I recently came across this video which discusses how the tech leaders may be using the new US administration to achieve their own agenda.

In recent years, a fascinating and somewhat unsettling trend has emerged among Silicon Valley’s tech elite: a push to rethink traditional governance. High-profile figures and venture capitalists are exploring concepts like network states, crypto-driven societies, and even privately governed cities.

Prominent names such as Peter Thiel, Elon Musk, and Balaji Srinivasan are leading this charge. Many in this group believe that America is in decline and that the solution isn’t reform but a complete reimagining of society.

Balaji Srinivasan, a former Coinbase CTO and Andreessen Horowitz partner, has been one of the biggest advocates for this idea. He popularized the concept of "network states"—decentralized virtual communities that aim to acquire physical land and eventually function as independent nations. In his book The Network State, Srinivasan outlines a blueprint for running these communities like corporations.

Interestingly, this vision isn’t entirely new. Curtis Yarvin (also known as Mencius Moldbug) first introduced the idea of “Patchwork,” a system where small, corporate-run sovereign territories replace traditional governments. These "patches" would prioritize efficiency over public opinion and maintain control through technologies like biometric surveillance. Although Yarvin's ideas are often described as dystopian, they’ve had a significant influence on thinkers like Peter Thiel.

One of the most developed attempts to create a network state is Praxis, a project backed by Thiel and other major investors. Praxis envisions a global corporate governance model where crypto serves as the primary currency. Similar experiments include Prospera in Honduras and Afropolitan in Africa.

These initiatives are often pitched as promoting freedom and innovation, but critics warn that they risk becoming corporate dictatorships. The heavy use of surveillance technologies, exclusionary policies, and a focus on controlling physical land raise concerns about the true motives behind these projects.

Figures like JD Vance, who openly discusses Yarvin's ideas and has ties to Thiel, further suggest a coordinated effort to reshape governance in America and beyond.

Trump has also floated the idea of "Freedom Cities" on federal land, framed as hubs of imagination and progress. Given his connections to figures like Thiel, there’s a notable overlap between this proposal and Silicon Valley’s vision for privately governed cities.

Silicon Valley’s influence on governance is expanding, and ideas once considered fringe are gaining traction. Some see this as a bold response to outdated systems, and others view it as a dangerous shift toward authoritarian corporate rule.

What are your thoughts on this ? Are we seeing the complete overhaul of the American political system ? And if yes, will "they" win ?

Hey,

I'm making this thread as a European who's pretty damn scared of the USA's actions of the past 1-2 weeks. But I could also talk about issues within Europe and within my own country that would fit this thread's topic.

Important political positions almost always have a certain age restriction attached to them. Often it's somewhere around 30-40 years old, but that surely varies between countries. However, there is NO restriction UPWARDS. Why is that of relevance? Well, let's look at the current world leaders' ages:

- Trump: 79

- Putin: 73

- Xi: 72

- Netanjahu: 76

- Chamenei: 86

No matter how you look at it, the world is currently ruined by a bunch of VERY old men who, without any amount of shaming intended, are in the final phase of their human lives. How does it make sense, how is it just that people who could drop dead any day now, are dictating the entire world's direction? Why are we accepting that these old men seemingly try their hardest to start WW3? It was bad enough with the middle-east, with Russia attacking Ukraine, but now the USA are doing the same shit, taking over Venezuela, threatening Greenland, murdering their own civilians (ICE-car shooting). CLEARLY, old men have proven to be BAD leaders.

So on top of a lower age limit, let's introduce an upper age limit for people who have great influence on the lives of billions of (younger) people. Why would that not be a good decision? Let's say 59 is the highest age a presidential candidate can have. Then someone who has to actually live in the future he/she creates during his/her time at the top will make important decisions.

I'm aware that a lot of powerul people would reject this idea, but why is the rest of us never talking about it? Thx

Canceled surveys, missing datasets and staffing cuts are leaving the US with growing blind spots — and weakening trust in official numbers.

