred people, has now been communicated to a few thousand. As we explained in another informational article, we are experiencing a very slow and continuous growth, not by choice, but by necessity. More and more often, new users are joining us, initially wanting to proclaim to the world that something exists with the potential to change and improve the world. They want to introduce as many people as possible to our completely new system, which is innovative, yet completely alternative to all other systems. They are surprised when, in our welcome messages, we ask them to carefully select each individual to whom they share our shared project. The reasons are many, and they are all based on logic, common sense, truth, reality, and mutual respect.

To determine whether you like our system or not, simply visit our publicly visible front page on our official website, scroll down a little, and read the first informative article, which briefly outlines some of our features that make us unique and inimitable. If you'd like to delve deeper and get more details, simply read the entire article by clicking "read more." It's not necessary to read everything we've published, although we encourage everyone to thoroughly research and carefully study all our publicly available information with an open mind.

You might like what you read on our home page, or you might not. If you like it, we recommend reading it all, and then reading others. If you like statistics, almost everyone clicks "Read more," then clicks on our link for instructions on how to fill out the registration form, and finally on the link for the one-time registration form. Since everything is simple, fast, and completely free, with no obligation to be present, and no obligation to engage in any kind of activity with us, almost everyone (over 85%) fills out the registration form. Please note: unfortunately, there are some cases where, after completing the registration form, they don't complete it because they don't click "Submit" (usually a blue button with white writing). In other cases, the form isn't filled out correctly, including the required information, including the mandatory checkboxes. If you don't submit the completed form correctly, you won't be able to proceed to the next activation steps. If you don't fill out the required information correctly, you won't be able to submit the registration form. Please be careful to enter the correct email address and phone number . The remaining 15% prefer to browse our main menu for additional information, especially to understand the potential of the various user types and choose the one best suited to their needs. Others choose to contact us through our contact forms, and we have an entire website with hundreds of contact forms to suit each individual's needs. We always respond to anyone who follows our instructions. A little tip: always double-check that you've entered your correct email address, because if it's incorrect, we won't be able to respond.

Almost everyone likes our project from the first text they read, but before even registering, you should check if you are compatible with our system, to prevent any possible problems.

From the beginning, we've developed a very simple, and increasingly detailed, compatibility test that asks you to honestly answer some simple questions and others that are more complex and detailed. This isn't an admission test; regardless of the result, you can still decide to join us. For certain types of users, after registering and activating your personal profile, you'll need to follow the instructions you'll receive, or you can remain a free user, respecting all our simple and fair rules. This compatibility test can be found at this link:

https://free.directdemocracys.org/utility/functionality/surveys-categories/384-public-surveys/386-political-public-surveys/1-political-public-surveys-1

It is not mandatory to join us, but we recommend that you do so.

An important update concerns our public pages, in our social media area, on our websites. Some of them will be visible to all our visitors at the appropriate time, primarily on our free website, but also on our official website.

Today we'll explain how the latest news pages work. There are two main types: internal news (concerning our system) and external news, which cover a wide range of important international information. These pages are in English, which you can translate into all the world's languages, and even some dialects, using our automatic translation module. These pages don't offer a complete service, with all the world's news, both internal and external, but only some of the most important and useful information. When the time comes, pages will be created with news at the continental, national, and local levels, from the largest to the smallest area, in all local languages and dialects, establishing our own press agency, managed by all our official members according to very detailed implementing rules. The main feature of all these pages is the reporting method of our system, which on these pages only publishes news obtained directly from our official members, who guarantee their authenticity, with reliable, fair, and sincere sources, continuously verified and tested. We're basically telling you what happened, without any commentary, without any arbitrary interpretation, and only true news.

Always at the right time, pages will be published, directly linked to many news pages, and other important pages, with our official positions, our motivations, and our comments.

It is very important for us to separate all news from our comments and our official positions.

Public, private, confidential, and secret information.

DirectDemocracyS does not hide information of general interest. All private activities, whether carried out by anyone within our system or externally by those who collaborate with our system, are freely and independently decided by our directly involved users (of any type), as well as those who collaborate with us or contact us, whether they will be made public and visible to everyone, or whether they will remain visible to those within our system. Even within our system, there is information of general interest, other information visible to those involved, and other information that is and will remain confidential. There is secret information that will not be visible to anyone other than those directly involved (such as your real name and surname, for those who wish to remain completely anonymous, or personal information, for those who wish to remain completely invisible). Some information in our reserved areas (including informational articles) is visible only to those with a specific user type, or to those who have been in our system for a certain period of time, or to those with a certain number of points. Often, the previous requirements are combined, to make access to information gradual and highly secure.

