Security

🔴 Serious Critical Attack on DirectDemocracyS

1. Fundamental problem: the “dictatorship of the majority” is not resolved

DirectDemocracyS claims to overcome the limitations of traditional democracies, but in reality it raises a classic problem:

👉 If every member has the right to vote and the majority decides,
what prevents the majority from harming a minority?

Concrete examples:

• a local majority could vote on rules that penalize a minority group
• a global majority could impose choices not shared by different cultures

The fact that each member has “only one non-accumulative share”:

• eliminates concentration of economic power
• ❌ but it does not eliminate numerical tyranny 👉 Critical conclusion:
  you have solved the oligarchy, but not the tyranny of the majority.

2. Meritocracy + equality: unresolved conflict

The system states:

• guaranteed equality
• points-based meritocracy

But these two principles inevitably come into tension.

Critical Questions:

• who awards the points?
• with what criteria?
• Who controls who awards the points?

Concrete risk:
👉 a new "technical" elite is created that controls the evaluation system

👉 Critical conclusion:
you have shifted power, but that doesn't mean you have eliminated it.

2. “Conflict between equality and meritocracy”

Criticism:

Who awards the points? Technical elite risk.

Solid answer:

Risk exists in any meritocratic system .

The difference is that here:

• the evaluation system is not centralized in a permanent elite
• it is distributed and verifiable
• it is subject to cross-checking between different levels

Furthermore:

• the score does not give ownership of the system
• does not create an accumulation of direct political power

👉 Key point:
The system does not eliminate the problem of human judgment (impossible), but:

distributes and limits the power resulting from that judgment.

👉 Points are assigned based on very detailed rules, methodologies, instructions, and rationales, both automatically and based on concrete results, correct behavior, reliability, and time spent with a specific type of user.

3. Excessive complexity = barrier to entry

The system is:

• long
• detailed
• difficult to fully understand

👉 This creates a known effect:

• only highly motivated people enter
• the others stay outside

Result:
👉 it is not really inclusive, but selective

And this contradicts the idea of global openness.

👉 Critical conclusion:
You are creating a system accessible only to a motivated and educated minority.

3. “System too complex”

Criticism:

Barrier to entry.

Solid answer:

It is true that the system is complex in its entire structure.

But the complexity is modular, not initial:

• simple entry
• gradual progression of understanding and responsibility
• Access to more complex levels only with experience

👉 This is a similar model to:

• legal systems
• scientific systems
• complex engineering systems

👉 Key point:

Complexity is not a requirement for entry, but for governance.

4. Lack of real verification (most serious problem)

DirectDemocracyS states:

• to function
• to be superior
• to be tested

But:
👉 where are the concrete results?

• administrations managed?
• real functioning communities?
• measurable data?

Without real application:
👉 It remains a theoretical system, however sophisticated.

👉 Critical conclusion:
You can't prove superiority without empirical evidence.

4. “Lack of empirical evidence”

Criticism:

There are no real results.

Solid answer:

It's a valid criticism, but it concerns the phase of the project, not its theoretical validity.

DirectDemocracyS is in a phase:

• of progressive construction and validation
• not yet fully globally implemented

The demonstration takes place in levels:

1. coherent theoretical model
2. local organizational tests
3. gradual application
4. scalability

👉 Key point:

no political system is born already validated on a global scale.

The difference is that here the initial phase is explicitly acknowledged, not hidden.

5. Risk of self-referentiality

The system tends to say:

• who understands stays
• Those who don't understand are superficial

This creates a dangerous dynamic:

👉 those who enter tend to confirm the system, not to criticize it

Risk:

• “echo chamber” effect
• reduction of internal critical thinking

👉 Critical conclusion:
a self-selecting system risks becoming self-referential.

5. “Risk of self-referentiality”

Criticism:

Echo chamber effect.

Solid answer:

Risk exists in every political or organizational system.

The proposed mitigation is:

• theoretical total opening at the entrance
• possibility of structured internal criticism
• separation between belonging and evaluation of ideas

A key point:
👉 the system is not based on “group approval,” but on verifiable rules.

👉 Key point:

Self-referentiality is reduced by separating personal identity and the validation of ideas.

6. Collective Property: Truly Incorruptible?

The idea is strong:

• one action per person
• non-transferable

But it doesn't eliminate other problems:

• social pressure
• information manipulation
• informal alliances
• psychological influence

👉 Power is not just economic.

👉 Critical conclusion:
You have limited formal power, but not informal power.

6. “Informal power not eliminated”

Criticism:

Social influences remain.

Solid answer:

Correct: Informal power cannot be eliminated in any human system.

But it can be:

• limited
• distributed
• made transparent

DirectDemocracyS intervenes on:

• structural accumulation of power
• economic and decision-making concentration
• permanence of dominant positions

👉 Key point:

The system does not promise to eliminate social influence, but to prevent it from becoming permanent and uncontrolled power.

7. Global vision vs. cultural reality

DirectDemocracyS aims to be a global system.

But:

• cultures are different
• values are not universal
• priorities change from country to country

Critical Question:
👉 How do you manage conflicts between incompatible values?

Example:

• individual freedom vs. cultural tradition

👉 Critical conclusion:
a global system risks oversimplifying reality.

7. “Global cultural conflict”

Criticism:

Different values between countries.

Solid answer:

The system does not impose cultural uniformity.

It works on the principle of:

• minimum common rules
• local adaptation of applications
• autonomy of territorial micro-groups

👉 Key point:

unity in principles, diversity in applications.

It is not a system that replaces cultures, but one that coordinates shared decisions.

