What I wanted to depict with the "phone call chain sketch" is that you don't need a big network, all you need is an input & output. You need to follow some protocol for "broadcasting" your needs (what & who you're looking for), and that helps people who do what I do (who keep track of all networks and shuffle information, and people, across)
There is a trust bottleneck here - this "ambassador" you're speaking to might do a good job taking your information where it needs to go, or they may be skimming off the top/making things worse. What I'm trying to advocate for here is protocols so you can tell when the person is doing good or not. One way to do that is by having the ability to connect directly to other networks when you need to verify (this usually is a costly thing, but should have the option to do it when needed)
One kind of "experiment" we did this past year is what I've been thinking of as a "mic check" (https://defenderofthebasic.substack.com/p/my-first-open-source-psyop-postmortem), to see if one network can "hear" or respond to the other. I envision a world where we do this regularly to check if our information pipes are working, so that if there is a real need for network A to reach network B, that there exists some path (even if it goes through several other networks/these "ambassadors")
One easy example that come to mind is when the water stops flowing from your taps and the toilets stop flushing. Some people know better than others how best to deal, and others will be desperate for guidance on wtf to do with their poop, so word would spread fast. The challenge might be, though - at that point, will everyone be yelling too loudly to hear a good idea?
What I wanted to depict with the "phone call chain sketch" is that you don't need a big network, all you need is an input & output. You need to follow some protocol for "broadcasting" your needs (what & who you're looking for), and that helps people who do what I do (who keep track of all networks and shuffle information, and people, across)
There is a trust bottleneck here - this "ambassador" you're speaking to might do a good job taking your information where it needs to go, or they may be skimming off the top/making things worse. What I'm trying to advocate for here is protocols so you can tell when the person is doing good or not. One way to do that is by having the ability to connect directly to other networks when you need to verify (this usually is a costly thing, but should have the option to do it when needed)
One kind of "experiment" we did this past year is what I've been thinking of as a "mic check" (https://defenderofthebasic.substack.com/p/my-first-open-source-psyop-postmortem), to see if one network can "hear" or respond to the other. I envision a world where we do this regularly to check if our information pipes are working, so that if there is a real need for network A to reach network B, that there exists some path (even if it goes through several other networks/these "ambassadors")
One easy example that come to mind is when the water stops flowing from your taps and the toilets stop flushing. Some people know better than others how best to deal, and others will be desperate for guidance on wtf to do with their poop, so word would spread fast. The challenge might be, though - at that point, will everyone be yelling too loudly to hear a good idea?