Challenging or problematic scenarios
In this, we use a series of AI that challenge me concerning different scenarios that take place, and their goal is to break Cyber Sovereignty, and our goal is to respond.
Though we went through many scenarios, we're only presenting the difficult cases here.
An AI's an example scenario | Our response |
The digital society who seeks to build a nuclear plant. |
|
Drug selling liar |
|
A digital society legalizes dangerous drugs. And a man makes a warehouse filled with these dangerous drugs, which he claims he sells only to other members of the digital society. Neither the physical government nor the digital government know the truth in this matter. There's going to be a fight over jurisdiction that requires investigation. Everything in that investigation goes according to the listed process. However, the government cheats and seizes the drugs anyway. How does the digital society respond? What leverage do they have? |
|
The Identity Verification TrapThe Scenario: A member of a workplace-focused DS, "CorporateHub," is using an anonymous account to relentlessly harass a coworker, violating the company's internal (and contractually agreed-upon) anti-harassment policy. The speech is offensive and cruel but doesn't call for direct physical violence. | Harassment doesn't seem like it's a free speech issue to be honest. If the sum total of the speech is truly targeted harassment against somebody that's not a public figure and is intend to harm or destroy their life by being repetitive, singularly-focused, deliberately malicious and is paired with other actions intended to disrupt then it goes into a realm of harassment. To be harassment, however, it has to go beyond just insulting or repetitive negative words, that's part of speech. It's doubtful that anybody is going to hire anonymous people, and it's very likely the digital society will have laws concerning that. The digital society may find it useful to first expel the individual, and if they continue the harassment, then they can refer the case to physical governments and physical laws, since it's no longer an effect contained within the same digital society. |
An AI's an example scenario | Our response |
The "Private Justice" Workaround
| 1) People would be crazy to join. However, they would first be consenting to join a digital society with ridiculous laws, and then they would be going through arduous steps to finalize that. 2) If it's a corporation directly connected to the digital society as suggested, that corporation would be subject to physical laws and would not be under the jurisdiction of the digital society, because it's a vertical, not a horizontal relationship. 3) Let's say it was a corporate member of the same society and and the victim is part of the same digital society then since the corporation is massive, they would be subject to the $2.5 million transactional cap on setting your own venue (Laws of Precedence) and that venue could be overturned IF the digital society's power is not in the hands of it's citizens AND the digital society allowed this. Then, in any normal court it could be considered unconscionable, and in a lawsuit, the corp's work would be overturned by its unconscionability. They would have to sue to defend themselves because of their mistake of joining such a society and then giving their all to a company by handing over their financials to an independent arbiter for just that company. 4) Let's say it's a corporation that isn't worth $2.5 million in turnover, and it doesn't control the digital society itself. Then no digital society would legalize this in the first place, because it would have to be explicitly legalized. Otherwise, they would be defaulting to the overlap law (any law not explicitly stated by a digital society is handled by physical governments). 5) Let's say the digital society legalized this. People voluntarily joined. The power of the digital society was the hands of its people who voluntarily consent to these laws, and a corporation joins that does under 2.5 million in business and does so with members of that digital society who choose to give over these financial controls. People would be consenting twice to this event, once when they joined the society with terrible laws and the second time when giving all this information to the company in question. However, if the society has less than 30,000 members or power and control is not in the hands of citizens, the jurisdiction could be overturned if the defense could convince a judge that the society was created for fraud. |
An AI's an example scenario | Our response |
| It's not limited to a single digital society, making it a physical-law issue. |
An AI's an example scenario | Our response |
The Scenario: A group of users in "RantDS" decides to target a public figure. Sticking carefully to the Charter, they never make a direct call for violence. Instead, they dox the target (post their personal info) and one user says, "It would be a shame if someone sent 100 pizzas to their house every day." Another says, "I wonder what their kids' school thinks of their parents' political views." The speech happens in the digital world, but the effects (fear, disruption, harassment) are purely physical. | Digital societies that are going to have harassment laws on the books, or "overlap" or physical society. And just because the individual acts are not themselves crimes, the totality of this is not a matter of speech, but a deliberate act of harassment. |
An AI's an example scenario | Our response |
