Public Service Internet monthly newsletter (April 2026)

Make it s*ity

We live in incredible times with such possibilities that is clear. Although its easily dismissed seeing Gran-parents doom-scrolling, seeing Attie launching during the ATmosphere conference and the study showing people prefer sycophantic AI bots.

To quote Buckminster Fuller “You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.

You are seeing aspects of this with Norway taking aim at Enshittificationgraphene finally getting its time and the rush for a global human-made/non AI made logo.


Privacy is not negotiable

Ian thinks: Naomi’s points about privacy and how its been watered down year after year is key. I haven’t heard anyone say privacy is dead for a while, but they act like it is gone and not needed any-more.

Avoiding the eyes of the glass-holes?

Ian thinks: Resistance against smart glasses, is fair. Although I do find the Bluetooth signatures fascinating, I guess like MAC addresses sniffing could be used to filter/avoid all types of Bluetooth devices in the present and future?

Federated sharing isn’t easy going

Ian thinks: We are so use to the share this button on legacy social media sites but this careful critique of the new Mastodon share this post button, uncovers the difficulty of sharing with privacy and in a federated way.

Age verification law hits FLOSS

Ian thinks: This blog post from Linux distribution system76 – Pop!OS. Is a excellent read about the problems with age verification. Education is the corner stone of the argument and seems to be sadly forgotten in debates on high.

How are social media bans working out?

Ian thinks: The ban of social media and young people is everywhere right now. I have personal problems with the over reach and wider effects of this, including age verification as in the link above. Like above the call for education is echoed with better alternatives like safety by design and stronger regulation of design and practice.

Piracy is tipping the scale

Piracy never disappeared but is gain some momentum recently due in part to the enshittification of streaming services. What I find interesting about this post is the global look at countries and the concerns such as privacy and security in them.

Lego did the smart thing?

Ian thinks: In this tear down of Lego’s smart book, its clear Lego did a good job making it as simple and smart as possible. There was always a worry it would require a external service or completely locked down. Will it change the way Lego is seen is a bigger question

The weaponisation of psychology

Ian thinks: There is so much off the back of Meta and Google losing the first of many court cases following the landmark court case. I have tried to explain the underlying problems to friends without getting too technical or too fluffy. So I sent this video a few which seems to have worked much better.

Bernie vs Claude

Ian thinks: Bernie asks Claude the questions we should all be asking not just AI companies but each other. Wait for the long awkward pause from Claude AI as it comes back with a more realistic answer.

The AI doc interview

Ian thinks: In this podcast Tristan and friends talk about a new AI documentaries, comparing it to some very thoughtful docs from the past. I agree with the idea, just hope it turns out to be half of what they say it could be.


Like this newsletter? Find the monthly archive here

Blockchains for online dating?

Thinking Digital 2016 Newcastle

I was listening to Sarah Meiklejohn from UCL talking Blockchains at Thinking Digital Newcastle 2016. I tweeted an idea I’ve been thinking about for a while…

Blockchains for online dating… The crux of a blockchain or a distributed ledger is a way to encourage trust in a sensible networked way. Chris asked…

So here is some logic behind my thinking… I’m doing that dyslexic trait of having to reverse explain how I got to where I am at; although I recognise not the only one thinking about this.

There is a problem with online dating (not pointing to the white elephant in the room, as I have many times before); how do you know who you are contacting is really who they say they are? This has given rise to not only the 419 scams, catfishing but also sexortation scams. Also most of the research/hacking (amy webb/chris mckinlay) has been done through the loop-hole of people being able to just fire up (you can automate this, I’ve witnessed scripts) another profile.

There has been questions in the past why online dating sites haven’t done more to protect their users? Some of the Asian dating sites have started to verifiy their users, others are following, Tinder did so for celebs and even Badoo just launched photo vertification. Each is a very clunky solution and usually an after thought added on.

How about if you could see the interactions between the people on the dating site? There actions verify who they are, the patterns speak volumes. Want to send the same messages out to 1000 people, go ahead but we (all) will see. Currently that data is only accessible by the owners of the site/service. Would that be a step too far into radical transparency?

Would that influence the way people interact? Knowing the interactions (not the actual messages/content) were publicly logged and could be looked at by anybody in the site?

One of the things I quite like about OKCupid & POF is the notion of the visitor. basically you can see everybody (unless they are paid members and turn off the visitor option). I quite like this because it makes you more careful about who you click on and view, knowing they will see this too. But with a public ledger system, others could see this too. This would solve my issue when trying to find the most popular person on OKCupid and throws up the question Hannah Fry talked about in a TED talk about finding love with mathematics and I experienced at MOSI.

Too many steps forward? Ok how about we hide the end points, like in a traditional blockchain system. You don’t see the interactions but you do get stats about how many times that person has fired out messages, what kind of reaction they got, etc.

Basically blockchain or distributed network ledgers could tweak human behaviour slightly towards something more positive for everybody? It’s an idea but something I’d like to see tried at the very least, expecially because its a total wild west out there right now.

Some accountability for some of our actions, isn’t a bad thing I have to say.