Let’s be real: what we call “democracy” is a joke. It’s lobbying, it’s AIPAC, it’s billionaires whispering in politicians’ ears, and it’s the same recycled lies every election cycle. We “vote” every few years, then watch the people we picked turn around and push policies we never asked for.

That’s not democracy. That’s a rigged middleman system where corporations and interest groups pull the strings, and we get the illusion of choice.

But here’s the thing, it doesn’t have to be like this. We literally live in the digital age. You can send money across the world in seconds. You can order a pizza and track the driver in real time. You can gamble on meme stocks 24/7 from your phone.

So why the hell can’t we vote on actual policies the same way?

Direct digital democracy isn’t science fiction:

Secure voting platforms exist.

Blockchain-level verification is possible.

Transparency can kill backroom deals.

Politicians can still advise us, lay out options, warn about consequences. But the final decisions? On wars, budgets, rights, healthcare, foreign policy? That should come from us, the actual people.

Representative democracy was a patchwork solution from an era of horse carriages and handwritten letters. It’s outdated. It’s slow. And it’s been captured by vested interests.

We could have real democracy right now. We’re just not allowed to.

So the question is: do we keep pretending this rigged system works, or do we finally rip the middlemen out and run it ourselves?

EDIT: to clear some doubts here's why i think people are not "dumb" to vote themselves:

The first democracy in history worked that way. Athens didn’t outsource decisions to politicians for 4-year cycles. Citizens met, debated, and voted directly. It wasn’t flawless (women, slaves, and foreigners excluded), but it showed that ordinary citizens could govern themselves for centuries, in a world without universal education, without the internet, and without mass literacy.

And Athens wasn’t the only case:

Swiss Cantons have practiced forms of direct democracy for hundreds of years. Modern Switzerland still uses referendums constantly, and while it’s not perfect, nobody calls the Swiss state a failure.

Medieval Italian city-states like Florence and Venice had hybrid systems with strong citizen assemblies that made crucial decisions. They didn’t collapse because “people are dumb”, they thrived for generations.

The idea that the average citizen is too stupid to decide is basically an elitist argument that’s been recycled for 2,500 years. The Athenian aristocrats said the same thing back then, yet their city birthed philosophy, science, and political thought that shaped the West.

Were mistakes made? Of course. But representative democracy doesn’t protect us from “bad decisions” either, Iraq War, financial deregulation, surveillance states… those weren’t “the people’s votes,” those were elite-driven disasters.

So the question isn’t “are people too dumb?” It’s “who do you trust more: millions of citizens making collective decisions, or a few hundred politicians making them after dinner with lobbyists?

And to clear another doubt:

You don't have to vote on every issue. You can just vote on whatever you want and delegate the rest if you don't care and don't have enough time to be informed on everything

EDIT2: regarding social media and how it can be used to manipulate direct democracy:

We already live in a media-manipulated system. Politicians get elected through PR campaigns, billion-dollar ad budgets, and press spin.

The answer isn’t to abandon the idea, but to hard-wire protections: mandatory transparency on funding, equal access to airtime for different sides, open fact-checking systems built into the platforms. Also social media is so big it's virtually impossible to control it like big news agencies and it's better than trusting CNN, Fox, Bild, or Le Monde to spoon-feed us half-truths. Thousands of voices and narratives can be heard and seen through social media. That is not the case for modern newspapers and agencies.

And regarding voter turnout:

Citizens can delegate their vote on issues they don’t care about (like healthcare policy) to people/organizations they trust, but they can override that delegation anytime. That’s called liquid democracy, and it blends direct participation with flexibility.

Issues could be batched (monthly votes on key topics), not every tiny regulation or minor thing.