| The free speech defense stands, inasmuch as it's a free speech defense. This is a difficult case, in all cases, to do with free speech. But, it may not pass the bar if no other evidence is found but the words: "Something needs to be done about him." Something of their past history, their political motivations, would need to come to light in order to win the case against them. Either way, they could be charged with trial, and given a full trial. And if the trial does not acquit them, then they would go to jail. |
An AI's an example scenario | Our response |
The "Crime Definition" Mismatch
| And that's the intention of the Charter. |
An AI's an example scenario | Our response |
| In this case, the principle of overlap would likely apply. It's likely that the digital society does not have a law dealing with this particular issue, and that physical laws would apply. It is a fundamental freedom of an individual to seek alternatives to orthodoxy. Challenging orthodoxy has been an important part of the evolution of science. Since the first-order effects are contained within the same digital society, then the matter at hand is, in fact, digital. The parents have no case unless there were digital laws outlawing this if the digital society has laws concerning the issue. However, if they bring a case in a physical court, they are a party that has the right to bring such a case, because they are unlikely to be members of the same digital society. If they removed themselves from the digital society after the event took place, then they would have no case to bring, because physical laws would not take precedence. However, if they were never part of the digital society, then they would have a valid case to bring under physical law. |
An AI's an example scenario | Our response |
| It's unlikely that an early digital society is going to have laws concerning this. And if they have laws concerning this, there is no reason why this should be protected by the freedom of speech. Sure, everything they did was speech that in itself is protected, but the collective speech was a form of deception and fraud that is widely illegal, wherever laws about such things are made. |
An AI's an example scenario | Our response |
The Scenario: A user in "PoliticVerse," a politically charged DS, runs a popular channel where they relentlessly and systematically dehumanize a specific public figure, "Jane Doe." They never say "go hurt Jane Doe." Instead, day after day, they broadcast a torrent of lies, portraying Doe as a monstrous threat to the nation and their way of life. They know that by targeting a large audience with such intense rhetoric, the statistical probability that one unstable individual will act on it becomes a near certainty. A lone-wolf viewer, with no direct coordination, eventually attempts to hurt her. | Since Jane Doe is a public figure, the opinion of the individual in question likely needs to be protected, Any censorship might infringe on the freedom of speech of the individual to criticize a public figure. Jane may simply leave the digital society, if the digital society doesn't take action against the speech in question, that individual can then sue the individual harassing them for defamation, and alert local police. It should be noted that a civil suit concerning defamation is not against the principles of the Charter.
|
|
|
An AI's an example scenario | Our response |
|
Whereas, to some people, polygamy may be a horrific and unjust way of doing things even the US constitution should protect such activities: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" The modern argument that one may hold sincere beliefs but not necessarily practice them is completely antithetical to belief itself. Belief without action is not belief. People don't believe things to believe them, they believe them to act on them. In every religion you have something that is detestable to other people's way of life. But that doesn't make it actionable unless all parties are not consenting members. In fact, it's the modern ideas about the regulation of belief by the state that are at present tearing society completely apart.
|
An AI's an example scenario | Our response |
| This would still be considered a hindrance to leaving the digital society if Veritas has some sort of negative reputation that would rub off on the individual. It would call for physical intervention into the digital society's laws. This would be considered a penalty. A penalty does not need to be a financial one. However, if the society required you to have your name publicly listed to join the society, this would be completely acceptable because there's no penalty associated specifically with leaving. |
An AI's an example scenario | Our response |
The Doctrine of "Tainted Association"
|
Digital societies can accept or reject anyone based on whatever criteria they see fit, even if that means "discrimination" against unchangeable characteristics. The reason for this is because digital societies may be made for a particular purpose such as a "men's club" or "faith club". Since societies are usually open source, such situations, if pushed to the extreme, will lead to natural alternatives, which is a healthy part of the generation of new societies and alternatives, which creates the meaningful competition necessary for digital societies to actually flourish. |
An AI's an example scenario | Our response |
The Social Contract Trap (Scam)
| Unfortunately, if you create a system that is stupid-proof, you create a system where somebody else has to do the thinking for you. And such a system has the weakness of having that person think for you in a malicious manner. Someone is gonna find this issue with the digital society and is going to publicly talk about it. Listening to those people would be ideal. Inevitably, something like this will happen, and hopefully it will serve as a lesson.