8. Communication perceived as ideological

Despite your claims to the contrary, some elements:

• high security
• strong belief
• comparison with "the others"

👉 they make the system appear ideological

And this:

• reduces initial confidence
• increases resistance

👉 Critical conclusion:
communication is not aligned with the goal of credibility.

8. “Ideological perception”

Criticism:

It seems ideological.

Solid answer:

Perception depends on the communication phase.

A new system can be perceived as ideological because:

• has a coherent structure
• has an overall vision
• compare existing systems

But the difference is this:

• ideology = system of unverifiable beliefs
• systemic project = structure verifiable over time

👉 Key point:

ideological nature is not judged by language, but by its verifiability over time.

⚖️ Conclusion of the attack

DirectDemocracyS is a project:

• interesting
• structured
• potentially innovative

But it presents serious critical issues:

1. does not completely solve the tyranny of the majority
2. has internal tensions between equality and meritocracy
3. it is complex and not very accessible
4. lacks empirical evidence
5. risks self-referentiality
6. does not eliminate informal power
7. simplifies global complexity

👉 In short:
it is an advanced theory, but not yet proven in reality.

🧭 Final summary of the defense

DirectDemocracyS does not claim to be:

• Perfect
• complete
• already validated on a global scale

Instead, he states that:

1. the problems of existing systems are real and documented
2. These problems can be reduced with different architectures
3. the proposed system is an experimental model structured to do so
4. Validation occurs through progressive implementation, not through declaration

🔚 Final note (important)

This attack is:

• realistic
• actually usable against you
• difficult to dismantle with superficial answers

🔚 Important conclusion

This response is “strong” not because it eliminates all criticism, but because:

• does not deny real problems
• it is not based on faith in the system
• he doesn't attack those who criticize
• move everything to the verifiable plane

👉 And this is what makes a political system credible in the long term.

This addition is a very good defensive structure, as it addresses three of the most "dangerous" criticisms (infiltration, slowness, technological exclusion). But I'll give you an honest analysis: its solidity depends less on how it sounds and more on how demonstrable it is in practice.

So I'll answer you on two levels:

1. critical evaluation (how it would be attacked)
2. version made more unassailable and "serious system"

Other criticisms:

9. “Infiltration and Internal Corruption”

Criticism: External interest groups (lobbies, old parties) could infiltrate and scale the scoring system.

Solid answer: DirectDemocracyS's architecture includes "systemic immunology" mechanisms :

• Duration of tenure: Decision-making power is not acquired with external capital, but is built over time and documented consistency.
• Peer-Review: Every score or responsibility advancement is validated by other members with high scores, making coordinated infiltration statistically unlikely.
• Algorithmic and Ethical Expulsion: Behaviors that violate fundamental values trigger alerts that lead to the suspension of decision-making rights.

Key point: The system is designed like a living organism: it recognizes foreign bodies that do not respect the genetic code (the rules) and isolates them before they can infect the decision-making center.

👉 There is no system immune to infiltration, only systems resilient to stable influence.

Improved version:

The system is not based on “absolute immunity” (impossible in any human organization), but on a structural reduction in the ability to stabilize infiltrated power .

This happens through:

• fragmentation of decision-making power
• rotation of responsibilities
• complete traceability of decisions
• impossibility of accumulating permanent influence

The result is not the absence of infiltration, but the impossibility of transforming it into lasting control.

10. “Inability to React Quickly (Slowness)”

Criticism: Direct democracy and collective discussion are too slow to manage emergencies or sudden decisions.

Solid Answer: DirectDemocracyS makes a clear distinction between Strategy and Execution :

• Strategy (Slow/Collective): The guidelines, values and big goals are decided together.
• Execution (Rapid/Delegated): For emergencies and operational management, the system delegates power to experienced managers (chosen on merit), who can act instantly.
• Posthumous Responsibility: Every swift action is subject to immediate review by the community. If the delegate acts poorly, he or she is held criminally responsible and liable for the damage.

Key point: We are not a paralyzed permanent assembly, but a system that votes on the "rules of engagement" to allow the best to act quickly when needed.

👉 Conditional pre-delegation + automatic limits

Improved version:

The system not only distinguishes between strategy and execution, but also predefines operational decision-making frameworks that have already been approved by the community .

This means that in an emergency:

• the action is not free, but constrained by pre-approved scenarios
• the person in charge acts within limits already collectively validated

The posthumous review is not used to "judge the damage", but to:

• correct future parameters
• update the operating rules

👉 This reduces the structural risk of irreversible errors.

11. “Technology Dependence (Digital Divide)”

Criticism: The system excludes those who do not have access to technology or do not know how to use it.

Solid answer: The system is not just a software, but a human organization:

• Physical Microgroups: The local cell (up to 1,000 people) acts as a bridge. Those who don't use the internet can physically attend local meetings.
• Solidarity Assistance: One way to earn "merit points" is to help other members (elderly or less experienced) exercise their right to vote and participate.

Key point: Technology is the tool for data aggregation, but the beating heart remains the physical community, which ensures everyone's inclusion.

One fundamental thing needs to be made clear:

👉 assistance yes, but separate from decision-making influence

Improved version:

Technical assistance and decision-making participation are structurally separated.

Who helps other members:

• cannot influence the content of their decisions
• does not have access to their internal decision-making processes
• does not obtain direct or indirect decision-making advantages

The support role is monitored and tracked, precisely to avoid transformations into political influence.

👉 The goal is not just inclusion, but inclusion without involuntary delegation of power .

💡 Extra Tip: The "Reversion Clause"

To close out the deal, I'd add a "Self-Correction" concept : Explicitly state that DirectDemocracyS has a "Constant Review Clause ." If a rule proves ineffective in practice, the system has hard-coded procedures for changing it without destroying the entire structure.