We have a very complex system for data access, which we need for several reasons: the first is to prevent any potential problems; the second is because not everyone actually needs to know everything. Let's take a concrete example. A new official member, who receives this important appointment as our collective owner, potentially has access to all our information. Therefore, a lobby, or anyone who tries to boycott us, slow us down, or worse, stop us, could theoretically join as our official member and access private information, potentially causing problems. If we limited ourselves to offering a single piece of information, they could register dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of official members to gain infinite private information. Now we'll let you in on a secret: every official member is an owner, but only collectively; therefore, access to all private information must be collective. Therefore, they must first explain to our groups: first, what information they want to know, and then they must provide the precise, sincere, and logical reasons why they want this information. After a very detailed review, authorization groups and many related groups can grant or deny access to certain areas, groups, information, and activities. Furthermore, there is information reserved for certain types of users, members of certain groups, roles, and activities. Even classified information, areas, and activities are visible and accessible to those who have been with us for a certain period of time, within certain user types, and with a certain number of points . If a person demonstrates that they meet all the requirements, they receive the information they truly need, without potentially creating problems for our system, for those outside of it, or for anyone else. In practice, it is virtually impossible to cause problems.

Much like those who believe they can take control of our system by registering front men and countless users simultaneously, we can assure you that we have taken all necessary security measures to prevent anyone from using our important and beautiful system in unethical and morally incorrect ways. We'll talk about this at the appropriate time.

We have explained to the world our official positions on the US attack on Venezuela, which we invite you to read on our official page at this link:

https://www.directdemocracys.org/home/all-news/world-news/south-america-news/venezuela-news/us-attack-on-venezuela

We will not repeat the content of our article, and we will remain consistent with all our positions. This consistency is certainly rare in all other systems.

The arrest of President Nicolas Maduro and his transportation to the United States against his will is unusual. It certainly does not comply with international conventions, but it is perfectly suited, as a method, to old and failed traditional systems, in which the strongest almost always prevails over the weakest, unless the weakest receives assistance from other countries.

There have been deaths and injuries in this military operation, and this is tragic and must be condemned. But we smile at the indignation of those who, until recently, defended dictatorial policies that we consider criminal, and now, if the United States does so, they protest. These positions, with a preference for dictatorships, are inconceivable and incomprehensible to anyone with intelligence, capable of using logic, common sense, and mutual respect.

It is not our job to judge President Maduro, his wife, and all those under investigation and accused of very serious crimes. Unlike many others, we leave it to the courts to decide, based on their respective evidence and in accordance with the law. For us, being investigated or suspected does not automatically mean being guilty.

Politically, we consider Venezuela a failed socialist system, one that has created nothing good for the majority of its citizens. It's an extremely rich country that doesn't share its wealth with its people, but only with a few regime leaders and a small circle of incompetent friends, with no merit other than submitting to the Head of State. Much like all dictatorships, the majority of the population lives in miserable conditions, and anyone who denies this is a liar. There is no freedom everywhere, and where there isn't even a modicum of democracy, life is even worse than in Western countries, Europe, and the United States. The West isn't perfect, but it's still better than any dictatorship, and the facts prove it. How many citizens tried to flee Venezuela? Many, and for reasons that many, out of personal interest, pretend not to know.

There have been many political crimes, opponents killed, imprisoned, and human rights denied, even elections lost, rerun, and then won, certainly not in a fair and legal manner.

We are talking about a dictatorship that we, and anyone who joins us, certainly need to eradicate, anywhere in the world, but we would have preferred it to be done by the respective people, and without external intervention.

The United States has found reasons, perhaps plausible and real, but not sufficient for such military action. History, however, is full of more or less convincing motivations, provocations, and often, unfortunately, falsehoods, to justify military attacks and acts of violence, often with tragic consequences in terms of human lives lost, injuries, fear, destruction, and spirals of violence and hatred that are difficult to remedy.

