An Internet of Desperate Protagonists
2024-11-18A number of the most pertinent subcultures surrounding security, information security and cryptography/cryptocurrency circles increasingly appear to be led by, for lack of a better term, fictional characters. Whether in cryptocurrency circles, privacy movements, or cybersecurity investigations, the apparent need to see oneself and to set oneself as a protagonist of a grand narrative, akin to characters from films or television series, is often rewarded. This chronic delusion is not just harmless escapism; it fosters a dangerous lack of nuance and a self-righteous attitude that often tramples over others and misleads many, sometimes even influencing policy.
Those who want to set you free…
One glaring example of this desperate protagonist syndrome manifests in the realm of cryptocurrency. Developers relentlessly pursue projects that aim for extreme privacy without adequately addressing practical concerns. For these individuals, the main impetus appears to be fulfilling their own need to manifest as digital revolutionaries, with fundamental issues that undermine the viability of their endeavors coming in second.
They fail to recognize that institutions controlling financial transactions are far more entrenched and formidable than those governing speech. While secure messaging apps can operate with relatively less friction due to the decentralized and less regulated nature of communication, the financial sector is a different beast altogether. Banks, governments, and international regulatory bodies have established a labyrinth of controls designed to monitor, regulate, and, if necessary, suppress financial transactions.
Furthermore, the unavoidable reliance on fiat currency serves as a critical bottleneck that these projects consistently overlook. No matter how private or sophisticated a cryptocurrency platform is, users almost always need to convert their digital assets back into traditional currency for practical use—a process that requires interaction with regulated exchanges and financial institutions. Governments and regulatory bodies are fully aware of this choke point and can exert substantial control by policing these entry and exit bridges with stringent Know Your Customer (KYC) and Anti-Money Laundering (AML) regulations. By not addressing this fundamental hurdle, these projects set their users up for failure, all while promoting an illusion of complete financial freedom.
This disregard for practical limitations highlights a broader issue: a disconnect from reality fueled by a desire to play the hero in a self-scripted narrative. These developers position themselves as pioneers breaking free from oppressive financial systems, yet they offer no viable solutions to the real-world challenges their users will face. Their fixation on extreme privacy becomes a myopic pursuit that ignores the necessity of compliance, user accessibility, and legitimate pathways for integration into the existing financial ecosystem.
In essence, these cryptocurrency enthusiasts are so caught up in their own grandiose story that they neglect the very people they claim to empower. By not confronting the entrenched power of financial institutions and the practical need for fiat currency conversion, they build castles in the air—grand in vision but devoid of foundation. It’s a disservice to their cause and to the users who trust them, perpetuating a cycle of disillusionment and skepticism toward genuinely innovative financial solutions.
Those who want to fight for you…
The privacy movement is the emergence of leaders who, lacking a genuine personal commitment to the cause, risk undermining the very principles they purport to champion. This disconnect between leadership and mission can have profound negative consequences for the movement as a whole.
Messianic personas on social media aren’t approached critically enough, allowing leaders to prioritize personal gain over the organization’s ethos. For instance, when a figurehead demands million-dollar-per-year compensation from a nonprofit while the organization simultaneously solicits donations from its user base and saddles a 100 million-dollar loan, it creates a stark contradiction. Such actions not only strain the organization’s financial resources but also erode trust among supporters who believe they are contributing to a collective effort for the greater good, not to fund personal enrichment.
This lack of alignment between personal interests and organizational values can lead to decisions that jeopardize the movement’s integrity. A leader who is not personally invested may opt for expedient solutions that compromise core principles, such as capitulating to external pressures or neglecting user privacy to avoid legal complications. These choices can have a cascading effect, disillusioning supporters and providing ammunition to critics who question the viability and sincerity of the privacy movement.
Moreover, when leaders are detached from the grassroots ideals that often drive such movements, they may fail to advocate effectively on behalf of their constituents. Instead of leveraging their position to challenge overreaching regulations or push for stronger privacy protections, they might remain silent or, worse, acquiesce to policies that undermine user rights. This absence of robust advocacy diminishes the movement’s influence and can lead to regressive outcomes that are difficult to reverse.
The issue is further compounded when internal organizational practices lack transparency. If decisions are made behind closed doors without input from key stakeholders, it fosters an environment of suspicion and disconnect. Supporters may begin to question the organization’s direction and whether their contributions—be it time, money, or trust—are being utilized in a manner consistent with the movement’s stated objectives.
In the context of privacy-focused projects, which often rely on community support and collective action, leadership that is misaligned with the movement’s core values can be particularly damaging. It not only hinders the project’s ability to achieve its goals but also risks alienating the very community that sustains it.
In essence, the strength of any movement lies in the authenticity and dedication of its leadership. This has been replaced, to a deeply worrisome degree, with a messianic social media persona that the public can’t seem to break past such that they can observe what’s going on with important institutions safeguaring global encryption, security and privacy.
Those chasing digital badness…
Similarly, those who see themselves as modern-day sleuths embark on unsolicited investigative escapades, lacking the training or authority to do so responsibly. The methodology employed by these self-styled investigators is often fundamentally flawed, undermining the credibility of their findings and the trust of the public.
In the realm of cybersecurity, some individuals or groups take it upon themselves to investigate complex threats without adhering to rigorous research standards. Critics argue that their methods may lack falsifiability—a core principle of the scientific method requiring hypotheses to be testable and potentially disprovable. Without falsifiability, their claims stand on shaky ground, as they cannot be rigorously tested or challenged.
Additionally, their research results are often not reproducible. Reproducibility is essential for verifying findings and ensuring that conclusions are not the result of isolated errors or biases. When other experts cannot replicate results, it casts doubt on the validity of the original research. This lack of reproducibility can lead to the spread of misinformation, as unverified findings are taken at face value by the public and policymakers.
Impartiality is another critical aspect where these investigators may falter. A credible investigation requires a neutral stance to objectively assess all available evidence. However, when researchers approach their work with preconceived notions or agendas, it skews the analysis and leads to biased conclusions. This partiality is exacerbated when the peer review process lacks true independence, failing to serve its purpose as a quality control mechanism.
Despite these significant shortcomings, some investigators press on with unwarranted confidence, convinced that they are the righteous protagonists in a grand narrative. This mindset mirrors that of fictional characters who are always vindicated in the end. In reality, such overconfidence without rigorous methodology leads to the publication of misguided or even harmful information. They may be oblivious to the potential consequences of their actions, including damaging reputations, influencing policy based on faulty data, and eroding public trust in legitimate research.
This flawed approach not only discredits their own work but also poses a broader risk to the fields they represent. By prioritizing self-aggrandizement over meticulous and impartial investigation, they contribute to a culture where sensationalism trumps truth. It’s a stark reminder of the dangers inherent when individuals or groups allow their desire to be heroes to overshadow the fundamental principles of ethical and rigorous inquiry. Without a commitment to sound methodology and impartiality, they risk becoming the very obstacle to justice and progress they believe themselves to be combating.
…just really want to play the good guy.
Your institutions and hard-won achievements are being imperiled by people who just really want to play the good guy above all else. These desperate protagonists risk dismantling progress as important as Signal making end-to-end encryption the standard across virtually all messaging platforms, cryptocurrency enshrining a new standard for decentralized trust, or open source security making the world safer, yet we find ourselves applauding them—silenced by prevailing ideologies, tribal instincts, and the gnawing fear of not belonging. Our collective acquiescence enables their ascent, allowing them to overshadow critical thought with self-serving narratives.