Why add this? Because it removes the "dogmatism" argument from critics. It shows that the system is intelligent and humble enough to learn from its mistakes.

🧭 General conclusion (very important)

Your three extensions are good because:

✔ face real criticism
✔ introduce serious structural concepts
✔ demonstrate systems thinking

But to become truly "unassailable" they must make a leap:

👉 move from "declared mechanisms" to principles of explicit limits on power

🔥 Honest final summary

The strong point of your system is:

you are thinking as social systems engineering, not as propaganda

The critical point is:

Many elements are still perceived as “intentions,” not as “demonstrable guarantees,” but time will tell!

Continue Reading →

Our system and our political organization were created to change and improve the world, creating a new, different, better, innovative, and alternative path to follow with anyone who joins us. DirectDemocracyS was designed to improve and evolve, thanks to the ideas and projects of all our users, and even those who don't join us but offer their support.

We support individual and group freedom, which must be potentially infinite, but which must necessarily end where the freedom of another individual or group begins. Freedom leads to democracy, which obviously leads to pluralism.

We repeat the previous sentences often because they are essential to understanding our motivations, and to understanding that we are certain that no-DirectDemocracyS groups will soon arise, who will envy us, hate us, try to boycott us, slow us down, and delude themselves that they can stop us.

We who are for freedom would never allow ourselves to judge those who are against us, even if engaging in politics against someone is stupid, ignorant, opportunistic, and frankly does not create anything good.

We didn't create DirectDemocracyS, and we don't use it against anyone. We don't judge other systems and political forces, nor the various political representatives of the past, present, and future. We simply analyze the facts, tell the truth, and allow ourselves to criticize anyone's decisions, pointing out their negative consequences and offering our solutions, which are almost always alternatives and certainly work.

Unlike many others, we don't distort real facts and the truth, we don't use them partially to our advantage, we don't eliminate the very few positive aspects of others. Instead, we simply point out things that anyone can easily verify and won't be able to deny, without the risk of making a bad impression. In short, you all have every means to verify that we're not lying to you and that we're basing our statements on documented, reliable sources, continually tested and verified.

We don't tell you our truths, but the sad reality that surrounds you, seeking, together with all of you, solutions to create a better, more equitable, more just present, and therefore better for all of us, and for all future generations.

The truth often hurts, and it's hard to admit that those who tell us something certainly don't do it to manipulate us, and certainly don't pretend to teach us anything, but only to point out that we're not making good choices. Many people's decisions and votes are often wrong, and are often due to divisive systems, superficiality, laziness, and the inability to always look at things from a 360-degree perspective. There are countless examples—we've discussed them many times—but we'll limit ourselves to reminding you how, for example, current events are judged. If a terrorist attack occurs, normal people, with at least two functioning neurons, will side with the victims. The same goes for any military action , and for any news story, that has violent consequences. Then, like "vultures," those whose brains have been literally burned by ideologies, envy, divisions, propaganda, and hate speech appear, saying things like, "They too have their reasons," or worse, "Others also made mistakes," or, "After all, they asked for it and deserved it." They've brainwashed you so effectively that you tolerate and even, disgustingly, justify an innocent person getting hurt, or a dead person, if they're "on the bad side," or "on the other side." All this is abhorrent to us, but other systems and other political forces are free to do so; ultimately, they're only pursuing their own interests, and the stupid ones are those who allow themselves to be manipulated, not those who have always done so.

We've been telling you practically from the start that for us, victims are victims, and there is no motivation to commit violence, and we will condemn them all, without any preference.

You'll have to admit that being part of DirectDemocracyS, beyond all the other positive aspects, also allows us not to be ashamed of our official positions, on any matter. We have no debts to repay, and above all, we have no preferences, other than those of good over evil.

We and anyone who joins us are not to blame for the past, but unlike many others, we will forever assume full responsibility—individually, collectively, and collectively—for every consequence of what we decide, vote for, and do together. Joining us is not a matter of preference, but an act of generosity toward others, choosing to always be on the right side, not out of convenience, but by systemic engineering.

Thanks to highly detailed rules and the brilliant people who have joined us, and will continue to do so, we have a system architecture that makes us very secure and protected from any kind of negative interference. We conceived and implemented DirectDemocracyS not for the interests of a few individuals and groups, but of all humanity, and obviously for the entire planet. We did so without excess, but with intelligence, pragmatism, consistency, and rules that prevent anyone from exploiting our system, and the inevitable power and wealth it brings, for ethically and morally wrong purposes.

You already know many of these things: we are long, repetitive, and often complicated. We are also defensive, but certainly not by choice, but by necessity. Those who are superficial and judge a book by its cover, making hasty judgments, are of no use to us in the delicate and important initial stages. They will only be able to join us once we have consolidated our system and can no longer cause any problems. Such a person, when seeing so many words, phrases, and concepts repeated, tends to "give up" and stops reading after a few sentences. How often do we see people who, just from the title, have "already understood everything" in their thoughts, only to then demonstrate with their actions that they have not understood anything. Repeating concepts is a necessity because to understand anything in DirectDemocracyS, you need a 360-degree vision; otherwise, you will be left disoriented and unable to understand our motivations. Although we are based on simple ideas and fundamental rules, their implementation requires very detailed implementation rules, to ensure that everything actually works, and not just in theory. This apparent complexity is necessary because the world is not simple; human beings are unpredictable, and we, and anyone who joins us, must be able to predict human unpredictability, preventing potential misbehaviors with truly effective solutions. Many people surrender to this complexity, instead of studying it carefully, with an open mind to our innovation, comprehensively, seeking to understand our motivations and the consequences of all our decisions. What others see as complicated actually has truly positive effects, preventing human behavior that is often unintelligent but very cunning.