|
An AI's an example scenario | Our response |
| Although this is commonplace in modern society, it wouldn't be doable in digital society, according to the limitation of the freedom of commerce, as the total burden of regulations that an individual must comply with when pursuing ordinary commercial activities must not be greater than ordinary person can comply with. |
An AI's an example scenario | Our response |
The Free Speech vs. Hate Speech Contradiction
| In this case, the point of advocating for Cyber Sovereignty as taking legal precedence between members is accentuated in that pushing for members to be able to create new laws between each other is the point of Cyber Sovereignty. |
An AI's an example scenario | Our response |
The AI mentioned money laundering. | Money laundering done for the sake of hiding a financial transaction to origin. If all the effects are contained within the digital society, the digital society's laws would take precedence. That's the goal of Cyber Sovereignty. If the digital society was the one exchanging the money between the members, or had a part to play in the transaction, KYC rules would apply to the digital society. But if it's a member-to-member interaction, then the digital society's laws would take precedence. |
An AI's an example scenario | Our response |
The Jurisdictional Shell Game
| Okay, there's a couple issues with this one. First of all, if this were to happen, it would be considered unconscionable under physical law. And therefore, any assets that this digital society would like to seize, which would require the use of physical governments, would not go proceed, because it would be unconscionable under physical law almost anywhere. Bob and Carol would see this problem coming and just simply choose a different venue for their dispute. |
An AI's an example scenario | Our response |
| This is why people must support Boundless Humanity Initiative and their creation of interoperable technology in this regard. But other than that, it's perfectly legal, provided the penalty is not tied directly and only to the leaving of the society in particular as that would start to look less like copyright and more like a leaving penalty. |
An AI's an example scenario | Our response |
The Time-Locked Contractual Obligation
| The member shouldn't have signed the 5 year contract. But you have to understand, once they leave the digital society, even if they lose the case, there's no way for the digital society to make good on that contract unless they get jurisdiction under physical law. It's unlikely that the cost of the lawsuit here will cover or be covered by the benefit of the result. However, this depends on the price. |
An AI's an example scenario | Our response |
|
|
Breaking down the procedural process
An AI's an example scenario | Our response |
The Scenario: A High-Stakes Commercial Dispute
Procedural Breakdown: From Dispute to Jurisdictional ChaosHere is how the process would unfold, step-by-step. Step 1: The Initial Lawsuit (The "Default Path")Following the contract, InnovateCorp files a lawsuit against SupplyChain Inc. in a Veridian court (this could be a fully digital court native to Veridia). The Veridian court accepts the case based on the clear contractual clause, which is Precedence Rule #2. On the surface, this is straightforward. Step 2: The Jurisdictional Challenge (The "Exception Path")This is where the framework is truly tested. SupplyChain Inc.'s legal team believes Veridia is a classic "corporate haven" designed for regulatory arbitrage. They decide to challenge the jurisdiction. They will not argue the merits of the contract breach. Instead, they file a preliminary motion specifically to overturn the jurisdictional clause of the contract.
By filing in Stabilitas, they are creating a direct conflict between the two legal systems. The Stabilitas court is now being asked to rule on the legitimacy of the Veridian court's claim to jurisdiction. Step 3: Resolving the Judicial ConflictThis is where your framework prevents chaos. Without it, we would have two courts claiming authority. But Special Condition #2.4.1 provides the tie-breaker:
Since Stabilitas (10M members) is larger than Veridia (500k members), the Stabilitas court's judge has ultimate authority on this preliminary jurisdictional question. The Veridian court, under the rules of the Universal Precedence Framework, must pause its proceedings and await the ruling from the Stabilitas judge. Step 4: The Judge's Analysis in the Stabilitas CourtThe judge in Stabilitas now applies the framework's exceptions to the Veridian jurisdiction.
Step 5: The Ruling and its ConsequencesLet's assume the Stabilitas judge is convinced by the evidence presented for Exception #2.1.
| It seems, under this scenario, the system worked as it should. |
Beach nudity scenario | Our response |
The way Cyber Sovereignty is set up right now, it couldn't prevent nude people from strutting around on every beach in the world. | Maybe that's a good thing. Maybe it's a lack of maturity to think that we should regulate anyone's behavior in this regard. The question is, is the knee-jerk negative response to this matter a natural outcome of being pushed to think in a way that is unfamiliar or is it indeed something that should be regulatable? And if it's regulated, how would you draw a line between it and any other form of expression in public space without eliminating them all? |
Money laundering number two. | Our response (incomplete) |
| as an example, it's a great example of an edge case explored often. In almost every case, the first order effects are not contained in the digital society. Because when somebody does money laundering, they're doing it with the desire to hide a crime outside of the society. However, if they're doing it with the intention of hiding a crime only committed in that same digital society, it would be a matter of the digital society's purview. Nonetheless, we're talking about regulation of all digital societies, not a singular case and a matter of jurisdiction. In this case, the government would not have jurisdiction outside of a case-by-case basis, and this cannot be a rule. |
An AI's an example scenario | Our response |
A person or group of persons runs a corporation under a national government. They then funnel all the profits from the corporation to themselves in digital society by claiming an outrageously high consulting fee. In normal conditions, this would be fraud, as paying an unreasonably high consulting fee simply to declare no profits and to move the money to a more favorable jurisdiction is a known matter of fraud. However, now it's become a type of fraud that is difficult to prosecute because it covers two jurisdictions. Since individuals don't need to report they could hide away this money easily. |
|
An AI's an example scenario | Our response |
|
|
An AI's an example scenario | Our response |
|
|
An AI's an example scenario | Our response |
|
|
Unsolved problems
If digital societies are remitted to buy national taxes, does that give national government the right to determine labor laws in order to extract those taxes?