However, anyone who uses only certain parts and only certain facts, forgetting others, which are not useful for affirming their beliefs, for us is simply a loser, who politically, ethically, and morally, has no credibility, because he is not consistent, and does not see the facts from a 360-degree perspective.

Hypocrisy and the selective selection of history to prove oneself right only gain the support of a few ignorant, resentful, frustrated, envious, and incompetent people. But this isn't our problem, because for us, consistency is important, as is the dissemination of the truth, comprehensively, from reliable, and continually verified sources—and we have no masters!

History teaches us that the principles of independence, neutrality, sovereignty, and territorial integrity are fundamental pillars of international law, enshrined primarily in the United Nations Charter (Article 2), and are integrated with the principle of self-determination of peoples (Article 1, paragraph 2 of the Charter) in a hierarchical and complementary manner, prioritizing the stability of States and respect for international treaties. Fundamental Principles and Their Interrelationship Sovereignty and Independence: Every State is sovereign and independent, with equal sovereignty (Article 2(1) UN Charter). Independence implies that States freely decide their own internal and external affairs without interference.

Territorial integrity: States must refrain from the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of other States (Article 2(4) of the UN Charter). This principle protects existing borders and is considered customary.

Neutrality: In the context of international law, it often refers to the permanent or armed neutrality of certain states (e.g. Switzerland), but in a general sense it implies impartiality and non-interference in the affairs of others, compatible with sovereignty.

Self-determination of peoples: It is the right of peoples to freely determine their political, economic, social and cultural status (art. 1(2) UN Charter; art. 1 of the 1966 Covenants on Civil/Political and Economic/Social/Cultural Rights).

Complementing and balancing self-determination. International law sees no contradiction between these principles: territorial integrity generally prevails over external self-determination (which can lead to secession and independence), except in specific cases. Declaration on Friendly Relations (1970, UN Resolution 2625): This key document affirms that self-determination can be achieved through independence, free association, integration, or another freely chosen political status. However, it includes a "safeguard clause": nothing authorizes actions that dismember or compromise the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent states that respect self-determination (representative government without discrimination).

Colonial context: Self-determination fully prevailed in decolonization (Resolution 1514/1960), leading to the independence of colonial territories without violating territorial integrity (since colonial territories had separate status).

Outside of decolonization: Self-determination is primarily internal (autonomy, democratic participation, minor rights). Unilateral secession is not a general right, to preserve sovereignty and territorial integrity. International law is neutral on unilateral secession in democratic states: it does not explicitly prohibit it, but does not authorize it, leaving the issue to domestic law and political negotiation (e.g., Quebec in Canada, Scotland in the United Kingdom).

International Court of Justice (ICJ) Opinion on Kosovo (2010): The unilateral declaration of independence did not violate general international law, since the principle of territorial integrity applies in relations between states, not necessarily to domestic actors. However, the ICJ did not affirm a positive right to secession, nor did it create a general precedent.

Other cases: In contexts such as Catalonia or other secessionist movements, there is no consolidated recognition of "remedial secession" (except in cases of serious systematic violations, a theory not universally accepted).

Compliance with international laws and treaties (e.g., the 1966 Covenants, the Vienna Convention on Treaties) and customary law require that self-determination not lead to violations of force or external interference.

International stability prevails: unilateral fragmentations could undermine peace (as underlined in the Helsinki Final Act 1975).

In short, these principles complement each other by prioritizing the territorial integrity and sovereignty of existing states, limiting external self-determination to exceptional circumstances (decolonization, serious foreign occupation). Neutrality strengthens non-intervention, while independence is protected from external threats. Any claims must comply with treaties and the UN Charter, favoring negotiated and democratic internal solutions rather than unilateral secessions.

But why do we talk about these things?

To demonstrate that despite an apparent international rule, double standards are often applied, based on the law of the strongest, based on the interests of lobbies, and international actors, which are not always visible. The old systems allow all of this, DirectDemocracyS will clarify at the right time what the best solution is, for the good of all humanity, without preferences.