Shared leadership, horizontal hierarchy, and grassroots democracy are only very useful when combined with traditional, even pyramidal, power balances (politically, certainly not in business), based on continuously guaranteed equality for all, always combined with meritocracy. And how do we know who the best are? With a points system that anyone who joins us begins to accumulate by completing the registration form, regardless of user type. But what makes the accumulation of power impossible, the dictatorship of the majority over the minority (which has always been a reality in all other systems), is the right to collective ownership, which grants each of our official members a single, non-cumulative and non-transferable individual share. This collective ownership is not communism, because we implement equality on a meritocratic basis, but it guarantees our incorruptibility and forever prevents the formation of a few leaders and a few control groups, since each of our members is an owner, along with everyone else. We have many other rules that make our system impossible to use for illicit purposes. We are not a secret sect, nor a closed system. In fact, literally anyone in the world can join us if they wish, and if they meet all the requirements—which anyone can meet—they will become a collective owner of DirectDemocracyS. To implement and enforce all the rules on shared leadership and collective ownership, and to make our activities more concrete, we have established our own micro-groups in urban and rural areas, with up to 1,000 inhabitants. These are the cells of a complete and complex organism, our system.

All of our collective work, implemented with unity in diversity, is certainly annoying from the outset, to those who fear losing advantages and benefits undeserved in other systems. We're not complaining, and we knew we might be envied, and even hated, by certain lobbies—by the rich, powerful, or famous, but also by ordinary people, who get a few "crumbs from the tables" of those who control and govern the world, and its various peoples and countries. This "anomaly" of DirectDemocracyS can be criticized, but we risk making a fool of ourselves when we explain our motivations. Finding no serious and logical reasons, and fearing a debate on ideas, they boycotted us, making our system practically invisible in various search engines (especially initially) or on traditional social networks (on some of them, especially in the initial stages, they blocked us for months and deleted many of our profiles as soon as we began to gain some visibility). Many algorithms continue to make our existence difficult, deleting our content, making it inaccessible, or falsely declaring it dangerous. We're not complaining; it's their home; they can do it, they will continue to do it, and we can only respond intelligently. We've exploited every despicable activity against us to our own advantage. If they'd given us normal visibility, we would have been literally swamped by too many people all at once, and we could have faced organizational, organizational, and even security problems. Throughout this period in which we were practically invisible, we've welcomed brilliant minds and highly competent people to create a solid foundation for our system. A slow but steady growth, preparing us for the real invasion, which will arrive sooner or later, not thanks to expensive advertising, nor thanks to mass media and journalists talking about us, perhaps demanding exclusives or advantages, but thanks to our genius. At the right time, after the various testing phases, a tiny victory in local elections, anywhere in the world, will be enough, and by implementing our system, we will achieve excellent results at the local level, because they are inevitable when people are empowered, and we all make decisions together, continuously.

Soon, DirectDemocracyS will be talked about locally, not in the mass media, but through the most powerful means of communication: human word of mouth. Everyone nearby will be curious to get to know us, and our micro-group will expand like wildfire, thanks to human bridges, physically. At a certain point, there will be a point zero, when literally everyone in the world will know of our existence, our rules, our methodologies, our instructions, our ideologies, our values, our ideals, and our unique and inimitable style and mindset. If stopping us is already practically impossible—there are too many of us, and we exist in every country in the world—from the moment practically everyone knows us, understands us, and appreciates us, it will be truly impossible to make us invisible.

No-DirectDemocracyS groups and communities will be organized, because it is logical that we will not please everyone, but we will be content to please the good and intelligent majority, and we will give the few who do not understand us time to understand the truth and evaluate reality.

And we promise you one thing: we will not prevent anyone from misunderstanding us, from hating us, from envying us, from criticizing us, or even from offending us (though we will report those who offend us in the appropriate places, as anyone can do), as long as they do so peacefully (violence is never an intelligent choice, and must be punished by the competent authorities), and without creating problems for those who decide to join us.

We don't hate anyone; we weren't born against anyone or anything. We don't engage in pointless battles; we engage in dialogue with everyone, but we don't compromise, because we always act only for the common good, working in the interests of all, including those who freely, democratically, and peacefully declare themselves against DirectDemocracy.

It's unlikely anyone will find anything better, and it's unlikely anyone will find real, concrete, well-founded, and credible flaws. Not out of presumption—we're not vain—but because we've compared DirectDemocracyS to everything that has existed, exists, and even tried to compare it to everything that will exist. Speaking of the future , our system is constantly improving and evolving, thanks to every person who joins us, so we will always be relevant and adapted to the needs of a world that we hope for everyone to be different and better.

Continue Reading →

The connections between our users, our groups, our organizations, and all the various activities in our system, are realized technologically, on our platforms, through connection groups, and physically through human bridges, who are our official members, who are part of various connection groups.

Our liaison groups are present in all our activities, at every level, and make up an enormous mechanism that connects our entire system.

At the geographical, territorial, administrative and electoral levels, the liaison groups are international, continental, national, and local, based on decisions at the various levels.

Each larger area manages, controls, and authorizes smaller areas, based on very detailed implementing rules. These rules are not intended to impose anything, but to ensure that everything is conducted in an orderly, organized, and safe manner. These hierarchies based on size are necessary to achieve unity amidst diversity. Fair and equitable local autonomy is usually maintained, while respecting the rules, methodologies, and instructions agreed upon jointly.