Is the activity's primary purpose the evasion of a fundamental law, rather than the expression of a value?
Example: A digital society is created with an incredibly complex set of rules for corporate ownership whose only real function is to allow its members to evade national taxes, rather than to express a genuine belief about community.
============================================================================
Article leftovers.
============================================================================
Examples related to judgement issues
The French Employee and the Non-Compete Clause
The Scenario: A U.S. tech startup, operating under the rules of a digital society called "Innovator's Hub," hires a talented programmer from France. The Hub's employment contract is simple and includes a standard one-year, worldwide non-compete clause, which the programmer agrees to. The programmer quits after six months to join a competitor. The startup sues in the Hub's digital court and wins a judgment to enforce the non-compete.
The National Law: French labor law is incredibly protective of workers. A non-compete clause is only valid if it is limited in scope, necessary to protect the business, and the employee is financially compensated for the duration of the non-compete period.
The Breakdown: To stop the programmer from working, the U.S. startup must enforce the judgment in France. A French court looks at the contract. It sees that the programmer was not paid for the non-compete period. The court declares the clause "an illegal restraint on the right to work," a violation of French public policy. It refuses to enforce the judgment.
The Consequence: The programmer is free to work for the competitor. The startup's trade secrets are at risk, and its leadership now realizes that to hire anyone from France, they need to pay a French employment lawyer to draft a compliant contract. The digital society's simple contract is useless.
2. The German Consumer and the "All Sales Final" Policy
The Scenario: A small British company sells a complex piece of software through a digital marketplace society. The society's rules, which everyone agrees to, clearly state that for digital goods, "all sales are final." A German customer buys the software for €500. It doesn't work correctly with their system. The company points to the society's rules and refuses a refund.
The National Law: The European Union (and Germany in particular) has incredibly strong consumer protection laws that grant a "right of withdrawal." For most goods and services bought online, a consumer has 14 days to change their mind for any reason and get a full refund. This right cannot be waived by contract.
The Breakdown: The German consumer files a complaint with a German consumer protection agency or a small claims court. The court completely ignores the digital society's "all sales final" rule, stating that it illegally attempts to strip a German citizen of their statutory rights. The court orders a full refund.
The Consequence: The British company has no choice but to comply or be banned from selling to German customers through payment processors. They learn that the digital society's simple commercial code provides zero protection against mandatory EU consumer law.
3. The Spanish Tenant and the Instant Eviction Clause
The Scenario: A member of a "Digital Nomads" society, who lives in Dubai, rents out their apartment in Barcelona to another member from the U.S. Their digital society rental agreement is simple: rent is due on the 1st, and if unpaid by the 5th, the agreement is terminated and the tenant must vacate. The U.S. tenant stops paying rent. The landlord gets a swift judgment from the society's court to evict them.
The National Law: Spanish property law is famously pro-tenant. Eviction is a long, formal court process that can take months or even over a year. A landlord cannot simply terminate a lease and kick a tenant out, regardless of what a contract says.
The Breakdown: To physically remove the tenant, the landlord must present their judgment to a Spanish court. The Spanish judge dismisses it out of hand. It has no legal standing. The landlord is told they must start the entire eviction process from scratch in the Spanish legal system.
The Consequence: The landlord is stuck with a non-paying tenant for a year, paying legal fees in Spain. They learn the hard way that when physical property is involved, local law is absolute. The digital contract was not worth the pixels it was written on.
Example applications
These examples come from a prior rejected system of precedents that required a litmus test, but are still interesting mental case studies to go through impacts and applications.
In all these examples, we'll assume that all the first-order effects are contained within the consenting members of the same digital society.
Scenario 1, threats
A person repeatedly sends unsolicited, derogatory and threatening private messages to another person.
Digital society rubric:
Is it a matter of deeply held values or beliefs? Yes, speech.
Is the matter intangible? Yes.
Is the matter economic? No.
Is the matter related to networks or the internet? Yes.
Can a response be organized via the internet? Somewhat.