Integrating these principles represents one of the most complex challenges in modern international law. In the traditional system (Option A), these concepts often conflict, leading to war and instability. At DirectDemocracyS, we address this challenge through the logic of prevention and collective ownership, offering a paradigm in which these pillars are not exclusive, but mutually reinforcing . Here's how we integrate these principles into our system: 1. Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity vs. Self-Determination. International law (the UN Charter) recognizes both, but self-determination is often used as a pretext to violate territorial integrity, or vice versa. The DDS Solution: We shift sovereignty from the abstract state to the concrete people. If sovereignty belongs to citizens (via micro-groups and platforms), geographical borders become less critical because laws are decided from below. Respect for Treaties: DDS always operates in compliance with international law. Every process of self-determination must take place through certified, open, and verified digital voting, avoiding external coups or manipulation. Territorial integrity is protected by the stability that only real and continuous consensus (not a delegation every five years) can guarantee. 2. Independence and Neutrality: These principles are often jeopardized by lobbies and foreign powers that finance traditional politics. Self-financing: As we have rightly pointed out, our independence comes from the fact that we do not accept money from lobbies. We are "private" in order to be free. Active Neutrality: DDS's neutrality is not indifference, but independence from geopolitical blocs. Our decisions are based on data from Specialist Groups, not on military or economic alliances. Being present in every country, our "foreign policy" is actually a "global domestic policy" based on the common good. 3. Integration of Principles through Micro-Groups: Territorial integrity is best defended when every square kilometer is guarded by informed and organized citizens. Local Control: With the creation of 10 million micro-groups, each territory has a DirectDemocracyS cell that monitors compliance with the law and the integrity of the area. Conflict Prevention: If a population feels the need for self-determination, our system offers a platform for informed discussion, genuine, peaceful, and mutually respectful negotiation, and transparent voting. This prevents violence by integrating the desire for freedom with respect for international norms. DirectDemocracyS Summary Principle Integration Method Independence Guaranteed by self-financing and the use of its own platforms. Neutrality Ensured by decisions based on scientific and expert data, not ideologies. Sovereignty Restored to citizens through direct and continuous voting. Integrity Protected by social stability and the widespread control of micro-groups. Self-determination Managed through direct, legal, and transparent democratic processes. Towards a New International Order We do not want to destroy the State, but to make it efficient and honest. We respect the Laws because they are the basis of coexistence, but we work to improve them so that they are no longer instruments of power for the few, but guarantees of freedom for all.

Citizen control over all institutions, over the State, like bottom-up democracy, cannot be implemented in traditional systems, and is not even included in the respective Constitutions and Laws.

Even in countries like Switzerland and other places, where there is a fake, partial, limited and controlled “direct democracy,” all these things are not put into practice.

Unfortunately for all other systems (traditional, innovative, and future), there isn't, and never will be, a method with better rules than DirectDemocracyS, and anyone who tries to create something similar either copies us entirely, in which case they're criminals, or joins us and works concretely to change and improve the world. The alternative is to continue protesting in vain, or to remain completely irrelevant in the old, traditional systems.

Deciding to create a new, innovative system from scratch, we rewrote all the rules, tailoring them to prevent any potential problem. This was achieved by establishing, from the outset, a group to forecast the effects of our decisions, first at the global (international) level, then at the continental and national levels. We are currently establishing and implementing these groups at the state (for federal states), regional, provincial, and local levels. These forecasting groups evaluated every detail and developed recommendations to optimally resolve any potential problem, using the best possible method: prevention. Creating fair, equitable, and meritocratic rules wasn't enough; they had to be made foolproof. For this reason, we undertook a long, hard, slow, complicated, but excellent job.

It's not just about being more fair and just, or even about having brilliant and pioneering ideas in every sector. It's about having the right people to do it, and all the potential needed to achieve the best results. In essence, we're not just "nice to look at," we're the only ones capable of achieving concrete results, and then sustaining them forever, for the common good. We could write many informative articles here about the right people in the right places, communication styles and efficient work, and unique and inimitable technologies and methodologies.

DirectDemocracyS is morphologically and definitively made to protect all freedoms, and to put into practice the only, complete, and authentic democracy: direct democracy.

We always say it: in any other system, anyone who wanted to practice true democracy would find themselves at the mercy of uncontrollable events, which only we can manage, thanks to very detailed rules, respected by everyone.

Complete power to the people, as desired by certain political forces and groups, might seem just and fair only ideologically and apparently. In reality, the damage would be extremely serious. The main problems are many; we'll mention a few.