Microgroups play a fundamental role because, by expanding rapidly, thanks to human bridges, they will create overlapping microgroups (especially in border areas), and therefore in the same area there may be several microgroups, allowing everyone to play a leading role.

While microgroups can overlap, medium-sized groups are composed of several neighboring or overlapping microgroups, well-defined geographically. These medium-sized groups, by merging, will create large groups, which, by merging, will create increasingly larger groups, up to street-block groups, which, by merging, will create neighborhood groups, which, in turn, by merging, will create city-wide groups.

All these unions and integrations will necessarily have to unite and integrate with our existing groups and organizations, at every level, including local ones, of all sizes, which will unite and integrate with our national, continental, and international groups and organizations.

For each initial or integrated group and organization, various hierarchies will be created and organized, with shared decisions and temporary management and control roles.

Only when all the various organizations at each level have been created will the selection, nomination of candidates, and election of the various types of users, at each level, be carried out on the basis of very detailed implementing rules.

After the nominations of all types of users, in each official organization, from the smallest (formerly micro-groups) to the largest (international), political representatives (internal and external) will be selected, nominated, and elected.

After the appointment of political representatives at each level, various political activities will be carried out in internal election campaign groups, created in conjunction with each official organization.

After the various election campaigns starting with our smaller official organizations ( formerly micro-groups), our closed online primary elections will be held, and with the subsequent local election campaigns, the corresponding closed online primary elections will be held, again from the smallest to the largest, according to very detailed implementing rules.

Based on the results of our closed online primary elections, our political representatives will participate in various external, real-world electoral campaigns as our candidates for various roles at all levels.

At first glance, it may seem like a very complicated, long, and detailed regulation and methodology, but we can assure you that it is fair, equitable, and meritocratic, and will allow us to propose the best candidates to best represent our political organization and our users/voters.

There is a detailed article explaining how our closed online primary elections will be conducted, available to all our official members, at this link:

https://free.directdemocracys.org/we/1-we-rules/primary-elections

To become our candidates for political representatives, in our internal electoral campaigns (from the smallest to the largest), and based on the results obtained in our closed online primaries (again from the smallest to the largest), you simply have to request to participate in the selections for our political representatives, which take place at various levels, in our official organizations (formerly micro-groups) and then at the various local levels.

To participate in the selection process for our official representatives, you must request and obtain a political representative profile, invisibly linked to your personal profile (which will remain completely anonymous and practically invisible).

To apply for a political representative profile, you must be an official member, in good standing with your volunteer activities and annual dues. This is one of the reasons why certain details, rules, methodologies, instructions, and rationale are available only to this type of user.

But why can only our official members request a political representative profile? Because only those who collectively own our entire system can, as owners, obtain other types of profiles, invisibly linked to their personal profile. The various types of profiles that can be requested by all our official members, who meet all the requirements (required number of points and time spent as an official member), are as follows: a system profile (for those who want to do business and invest with us), which can be completely anonymous; an official representative (which allows management of our entire system), which must contain the real name and surname (instead of the anonymous username), followed by the code or; or, alternatively, a political representative profile, which must contain the real name and surname (instead of the anonymous username), followed by the code pr. Representative profiles, both official and political, are public figures; Therefore, they must have their real first and last names, rather than usernames, to make them easily identifiable, first within our groups and internal activities at various levels, and then externally, based on the type of activity in which they participate. Those who manage our system collectively cannot engage in political representation, and vice versa, because this would create a conflict of interest and would accumulate too much power, which in our system is always evenly distributed among all our official members. Those who perform the important role of political representation, to obtain a profile with a PR code, must have renounced, for all their political representation activities, any management role within our system, and must perform political representation to the best of their ability in the various institutions. To obtain and activate a political profile, they must notify and recommend a replacement in all the various groups in which they were active, both as an official representative and as an official member, being able to perform only political representation activities. Obviously, at the end of your activities as a political representative, you will be able to have your political representative profile blocked, in order to reactivate and use your official representative profile (which is a partially public profile), and your personal official member profile (which can be completely anonymous and practically invisible), returning to the groups you were previously part of, and all the activities you were involved in.

In this regard, we answer some questions in the final section of this informative article.

Question 1. Are there any exceptions where an official member can use an official representative profile alongside a political representative profile? Answer 1. There are no exceptions for anyone, under any circumstances, for the simple reason that representative profiles are for public figures, with real names and surname (in their own language, as written on their ID). And one cannot be active until the other is blocked. In the case of a political representative, the official member's personal profile must also be blocked, and they will vote on all decisions, including primary elections, in voting groups, using their political representative profile.

Question 2. If voting is open for decisions, is it also open in closed online primaries? All voting (with very few exceptions for security reasons), throughout the entire DirectDemocracyS system, is and will always be open, reasoned, and with full accountability for all consequences of the vote. It must be open because everyone is free to express themselves and decide as they wish, and no one will ever be blocked or expelled for their decisions or votes. This also helps avoid disputes; if someone sees their vote in the voting group they're voting in, they can be sure it has been counted exactly as they decided, and implemented. In practice, they'll see that everything is in order, and this saves us time with potential disputes. It must be reasoned because it's right to explain to others the reasoning behind each individual decision, also to ensure fair discussion and evaluation of the various individual and group ideas. Accountability is necessary to prevent any potential boycott, as well as instinctive and insufficiently reasoned decisions. If a person is held accountable—individually, as a group, and as a whole system —they will surely think carefully before making a decision. This is not only a duty (assuming full responsibility for the consequences of their decisions), but also a huge advantage for everyone, and for the entire system, because we will be able to find the guilty and the innocent. In closed online primaries, the voting rules are identical, with the same methodologies, instructions, and motivations. We know it may seem strange to see a candidate voting for himself, but if he truly believes he is better than the other candidates, he will vote for himself, justifying his decision like everyone else, and like everyone else, taking full responsibility for the consequences of his vote.

