@FuzboleroXV

Here, IMO (which is default, ofc.) you are trying to solve political dilemma, using technological mindset. It is legit and understandable, considering the background you described, but I do not think it is going to work. Here's my take:

"...the #people might be rendered totally powerless against #algorithm owners, if we don't IN TIME get #transparency controlled by decentraliced #digitalidentity in place."

I do not see connection between two parts.
What you write is (making a flop):
"#transparency controlled by decentraliced #digitalidentity" is a necessary condition to avoid "#people being rendered totally powerless against #algorithm owners".

Formally speaking, it is true. But the necessary condition is not sufficient. Luckily, you refer to certain aspects that give us a hint about changes necessary and sufficient to prevent this situation.
-- human value coming from wage labour
-- ownership (of algorithms -- a.k.a. "intellectual property") as political leverage.

On my long-ish list of papers to write (waiting for someone to pay my rent for half a year so I can write them) I have a piece about creating capitalism-free social space, explaining need for it in terms of systems thinking.
I believe that challeging capitalist logic (and autopoiesis of capitalism as a complex system) is the only way to protect us from being fully commodified.

I see social networks as possible vehicles (and prefiguration bubbles) for such challenge.

@Petros

"I see social networks as possible vehicles (and prefiguration bubbles) for such challenge."

Yes. In general, isn't just about *anything* that relates to both..:

- #publicDiscourse ,
- #politics ,
- #lawmaking ,
- #democracy developments,
- #campaigning , and
- #voting ,

... actually in need of being part of a #socialMedia #ecosystem anyway, in order to enforce and maintain #transparency ?

@ZeniorXV

1. It is about people's self-organisation, which _they_ may wish to use for any (or none) of activities you listed. Or for something entirely else.

2. My goal is to help provide people with tools to communicate, cooperate and coexist in a secure way, through the means of protocol-driven confederacy of communities. How will they make their communities internally and what will be the content of political protocol of confederacy, should be strictly a business if the parties involved.

3. I do not believe decentralised networks are good enough, as they tend to impose "community == instance" paradigm and do NOT address the question of multiple communities' affiliation. Communities should morph freely, so they cannot be embedded as infrastructure nodes. Also, decentralised network forces federated vs. confederated governance (user POV), which eventually leads to republican model.

4. The last part I did not understand at all. I will do my best to understand, if you care to elaborate.

@Petros

1. Yes, and the question is which kind of toolbox they will have at their disposal in order to customize and adapt to the consequences (of what they need) when they make their choices.

2. See 1.

3. Again, which toolbox/toolset/features will let them be free? The #openSource community should be the provider of #platform & #features. Very important.

4. Which, the part about #transparency? (next reply)