While speculated in earlier centuries regarding the topics of revisionism and historical bias, post-fact, or post-truth reality, was redefined in the early 21st century due to weighted network artificial intelligence. The real-time, or near-real-time, altering of empirical stimuli redefined how humans viewed “reality.” This coincided with the fluid gender movement (later described as a “post-anatomical love movement”), early augmented reality and synapse decoding devices, and post-science era; helping establish a clear cultural zeitgeist.
Through real-time altering of content, corporations were able to construct fluid hive-mind psyche across biological intelligences, rendering traditional concepts of dissemination and governance obsolete. An effect similarly replicated after the breakthrough in the mind-body equation by CXNX Labs (formerly known as CoexNext). This meant that floating consciousness in the digital sphere became possible, rendering traditional concepts of “self” and “existence” obsolete. Thanks to digital time dilation, we are now able to speculate the next leap in perception will likely be surpassing the confines of Unified Field Theory and entering a truly post-physical state of existence.
- Digital Statehood
Through real-time altering of content, corporations were able to construct fluid hive-mind psyche across biological intelligences, rendering traditional concepts of dissemination and governance obsolete. An effect similarly replicated after the breakthrough in the mind-body equation by CXNX Labs (formerly known as CoexNext). This meant that floating consciousness in the digital sphere became possible, rendering traditional concepts of “self” and “existence” obsolete. Thanks to digital time dilation, we are now able to speculate the next leap in perception will likely be surpassing the confines of Unified Field Theory and entering a truly post-physical state of existence.
At the turn of the 21st century a traditional state, or governing body, was a group of individual humans acting in centralized control of resources that dictated rules to a body of geographically homogeneous citizens. Statehood ensured a cohesive society, in contrast to dangerous anarchy. It was enforced on citizens through threat of benefit revocation, penal incarceration, and/or violence. Violence was alternatively evoked on citizens if one state coveted the resources of another state. Castes existed in almost all forms of traditional statehood, allowing those within the power structure additional benefits over those outside the power structure. Common iconography included the “scales of power,” which weighed the citizens’ benefit to society, and the “gavel,” which represented the strength of the state to punish persons deemed not beneficial to society.
The mid-21st century gave rise to a new form of duel-citizenship. As the digital world grew into it’s own separate world, controlled by increasingly-powerful corporate state actors, the power of traditional states either became defunct or merged with that of the corporate states. Separate digital ecosystems evolved based on the reach of corporate states’ physical networks, the second generation of protocol wars, garden-walled services, dialects of digital slag, programming languages, and user rights (or lack thereof) afforded by each ecosystem. Citizens were not allowed to operate without duel-citizenship, belonging to digital ecosystems became mandatory for employment, claiming universal state benefits, and purchasing of sustenance.
Citizens frequently experienced contradictions in laws when belonging to a traditional state and digital state-like ecosystem; the most common example being that of “civil rights.” Civil rights were granted to the individual person by a physical state, these rights were usually not recognized by early corporate state actors who substituted them with levels of “user account access (UAA).” Many modern digital states have maintained the fair UAA practice, ensuring that citizens who are not deviant are granted more access than those whose neural nets pose a threat. With regular monitoring of user inputs for psychometric changes, and balanced conditioning of data being served to the user, deviant users are able to be harmless integrated into modern networks.
People of means were able to buy into increasingly-powerful digital state ecosystems. Such ecosystems gained influence though media reach, strength of digital currency, influence over physical currencies, social influence of their citizens, etcetera. The power concentrated within these ecosystems lead to the top-down push to devalue traditional statehood. Corporate actors largely used media, security infiltration, and psychometric based control of governing bodies to erode traditional statehood in a way that provided them more control over citizenry.
Decentralization was a key strategy of the early digital corporate states, as it afforded an uncensored way of structuring data that could not be destroyed or altered by any traditional state governing body. It also allowed for easy identification of bad-actor users within an ecosystem, because user actions and inputs remained perpetuity for later analysis by the limited computational power and psychometric models of the period. Initially decentralization was accomplished by an archaic form of remote networking colloquially referred to as as “cloud computing.” Later moving to a peer-to-peer verification technique known as “blockchain,” and followed by the universally decentralized and unlimited “super blockchain (SBC).” The current generation analogy being Identified Device Decentralized Services (IDDS), wherein user input to the remotely served code will automatically determine the user’s identification and associate all user activity.
Weighted network artificial intelligence models were also a key strategy of the corporate states. These were implemented in such a method as to collect and interpret data using archaic psychometric models to determine how to best serve media to their users. Served media promoted the agenda of the corporate states and associated ecosystem loyalty among their userbase. In some geographical regions, this model was implemented in conjunction with traditional states.
By the late 21st century some traditional states still existed, but the political landscape was irrevocably altered by the competing corporate state superpowers. Each corporation offering their own flavor of digital statehood and catalyzing the next stage in governance.-
The mid-21st century gave rise to a new form of duel-citizenship. As the digital world grew into it’s own separate world, controlled by increasingly-powerful corporate state actors, the power of traditional states either became defunct or merged with that of the corporate states. Separate digital ecosystems evolved based on the reach of corporate states’ physical networks, the second generation of protocol wars, garden-walled services, dialects of digital slag, programming languages, and user rights (or lack thereof) afforded by each ecosystem. Citizens were not allowed to operate without duel-citizenship, belonging to digital ecosystems became mandatory for employment, claiming universal state benefits, and purchasing of sustenance.
Citizens frequently experienced contradictions in laws when belonging to a traditional state and digital state-like ecosystem; the most common example being that of “civil rights.” Civil rights were granted to the individual person by a physical state, these rights were usually not recognized by early corporate state actors who substituted them with levels of “user account access (UAA).” Many modern digital states have maintained the fair UAA practice, ensuring that citizens who are not deviant are granted more access than those whose neural nets pose a threat. With regular monitoring of user inputs for psychometric changes, and balanced conditioning of data being served to the user, deviant users are able to be harmless integrated into modern networks.
People of means were able to buy into increasingly-powerful digital state ecosystems. Such ecosystems gained influence though media reach, strength of digital currency, influence over physical currencies, social influence of their citizens, etcetera. The power concentrated within these ecosystems lead to the top-down push to devalue traditional statehood. Corporate actors largely used media, security infiltration, and psychometric based control of governing bodies to erode traditional statehood in a way that provided them more control over citizenry.
Decentralization was a key strategy of the early digital corporate states, as it afforded an uncensored way of structuring data that could not be destroyed or altered by any traditional state governing body. It also allowed for easy identification of bad-actor users within an ecosystem, because user actions and inputs remained perpetuity for later analysis by the limited computational power and psychometric models of the period. Initially decentralization was accomplished by an archaic form of remote networking colloquially referred to as as “cloud computing.” Later moving to a peer-to-peer verification technique known as “blockchain,” and followed by the universally decentralized and unlimited “super blockchain (SBC).” The current generation analogy being Identified Device Decentralized Services (IDDS), wherein user input to the remotely served code will automatically determine the user’s identification and associate all user activity.
Weighted network artificial intelligence models were also a key strategy of the corporate states. These were implemented in such a method as to collect and interpret data using archaic psychometric models to determine how to best serve media to their users. Served media promoted the agenda of the corporate states and associated ecosystem loyalty among their userbase. In some geographical regions, this model was implemented in conjunction with traditional states.
By the late 21st century some traditional states still existed, but the political landscape was irrevocably altered by the competing corporate state superpowers. Each corporation offering their own flavor of digital statehood and catalyzing the next stage in governance.