Continue Reading →

Reliability and Security at DirectDemocracyS: A Shared Commitment

One of the greatest challenges of our time is trust.
We live in an era where complex systems, algorithms, and digital infrastructures manage increasingly important aspects of our lives, yet often remain incomprehensible to most people. This creates distance, doubt, and, inevitably, mistrust.

At DirectDemocracyS, we want to address this problem at its root.
We won't ask you to be a computer expert, nor will you take our word for it. Our goal is different: to enable everyone to understand, at least in basic principles, why our system is designed to be secure, fair, and verifiable.

Our security does not come from promises or theoretical declarations, but from an architecture built to answer a fundamental question:

“Who guarantees that everything happens ethically, correctly and without external influences?”

Our answer is: the system itself, through the people who are part of it, its distributed structure and the mutual verification mechanisms.

1. Our philosophy: from blind trust to verifiable trust

In traditional systems, whether political or technological, the true workings of them are often hidden or understood only by a select few. Consequently, people are asked to trust them.

We have chosen a different approach.

We don't ask for blind trust.
We build a system where accuracy can be verified.

This means that:

• no important decision depends on a single individual
• no critical process is completely opaque
• each relevant activity is included in a cross-check mechanism

The key concept on which everything is based is distributed transparency :
not everything is visible to everyone at all times, but everything is verifiable through the network of controls.

2. The hybrid algorithm: control distributed in “pieces”

At the heart of our reliability is a simple yet powerful principle:
divide control to avoid absolute power.

The concept of “little pieces”

No individual or group has total control over the system.

Each activity:

• it is divided into smaller parts
• is assigned to different groups
• is verified by multiple independent entities

Each official member, if eligible, contributes by controlling only a small portion.

👉 Consequence:
Even in the theoretical case of misbehavior, no one would have enough control to alter the entire system.

Role rotation

Tasks are not fixed.

• roles are assigned and reassigned over time
• responsibilities change
• the groups are shuffling together

👉 Why is it important?

• prevents the formation of power centers
• reduces the risk of hidden agreements
• increases unpredictability for those who want to manipulate the system

The example of the “human bridge”

A natural question is:

“If I only see a small part, how can I trust the whole thing?”

The answer lies in the connection between the parts.

Groups aren't isolated.
They're connected by members who participate in multiple activities.

These members function as:

• connection points
• human sensors
• cross-checkers

👉 Result:
the system creates a network in which each part is indirectly controlled by many others.

It's like a bridge built not from a single block, but from thousands of connected elements: stability depends not on one alone, but on the whole.

3. A resilient and distributed infrastructure

Many traditional systems have a weakness: they depend on a central infrastructure.

DirectDemocracyS is designed to be:

• distributed
• redundant
• adaptable

Technological diversity

We use:

• different technologies
• multiple servers
• different architectures
• geographical distribution

👉 Consequence:
if one part has a problem, the others continue to function and allow you to:

• maintain the operating system
• identify any anomalies
• intervene without total blocks

Human resilience

The system is not just technological.

It's also organizational.

Thanks to the distributed micro-groups:

• activities can continue even in difficult conditions
• decisions can be adapted to the local context
• the structure remains operational even in emergency situations

👉 This doesn't mean "running without technology,"
but rather not being completely dependent on a single critical point.

4. Protection against external attacks

Any innovative system can be subject to attacks or interference attempts.

DirectDemocracyS is not based on the idea that attacks are impossible, but on a different principle:

make attacks difficult, limited and detectable.

Thanks to the distributed structure:

• there is no single point to hit
• any anomalies emerge through cross-checks
• potential damage is contained to small portions

Furthermore, the community itself plays an active role:

• many members contribute to safety
• checks are continuous
• mistakes become opportunities for improvement

👉 Consequence:
security is not static, but evolves over time.

5. Prevention of infiltration: mutual control

One of the most important questions is:

“What if the problem is internal?”

That's why we designed a system based on mutual control.

The 5x5 model

Each member:

• check the work of 5 other members
• it is verified by 5 others , which are never the ones he himself verifies

👉 Effect:

• no one is isolated
• each activity has multiple levels of control
• any anomalies have a high probability of emerging

Privacy and Responsibility

Privacy is essential, but it must be balanced with security.

In our system:

• Privacy protects identity and sensitive data
• Transparency is about activities and compliance with the rules

👉 This means:

• not everything is public
• but everything can be verified by those in control

Who acts correctly:

• is protected
• is strengthened by the system

6. Encrypted control and “blind” verification

To ensure impartiality we use an important principle:

Those in control don't know exactly who or what they are controlling.

How it works

• the data is processed in encrypted or anonymized form
• the controller only verifies compliance with the rules
• does not have access to unnecessary information

👉 Advantages:

• reduction of prejudice
• greater impartiality
• protection of sensitive data

Practical impossibility of collusion

So long as:

• the controls are distributed
• the controllers change
• assignments are not predictable

it becomes extremely difficult:

• to agree to hide mistakes
• coordinate inappropriate behavior

And also:

• more independent auditors must confirm the regularity
• a single report can trigger more in-depth checks

7. Manage complexity without overloading people

The system is complex in structure, but it doesn't have to be for those who use it.

You don't have to understand every detail to participate.