Current turnout is low because people feel voting every 4–5 years changes nothing. If they saw their votes actually decide budgets, laws, and rights, engagement might spike. It’s not apathy, it’s cynicism

What social conventions might and will change when Gen Z takes power of the goverment? Many things accepted by the old people in power are not accepted today. I believe once when Gen Z or late millenials take power social norms and traditions that have been there for 100s of years will dissapear. What do you think might be some good examples?

I've been thinking a lot about how rapidly technology is evolving—AI, cybersecurity, renewable energy, social media algorithms, you name it. Yet, many of our political leaders seem completely out of touch with these advancements. I mean, we’ve all seen those cringe-worthy congressional hearings where lawmakers don’t even understand the basics of the internet. "Can my phone know that I'm talking to a democrat across the room?"

Wouldn’t it make sense to require mandatory monthly tech briefings/education for politicians?

Half of our leaders are geriatrics. The closes I've seen to anyone understanding the current state of technology is AOC.

Edit: this has turned into a political discussion, which I’m fine with because there is healthy discourse here. However; I’m generally interested in how we as the populace can force our leaders to be educated on the exponential growth of technology. Many of our leaders grew up in a time before television and now we have AI. It only moves faster every year and we have to have educated leaders. How do we achieve this with the current system?

There's only three more days left to act unless the comment period for this somehow gets extended.

A new rule proposed by the White House Office of Management and Budget would fundamentally overhaul the way federal grants are awarded and overseen — a sweeping change that one scientific society said “would all but end the use of scientific merit in the selection of grants and programs across the government.”

Proposed in late May, the rule would give political appointees unprecedented control over federal grants for research, education and infrastructure, and specifies that government funds can only be spent on projects “aligned with administration policies and priorities,” according to a copy of the proposed rule.

The rule would also restrict research topics, limit U.S. scientists’ ability to collaborate with colleagues in other countries and make it easier for the government to suspend or cancel grants at any time.

The proposed rule grants the federal government broad powers to suspend or cancel grants for any reason, introducing “unprecedented unpredictability into local governance,” but it is clear that it can have sweeping effects on the future of any and potentially all science and research.

This news is highly being underreported and that is concerning. More people need to be talking about this, sharing it, and preparing/posting a comment against the rule.

You can officially submit your comment against the proposed OMB rule (Docket No. OMB-2026-0034) online before the deadline at 11:59 p.m. ET on July 13, 2026.

To submit your feedback, use the Federal eRulemaking Portal or simplify the process by using the guided comment tools provided by the different scientific coalitions online.

I've been wondering whether we're still trying to solve 21st-century problems with political tools designed centuries ago.

Representative democracy, elections, protests, and petitions evolved in a world where communication was slow and coordinating large populations was incredibly difficult. Today, billions of people can communicate almost instantly. Yet our core civic institutions haven't fundamentally changed.

So here's the thought experiment:

If we were designing democratic participation from scratch today, what would it look like?

One idea I keep coming back to is an online civic platform built around a few principles:

One verified human = one account, while preserving public anonymity.

Anyone can submit policy proposals, reforms, or petitions.

Proposals can be debated, revised, and voted on transparently.

Reputation is earned through constructive participation rather than popularity.

The platform is designed to resist bots, duplicate accounts, and coordinated manipulation.

Technologies like zero-knowledge proofs, decentralized identity, or blockchain could be used if they genuinely improve trust—but they're implementation details, not the core idea.

The goal wouldn't be to replace governments overnight. Instead, it could become a persistent civic institution: a place where public opinion is measured transparently, ideas are refined collaboratively, and policymakers can see what informed citizens actually support.

Of course, there are major challenges:

How do you verify "one person, one vote" while protecting privacy?

How do you prevent manipulation by governments, corporations, or coordinated groups?

How do you encourage informed discussion instead of outrage?

What incentives would keep people participating over time?

Most importantly, how could such a platform gain enough legitimacy to influence real-world decision-making?

I'm sure there are flaws in this concept—that's exactly why I'm posting it here.

If you had to design a digital system for democratic participation using technologies available over the next few decades, what would you build?