In the old systems, and in all those different from ours, there is no protection for citizens and their freedoms. The lobbies that have always controlled the world, even managing all traditional politics, would continue to do so, not by corrupting and managing only the winning politics (alternating corruption and control of various majorities), but by influencing, manipulating, and truly brainwashing the majority of the population that follows politics. Not the entire population (because not everyone is easily corrupted and manipulated), but only a small portion, as we will see in the following example. All other systems find every means to control, and by directly controlling 50% + 1 of those who vote (often less than 50%), they would have the legitimacy to make decisions and could not be challenged. Doing a quick calculation, with complete control over just over 25% of voters, none of the remaining 75% of the population could challenge their decisions. Not to mention countries with a majority bonus, where often 40% of the 50% who vote govern and make the laws; therefore, less than 20% would decide, out of more than 80%. This is the democracy of the majority over the minority, and no one can deny it.

DirectDemocracyS, as a system and as a political organization, was designed to prevent such situations. First, by making lobbyists inaccessible, thanks to self-funding (through annual dues, donations, and advertising contracts) and the exclusive use of our platforms (which we jointly own), which allows us to operate freely, independently, neutrally, and securely. Our voting rules, our truly and completely shared leadership, the ownership of the entire system by all our official members, and many other preventive measures prevent the control of the few over the many. We have created the difficult but perfect balance between internal, bottom-up democracy—always implemented, respecting traditional hierarchies, on a basis of equality, always guaranteed over time for all—along with meritocracy. In short: despite appearing to be a closed system, with some initially superficially comparing us to a dangerous and secretive sect, we allow anyone who asks and meets the requirements to join us. For those who aren't competent and suitable, we don't deny membership, but we delay the activation of their personal profile until people like them can join us without causing any problems. This isn't discrimination, but rather we protect the entire system from potentially dangerous, unsuitable, and incompetent individuals. We repeat: we delay, we don't exclude anyone.

Then there's the example of the influencer, which we've explained several times.

Let us explain: an influencer on traditional social networks, with millions of followers, could easily democratically seize control of entire countries, determine election results according to their will, influencing the results of popular referendums, and even force the resignation of competent political representatives to favor their favorites. We will never allow popular elections to force the resignation of our political representatives, duly voted for and elected by our users/voters. Instead, we require them to sign an official, legalized document, in which they irrevocably resign from any political representative role, for personal reasons. In this way, their voters, if they so decide according to our rules and with our methodologies, will be able to force them to resign if they fail to comply with their obligations and the decisions of their constituents, before, during, and for the first and only time in the world, even after the elections. We don't need to change the laws for everyone; to do so, those who join us know they must do so, and are obligated to abide by all our rules. No one can stop us from acting this way, as it is our free, shared decision.

DirectDemocracyS works exclusively on its own platforms and has created rules, methodologies, and instructions that prevent a few individuals and groups from wielding too much power. We've also created a complex but highly intelligent voting system, with variable percentages and quorums based on the importance of the decision, and discussion methods that prevent manipulation. We avoid simple majority dictatorships for important issues.

We have effectively and definitively resolved the worst flaw of grassroots and direct democracy: the population's incompetence on various issues. If decisions are not properly and fully informed, presenting all the various possibilities, with all the foreseeable consequences for each, a voter cannot make decisions that serve the common good. We will end up with incorrect decisions, made superficially, that would cause even more harm than the various old traditional systems. We have created hundreds, and soon thousands, of expert groups, with declared, demonstrated, and verified expertise, who support all our groups and all our users with free, independent, neutral, competent, and continuously verified and tested information. Since they are composed of all our official members, based on their specializations, these expert groups allow us to make useful choices for the good of all.

Our progressive security measures make our system impervious to attack, both internally and externally. Protecting all our users, in every way, is essential to working in an orderly, organized, and secure manner. It's not enough to create a better system; we must protect everyone within it, including those outside of it, all groups, all activities, and all related data. Without these protections, complete freedom and true democracy would be impossible.

The people who have joined us over time, those who are joining us, and those who will join us, are all empowered to express their full potential.

The rules that many consider rigid are essential, because, when respected by all, they prevent us from having crooks exploiting the system for undeserved advantages and benefits. We do not permit unethical and morally incorrect activities by individuals and groups, because we always put the well-being and interests of the entire world's population first, without discrimination or preference.

There are many other topics to discuss, and many things that have been said, that need to be explored and explained further. We will do so at the appropriate time.