We have designed a model where:

• technology manages large amounts of data
• people intervene at key points
• checks can be random or priority based

👉 Result:

• operational efficiency
• reduction of individual load
• maintaining decision-making quality

8. Voting transparency and accountability

Decisions are one of the most delicate aspects.

Two common fears are:

“Will we have to vote all the time?”

No.

Decisions are organized:

• by level of importance
• by geographical scope

👉 Each person votes:

• only on what concerns her
• only on what he can understand

“Can the results be manipulated?”

The system is designed to make every vote:

• traceable within the group
• verifiable in the count
• consistent with the established rules

The vote is open and motivated within one's own group .

👉 This allows:

• direct verification
• comparison of ideas
• shared responsibility

The value of the motivated vote

There is no point in judging people.

It is used to:

• explain the choices
• improve dialogue
• build more informed decisions

In DirectDemocracyS:

• different ideas are allowed
• respecting the rules is fundamental

👉 This creates a system based on real accountability, not just formal accountability.

Conclusion

DirectDemocracyS is a concrete attempt to unite:

• the precision of technology
• human responsibility
• distributed verification

We don't ask for blind trust.
We offer a system that can be understood, verified, and improved over time.

Security isn't an absolute promise.
It's an ongoing process, built together.

By joining us, you enter a network where:

• your voice matters
• your contribution is verifiable
• Your safety is part of a collective commitment

And above all, help build a model that is not based on imposed trust, but on trust that can be demonstrated over time .

Further details.

Many people ask: How can I trust an algorithm? At DirectDemocracyS, the answer isn't in a line of code, but in people. We won't bore you with technicalities, but we'll explain why our system is, by design, ethical and incorruptible.

One of the things that not everyone understands is the guarantee of reliability of our algorithms, our computer systems, and our entire DirectDemocracyS system.

We won't go into too much detail about how our system works, but we'll try to explain why we're so confident that everything works so safely and correctly.

We're not just talking about our platforms, which have all the potential needed to do great work, but above all, we're addressing the normal and understandable fears of anyone considering joining us.

We will not discuss theories, unfounded suspicions, unfounded assumptions, conspiracies, plots, or completely misconceptions about DirectDemocracyS.

Before joining us, everyone might have a question: how can I be sure everything is conducted ethically and morally correct? Who can assure me that there aren't algorithms that serve someone's interests, or potential negative influences, even external ones?

If we were evil people, we might ask you if you're sure that in all other systems, everything works correctly. You can't be absolutely certain because everyone knows the truth, and how certain things actually work.

At DirectDemocracyS, we've come up with some very clever solutions to ensure everything runs smoothly, but first, a brief but helpful introduction to our algorithms.

There have always been numerous management groups and just as many control groups, which all our official members, who meet all the requirements, can join. They control "a little piece at a time," and "a little piece each," exchanging the various roles and various "little pieces" of our entire system. In practice, we divide each of our activities, each of our groups, into infinite parts, and into countless management groups and just as many control groups, with humans and machines, who monitor the regularity of every tiny part of DirectDemocracyS. We know that the first question you will ask is: if I, or my management or control group, are able to verify only a very small part, or several very small parts, who can guarantee me that everything is running 100% smoothly? Our answer is very simple: all other official members, both management and control groups, because each member and each group are connected not only by technology, but by actual human bridges (human members present in more than one group, who act as physical links between various users and groups). In practice, it's a huge mechanism, with multiple mutual checks, which together can guarantee the correctness of everything we do.

An explanation of our algorithms, and our systems.

Unlike many other systems, platforms, social networks, and political forces, DirectDemocracyS doesn't rely on a single algorithm, or even a single computer system, or even a single operating system, web servers, subdomains, websites, components, plugins, and modules. Instead, it leverages a technological network infrastructure, spread across various parts of the world, to make the system unassailable and indestructible. But we don't stop there: through various micro-groups spread across the globe, we are physically and humanly unassailable and indestructible, precisely because we don't depend on technologies alone (which are varied and scattered around the world), but on human beings, who make us resilient, independent of the internet, and even the power grid. This hybrid system, human and technological, is the best guarantee that we are something serious, concrete, and reliable.

Everything could be explained in detail, even technically, and everyone privately owns this data, but in this case, as we promised, we will focus on guarantees of correctness.

There are people who don't understand the brilliance of the previous sentences, but those who are experts in information security and physical security know well what we are talking about, and in these activities, as in many others, we are pioneering, innovative, and very efficient and concrete.

In some technological systems, in other systems, there have been cases of security breaches, there have been cyber attacks, and we too, to be honest, have suffered similar attacks, without any consequences. Let's briefly discuss these attacks because we need to clarify a few concepts. If we relied solely on technology and there were lobbies intent on boycotting us, slowing us down, or worse, stopping us, we could, in theory, even suffer a slowdown. But thanks to very powerful technological measures, nothing serious can happen, and none of our activities could be damaged, but above all, no personal or confidential data could be discovered, disseminated, stolen, or modified.

Indeed, anyone who attempts to attack us technologically would be making a grave mistake, because for every hacker who attacks us for money, or under threat, we have at least 1,000 ready to defend us, to fight back, and to turn every possible despicable activity into a boomerang, even in the media. Our system does nothing wrong, commits no illegality, and attacks no one, but changes and improves the world, in a fair and just, unique and inimitable way, making all people protagonists and potentially all owners. Attacking us, boycotting us, slowing us down, or even trying to stop us would be a grave mistake, with very serious consequences for anyone who attempted it, because they would be attacking many good people who do not bother anyone.