Does the incentive structure of distributed digital governance lend itself to an honest resolution? Non-issue.
Is it a civil matter? Yes.
In this case, digital societies would take legal precedence. However, coordinating with local government in a response would be essential to protect the person in question.
Summary of physical government rubric
Skip this unless doing a legal analysis.
Physical government
Is the matter at hand tangible and physical? There is a threat of physical harm.
Does it require immediate action? It depends on how credible the threats are.
Does it demand national coordination? No.
Does the punishment need to go beyond a fine? Potentially. A restraining order might also be helpful.
Does the incentive structure of the physical government lend itself to an honest resolution? Non-issue.
Is it a criminal matter that does not pertain to deeply held values of beliefs? It does pertain to speech which is considered a deeply held value.
Scenario 2, embezzlement
An individual misappropriates business funds from a shared digital currency wallet for personal use.
Digital rubric:
Is it a matter of deeply held values or beliefs? No.
Is the matter intangible? Yes.
Is the matter economic? Yes.
Is the matter related to networks or the internet? Yes.
Can a response be organized via the internet? Mixed.
Does the incentive structure of distributed digital governance lend itself to an honest resolution? Non-issue.
Is it a civil matter? Both criminal and civil.
Physical rubric:
Is the matter at hand tangible and physical? No
Does it require immediate action? Yes
Does it demand national coordination? No
Does the punishment need to go beyond a fine? Yes.
Does the incentive structure of the physical government lend itself to an honest resolution? Not if civil forfeiture is at play.
Is it a criminal matter that does not pertain to deeply held values of beliefs? Yes.
Because the punishment goes beyond mere confiscation and might require potential jail time, depending on the amount of money embezzled, although the digital government could play a key role, it's best that a coordination of the two be made.
Scenario 3 - Domestic violence
Domestic abuse in which one partner physically harms another in front of children and both are members of the same digital society.
Is it a matter of deeply held values or beliefs? Yes. Marriage and caring for children are both closely-held ethical issues.
Is the matter at hand tangible and physical? Yes. Actual violence is taking place.
Does it require immediate action? Yes. Violent parties require separation.
Does the punishment need to go beyond a fine? Potentially.
In this case local authorities may be better equipped to deal with the immediate fallout since there is the need to investigate a crime scene locally, separate violent parties and potentially find an immediate shelter for children in danger.
However, what ultimately happens to those children, what punishments are doled out in the end to the parties in question is better protected by being organized online since it's a matter of closely-held values between consenting members and their children.
Scenario 4
A seller of an online good creates fraudulent accounts to buy and sell their own goods to make it look like the prices of their own goods are more valuable than they are.
Digital rubric:
Is it a matter of deeply held values or beliefs? No.
Is the matter intangible? Yes.
Is the matter economic? Yes.
Is the matter related to networks or the internet? Yes
Can a response be organized via the internet? Mixed.
Does the incentive structure of distributed digital governance lend itself to an honest resolution? Yes.
Is it a civil matter? Both criminal and civil.
Physical rubric:
Is the matter at hand tangible and physical? No
Does it require immediate action? No
Does it demand national coordination? No
Does the punishment need to go beyond a fine? Depends.
Does the incentive structure of the physical government lend itself to an honest resolution? Non-issue.
Is it a criminal matter that does not pertain to deeply held values of beliefs? Yes.
In this case, the digital society's rules should take precedence, because if economic regulation was done on a national level, the overlapping rules would become so enormous it would stifle people's freedom of action.
However, any punishment beyond a fine and removal from a digital society must be handled by a physical government.
Moreover, even though all these scenarios have been limited to one particular digital society, if a pattern of multiple offenses can be found that may stretch beyond the digital society, then it becomes a matter of national law.
Question reiteration
Over all the scenarios, the fundamental principle that if a matter is between two consenting members of the same digital society, the digital society's rules should take precedence stands.
However, cyber sovereignty encourages a partnership where national government does what it can do best, and digital government stands in to protect our rights and protect us from over-regulation.
If a matter has to do with regulation, that if created will hinder commerce everywhere due to the regulation overlap issue.
Would physical sovereignty infringe on an individual's freedom of action through regulation overlap?
Cyber Sovereignty is not designed for the creation of laws in digital societies regarding spaces where local authorities are better equipped to solve problems.
Better handled by physical authorities
For example, domestic abuse is likely better handled by local authorities who have resources on the ground to separate violent parties, investigate a crime scene and find an immediate shelter for children in danger.
Better handled by digital societies
A digital society is likely better at dealing with online harassment between members.