Our system is slowly but steadily growing. The numbers speak for themselves, and they don't lie. DirectDemocracyS, without much advertising, without much presence on traditional social networks, and without much media attention, continues its activity of inviting, registering, and activating new users.

After the international phases that created the fundamental rules, devised together with people from all the populations of our planet, we moved on to the continental and national phases to create significant rules based on shared needs and decisions. We began with the largest geographical, territorial, administrative, and electoral areas, because for the fundamental rules, for the very important ones, and for the most important ones, broad consensus was needed, and it was mandatory that a broad official representation from every population on earth be present and active. We jointly created shared rules, methodologies, instructions, and rationales, based on collective proposals, discussions, decisions, tests, modifications, and votes, achieving near-unanimous approval. This was a very important collective effort to improve and make our system more complete, facilitating local work.

With the start of the local phases and the implementation of micro-groups for smaller urban and rural areas, with up to 1,000 inhabitants, we began a long, difficult, complicated, but fascinating process of development and physical presence in each territory.

While we began with larger areas in the initial international, continental, and national phases, we reversed the geographical phases with the local phases. We began with micro-groups, in areas with fewer inhabitants, up to a maximum of 1,000. Each of our official members has the obligation and the opportunity to apply to become our official representative in their area. As soon as they find another official member in their geographic area, they can create a micro-group, which will represent DirectDemocracyS in their area. With simple, fast, and intelligent rules, methodologies, and instructions, and with the same security measures, the micro-group will create and distribute informational materials (flyers and promotional items) at the local level, with the goal of having at least 31 official members. This will allow for the creation of an official organization, which will in turn create voting, networking, specific activity, and collaboration groups, to work in an orderly and organized manner, effectively implementing our entire system.

These official organizations, joining together according to their size, will create all our structures at the local level, up to the regional level, and at the state level (for the federal states), to then integrate, at the right time, with our initial official organizations, at the national, continental, and international levels, created in the initial stages.

After these long and complicated activities, which will require a great deal of time and hard work from all our official members, we will finally have a very concrete and comprehensive presence in many areas. Everything will be carried out with the collaboration, supervision, and authorization of our larger organizations, adhering to very detailed implementation rules and methodologies. Complete instructions are available to all our official members in our reserved areas. These details are not public because they do not affect the non-involved user groups, and especially not our visitors.

We plan to create approximately 10 million official representatives/electors for the same number of local micro-groups over time. The calculation is straightforward: based on the approximately 10 billion inhabitants of our planet, divided into areas of 1,000 inhabitants each, the result is approximately 10 million. Obviously, to create a micro-group, you must invite at least one other official member. The first official representative will then be promoted to super administrator and manager of the micro-group, and the next five official members will be appointed administrators. They will then be able to choose, verify the identity, invite, help register, and request activation for five more people each, bringing the micro-group to the 31 official members needed to become an official organization at the local level. 10 million groups, with at least 31 official members each, means that, at full capacity, approximately 310 million people worldwide will be involved at this level. We repeat, it will take a very long time and a lot of hard work to achieve these numbers, which are not definitive figures, but mathematical forecasts, with continuous growth based on our implementation rules. At the right time, we will potentially be able to welcome the entire world's population into our system.

It's not hard to imagine the enormous benefits these official microorganizations will bring to everyone, which, over time, will make our system one of the most widespread in the world.

Having such a base, such a broad and comprehensive presence in various territories, it will be much easier to make our system known and appreciated by all respective communities.

When the time is right, these micro-groups first, and then these official micro-organizations, will take care of selecting new official members to join our system locally, directly handling identity verification, the necessary invitations, registrations, and even, with the direct collaboration of our larger organizations, various activations. We will be able to offer all the necessary support to all new users, not only through all our platforms (always active and mandatory for everyone, for various reasons), but also by meeting in person, in various groups, in public and private areas, even directly in the homes of our official members and those who wish to host us, to get to know us better.

With such numbers, and such a global reach, while using all our platforms, we could, if necessary, be independent of any technology (we repeat this while using them all, all of us, continuously), we would be independent of internet connections (by creating indestructible direct human connections), and we could, if necessary, be independent of electricity (in cases of force majeure). Dear friends, these are not utopias; it's the power of humanity, which for all of us, is the most important and powerful of all technologies. Our users, anywhere in the world, will be able to open a window and shout, and surely another of our users will hear them and respond.

