Future Vibes

Freepik: jennoon028-photo light bulb lit between many lights It's about my prediction of less electricity. To live in a steading somewhere, equipped with a reliable well, vegetable patch, fireplace, maybe a wood-fired Aga. Taking away electricity means rethinking your entire day and planning how you can function without the means of simply plugging something in. No electricity results in a complete loss of normality. We are exploring alternative energy sources, living off the grid and how life with no electricity impacts us, to make you think, could you live without electricity? Electricity: How Long Could We Survive Without It? Electricity and digitalization are changing the way we live. There are lots of things that society could get along without. More automated than ever before with internet-instant communication, devices, robotics making the effects of power failure far greater and may even have artificial intelligence to support functionality. What would life be like without

Freepik: rawpixel-woman-chatting-her-smartphone The false rumors contributed to the spread of anxiety. The spread of misinformation and irresponsible content on social media platforms has led many to believe that these platforms need to be more tightly regulated. Negativity is a goal for social network firms since it is suitable for income flow. Negativity sells on social media because it draws users' attention more than positive content and keeps them scrolling on their devices. The algorithms boost negative content while stifling positive content. That means users are not satisfied with how big businesses are handling the risks of misinformation and censorship, privacy, political neutrality, user control, and malicious activity on social networks. The purpose of this business strategy is to dissuade people from posting harmful information on social media networks. These concerns have led to the consolidation of social networks. Deleting objectionable user-generated content is usu

Image: Feepik_by rawpixel_Global-Connections Decentralized social networks are gaining popularity with the rise of cryptocurrencies and NFTs. They are not new; they are just unpopular. Some of them have been around for more than a decade, such as the Diaspora, which began in 2010. In comparison, Facebook debuted in 2006, just four years before Diaspora. The idea is to go back to the good old days of the Internet in the early 90's, commonly known as Web 1.0 (as you know, we are living in Web 2.0 at this time). Users can publish content directly to user-friendly decentralized sites, bypassing corporate intermediaries and intended approaches. Anyone can create and run their own version of the ideal on one platform. This is what decentralized social networks do with the concept of "free will." There is no central authority (person, server, or company) that dictates the rules. The best thing is that they give creators the opportunity to monetize their work and earn tokens tha

Similar to cryptocurrencies, social networks that are based on blockchain technology and run-on independent servers rather than central servers owned and operated by businesses or organizations can be described as decentralized. No phone number or email address is required to use the blockchain. Their technology enables peer-to-peer interactions instead of mediated private platforms. Users can meet, flirt, chat and share in their community forums. This structure enables democratic processes between users or communities and is managed independently of intermediaries. They are powered by distributed ledger technologies, where activities on the platform are recorded on the decentralized protocol and user data is stored on a blockchain and cannot be removed by any central authority like in the case of Facebook. Decentralized platforms use technology that eliminates unnecessary points in the platform's technical infrastructure. Exchanges and other resources on various networks (module

Will the well-liked centralized social network be replaced by a decentralized one? Decentralized networks are ineffective, but they should not be abandoned. The main issue is that it would be non-profit, so there would be less incentive to build it if no one invested in it. That means they can't develop on their own. Then competition matters, even when it seemingly doesn't, because all of them wants to be the number one, obviously. Even if smaller, decentralized platforms can provide innovation and gain short-term success in terms of user numbers, it doesn’t guarantee long-term success. I think that decentralized social network projects should rely on existing standards and help with their development. fully based on XMPP and is de facto compatible with many other clients and services out there. Difficult Tools for Users —The tools available to users are limited and difficult to employ. People will continue to prefer centralized social networks like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram