If money is information and it is manipulated, then “misinformation” is whatever those most empowered by the manipulation of money determine it is.
#Bitcoin
#Nostr
Login to reply
Replies (15)
So dystopian how this word is used by the politicos 😮💨
Insane.
Everything is skewed at best, and heavily corrupted at worst. 😵💫
And so many people have no idea. They're just so trapped and beaten down by the "distortion" effects. Struggling to survive.
Bitcoin is a liferaft that can lead to healing humanity. The idea of a healthy "oneness" is real!
The fall in trust of institutions has been the result of activists and manipulated twisting of consensus understandings. In just the past decade we have risen (or fallen?) to asking "what is money?", "what is a woman?", and now "what is government?". Each of those nouns have been perverted beyond what Miriam-webster had then defined them respectively as via consensus of the population by those who wield financial, social, and organizational power for their own gains.
View quoted note →
Nicely put. Love how you give such clarity to how things are 👍
Based.
Well said. 🙂
If information is manipulated, it's propaganda, not information.
Money is information the same way Wendy's uses quality ingredients.
Both terms have an adjective waiting to disclose the truth.
The real tragedy is that the manipulation is in plain sight, and people are conditioned to believe it is normal, it is needed, and it helps them.
"The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was to convince the world he didn't exist."
The real tragedy is that the manipulation is in plain sight, and people are conditioned to believe it is normal, it is needed, and it helps them.
"The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was to convince the world he didn't exist."
If money is information and it is manipulated, then “misinformation” is whatever those most empowered by the manipulation of money determine it is.
#Bitcoin
#Nostr
View quoted note →
Agreed I wrote this about it.
01 Title: Barter to Money and the Empathy that a Lack of Numeracy Could Not Induce
Introduction
The transition from barter systems to money-based economies represents one of the most significant changes in human history. Before the widespread use of money and numeracy, trade relied on empathy—human beings understanding each other's needs and negotiating directly. As money began to replace barter, the need for personal trust diminished, but without numeracy, people still struggled to calculate fair exchanges. This post examines how barter declined as money use increased, and how the lack of numeracy prevented the kind of trust and empathy that characterised earlier economic interactions.
The Role of Barter and Empathy
In early human societies, barter was the primary method of trade. Without a standardised medium of exchange, individuals and groups relied on empathy to ensure fair exchanges. A farmer trading grain for livestock, for instance, had to place themselves in the position of the other party, understanding their needs and ensuring mutual satisfaction. Barter was not just an economic exchange; it was a social interaction, built on trust and community.
However, as human societies grew more complex, the limitations of barter became evident. In large communities or long-distance trade, barter required precise knowledge of the value of goods, and the negotiation process became increasingly cumbersome. The introduction of money simplified this process, but it also began to erode the personal, empathetic connections that had been central to barter.
The Introduction of Money and the Decline of Barter
The first coins, minted in Lydia around 600 BCE, marked the beginning of a new era in economic exchange. Money allowed for standardised transactions, reducing the need for personal negotiation. The direct connection between traders, once mediated by empathy, became less important. Instead, the value of goods was abstracted into coinage, allowing trade to occur even between strangers with little trust between them.
While the introduction of money led to a gradual decline in barter, the process was slow. Barter persisted for centuries, particularly in rural areas or in times of economic hardship when coins were scarce. In medieval Europe, for instance, barter was still common among peasants, even as money became the dominant medium of exchange in urban markets. The rise of feudalism and the lack of widespread currency systems ensured that barter continued well into the Middle Ages.
The Importance of Numeracy
Though money simplified transactions, it did not entirely solve the problem of fair trade. Without numeracy, the ability to understand and work with numbers, many individuals were still vulnerable to unfair deals. Money alone could not induce the kind of empathy that was necessary for ensuring fairness in barter systems. The rise of numeracy, particularly in the 19th and 20th centuries, played a crucial role in levelling the playing field, allowing more people to engage in economic transactions with confidence.
Numeracy became widespread only with the advent of public education systems in Europe and North America. Before this, only elites, scribes, and merchants had the numerical skills required for complex trade. By the early 20th century, with numeracy becoming common among the general population, the need for personal trust and empathy in transactions diminished further, as individuals could now calculate value and fairness independently.
See the Chart that shows Barter, Money and Numeracy in Use over time.
Barter, Empathy, and the Consequences of Their Decline
The decline of barter and the rise of money and numeracy represent more than just changes in how people traded goods. They mark a shift from a system based on human connection and trust to one grounded in abstraction and calculation. While the modern economy allows for efficiency and scale, it has also removed much of the empathy that once governed economic exchanges.
Barter required individuals to understand and relate to one another, making each transaction a negotiation not only of value but of social relations. The empathy exchanged in these interactions was a vital part of ensuring fairness, particularly in small, close-knit communities. As money and numeracy replaced this need, the personal connections that were once essential for trade were weakened, and economic transactions became increasingly impersonal.
Conclusion
The shift from barter to money-based economies was driven by the need for a more efficient and scalable method of trade. However, as this paper has shown, this transition also led to the erosion of empathy in economic exchanges. Without numeracy, early money-based systems could not induce the same kind of fairness and trust that characterised barter. Only with the widespread introduction of numeracy did individuals gain the tools to engage in fair trade independently. Yet, even today, the loss of empathy in economic transactions remains a consequence of this historic shift.
Sources:
Glyn Davies, A History of Money: From Ancient Times to the Present Day, University of Wales Press, 2002.
David Graeber, Debt: The First 5,000 Years, Melville House, 2011.
Joel Kaye, A History of Balance, 1250-1375: The Emergence of a New Model of Equilibrium and Its Impact on Thought, Cambridge University Press, 2014.
Niall Ferguson, The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of the World, Penguin Press, 2008.

View quoted note →

That’s an interesting take! It highlights how control over money—and information—can shape narratives. The power to manipulate either can influence perceptions of truth. It raises a deeper question about transparency and who gets to define "misinformation" in a system where power dynamics control key resources like currency and information.
“Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”
― George Orwell, 1984
Jeff, I feel so stupid for not knowing how to include you as someone I'd like to see my posts. (very new to Nostr)
I recently watched a YouTube video with a woman and you (half of her head was shaved, for reference), and I wanted you to see my posts related to meditation after watching that.
-Rick