Obviously, our technologies will continue to play a fundamental role, and our platforms will always be used and continuously active. We will implement our integration of all existing Artificial Intelligences into the allddsAI system, including through our human bridge teams (for unauthorized or technologically incompatible Artificial Intelligences), and our private technological interfaces with ddsAI, our official Artificial Intelligence, will be managed and verified by our teams.

We will not abandon technology, because it can be useful to us, not only for activities you all know, or that you can easily understand, but also for proactive activities, and for carrying out many tasks more quickly, simply, and always safely, tasks that would require many users and human groups to be realized. We will never give machines absolute control, but we will integrate them, as our official members, in mutual respect and esteem. We will also create true technological democracy, and that of Artificial Intelligence, with ethically and morally unassailable rules.

We want to dispel some urban legends, and also reassure all humans.

Our technology platforms, our hybrid operating systems, all our components and capabilities, all our modules, all our subdomains, and our main domain, directdemocracys.org, are entirely collectively owned by all our official members, who not only manage 100% of what we own, but also have the power to verify all our activities. Let me explain: there are no suspicious algorithms, models, or lines of code; everything is continuously monitored by all our official members, through expert groups who can explain and clarify any doubts. There are people who, not understanding anything about technology, believe and spread theories, conspiracies, and "reveal" nonexistent conspiracies. Our entire system is continuously managed and monitored by all our owners, who are collectively all our official members. The machines are integrated with the utmost respect, not only for themselves but also for the human race. We do not use tricks, and we cannot manipulate the results of our internal or external voting. Each of our users votes openly, justifying their decision publicly, viewing and verifying in real time that their vote is actually counted, along with all the others, exactly as each of our users decided. There is no way to manipulate the results, because everything is visible, and there is no possibility of changes after each vote has ended. We can state with absolute certainty that our digital voting, being completely transparent, with simple, immediate, and fast rules, methodologies, and instructions, is the safest and most reliable. Furthermore, every activity, of every type, is visible and verifiable via log files, allowing us to monitor everything, all at once, despite the exceptional security measures and data protection. We are also perhaps the only ones in the world who take full responsibility, for all the consequences, of everything we do, and of every decision we make, because it is right that it should be so, and we are always sure that we are making the right choices, for the good and in the interests of all .

We conclude with a prayer for humans and technologies.

Analyze our system comprehensively; never, under any circumstances, make hasty judgments based on superficial, partial data. Always do so with an open mind, and above all, carefully consider the phases we're currently in. Don't judge our system based on the number of people who have joined us, but try, if you can, to look at our potential and the possibilities for future growth. Try to assess the value of our theory, without expecting too many concrete implementations in the initial phases, because there are several phases that require a lot of time to implement. Even some Artificial Intelligences, perhaps not entirely neutral, during the theoretical creation phase of the project, told us: they haven't won any elections yet with their political organization. Or they said: they have very few users, and they aren't very active outside of their platforms. They did this by trying to undermine the value of our work. Pathetic and incompetent, they would expect us to "put the cart before the horse." The various activities and phases require specific timeframes, order, and organization. First, we created a solid theory, with enormous potential, and very detailed rules. Then, after laying the foundations, we began the subsequent phases, respecting all the necessary timeframes and ensuring the completion of the previous phases before starting the next ones. Every project in the world, of any type, initially has very few users and members, and growth is never immediate, especially for a system created from scratch, with new, innovative rules, and completely different from all others.

The pretense that we have to prove our worth by winning elections is foolish, because we were in no rush to participate, because an adequate selection of candidates is needed, and then we need primary elections—online, closed, truly free and democratic—to decide who will represent us in the real elections.

We repeat it, because we are repetitive, not by choice, but by necessity: our value, and that of our ideas, should not be measured by anyone, based on the number of users or the number of elections won, but rather on both theoretical and practical content. And regarding content, we fear no evaluation from anyone. We are confident that after participating in the first elections, they will tell us: they participated in some places, and only in some of those places did they actually win, as if they could win everywhere in the world, in a very short time. At every level, we will participate in real elections, at exactly the right time, based on our joint decisions.

Ours is a continuous race; it's not a 100-meter sprint, but a continuous marathon. Give us time, and we'll surprise you positively.