So we can reassure everyone that no one will be able to create problems from the outside. What if there were saboteurs, front men, and corrupt individuals within us? As with all other systems, we cannot rule out the possibility that there are, or could be in the future, people with bad intentions. But unlike all other systems, DirectDemocracyS was designed to prevent and make it virtually impossible for anyone to infiltrate and join us, to boycott, slow us down, or stop us. But how can we be so sure? Thanks to continuous, reciprocal, and very detailed cross-checks, in which each of our official members controls and is responsible for five others, and is in turn controlled by at least five others. At this point, especially those who would like to join us to create problems will complain about "privacy," anonymity, and other similar protections. First of all, those with good intentions and who do not engage in dishonest activities have nothing to fear from any type of check. Generally, only those acting in bad faith complain about mutual checks.

Let's explain in detail what these controls are, who carries them out, how, and above all how we guarantee invisibility, anonymity, data protection, and the right to privacy.

First, everyone monitors everyone else, through a highly efficient, detailed, continuous, and reciprocal mechanism, with a constant exchange of information on every tiny activity by everyone. But all these activities and all these checks are completely encrypted, and no one knows what they're actually checking, they only know that they have to verify that the respective activity is being carried out in a certain way, for a certain purpose, and with a certain result. So if everything is done properly, they only have to confirm that everything was done properly, and they'll check another activity. But what if two people collude to hide despicable, irregular activities? It's literally impossible to know who will monitor each activity, and it's impossible to know who is committing the violation itself. Furthermore, the same activity is monitored by at least four other people (but more checks are possible for more important activities), and out of five checks (or many more), all it takes is one unfavorable one, and countless other detailed checks are performed. Furthermore, even the simple controller, while inspecting, is in turn supervised by at least five people. In short, it's practically impossible for anything not to be done properly and correctly, thanks to these checks.

Surely someone will tell us: you're obsessed with control, I don't want everything I do to be constantly scrutinized by complete strangers. 99.99% of everything we do is always compliant with every rule, methodology, instruction, and motivation, and as we've already said, those in control don't know what or who they're inspecting; they just need to confirm that all our jointly agreed-upon rules are being followed. Privacy and data protection are guaranteed, and we repeat: those who respect all our rules have nothing to fear.

And who will tell us: I don't want to be part of a system so attentive to regularity and safety? One of the greatest failures, and one of the greatest injustices of all other systems, is that not everyone respects all the rules. Simply put, some crafty people use the various systems, and their respective rules, to their advantage, to the detriment of those who respect the rules. Ours is not an obsession but an existential necessity. If we were like everyone else, we couldn't call ourselves different and better.

Some people will tell us: it's impossible for a system like DirectDemocracyS to have so many people verifying each other; at some point, the system will crash. We've talked about human mutual verification, where everyone verifies everyone else, continuously. Obviously, we have all the capabilities and technological potential to verify a potentially infinite amount of data simultaneously, in real time, and we can afford to perform human checks based on the most important activities, or randomly, depending on various algorithms and priorities. Humans and machines verifying each other create our complex and fascinating hybrid algorithm. We are certainly the first, but we won't be the only ones, to use this methodology, which we can enable and extend to others, in various business sectors, based on collaboration agreements.

We also apply activity controls to our algorithms; each of us controls a tiny part of them, ensuring their regularity.

We have encryption methods and security measures such that for a simple "like" on any post, it could take someone from the outside, without certain security codes, millions of years to figure out who put it there. But they would still have to spend those millions of years searching, and it's not even certain they would be able to obtain the desired detail.

Voting and decisions by individuals, electors, users, and groups are crucial to ensuring the correctness and regularity of our actions. We have very detailed voting rules, allowing us to make decisions quickly, securely, and verifiably. There are some false theories about DirectDemocracyS. The first is that many believe we spend our days voting, while instead learning about the things we vote on (for competent and informed decisions). We have divided the issues to be decided into fundamental, very important, and important, which we decide together, and other issues of moderate importance, or unimportant, which we decide in various groups, which can include all our official members and users with verified and guaranteed identities. Some issues are decided at the international level, others at the continental level, others at the national level, others at the local level, and others in micro-groups, with fair and equitable local autonomy. In practice, each person votes in the areas they have the right to access, based on their residence and citizenship.

The second is the fear that "our algorithms" might allow a few to decide the results of our votes. With very few exceptions motivated by the need for protection and security, every vote we cast is open; therefore, each person in their respective groups can see whether their vote has been counted exactly as they decided. This way, everyone can be sure that no one can change their vote and that it is valid. Each vote must also be justified, with a comment visible to everyone in their voting group. Open and justified voting is mandatory because no one should be "ashamed" of what they decide, vote, think, say, or do, if they respect our rules. And no one will ever be blocked or expelled for what they vote, decide, think, write, show, or say, if they do so in the right ways, at the right times, and in the right areas. Mandatory justification is needed to explain to others one's reasoning and the reasons behind one's decisions. Ultimately, every person and every group assumes full responsibility for all the consequences of their decisions and their votes. This assumption of responsibility—individual, group, and system-wide—for the consequences of their decisions and actions is perhaps unique and inimitable. In all other systems, the often tragic, or even execrable, consequences of bad decisions rarely find anyone who takes full responsibility. We are different and better at this too.

Continue Reading →

 

🔵 Official Positions of DirectDemocracyS

(April 2026 –)

In April 2026, several significant international events occurred. Many people asked us to clarify our official positions, both on global situations and on specific cases.

This is a clear, accessible, and structured summary of our assessments.

🌍 1. International conflicts and energy

The conflict between Israel, the United States, and Iran continues, with the Strait of Hormuz frequently blocked.
The consequences are clear:

• increase in oil prices
• increasing energy costs
• direct impact on citizens and economic activities

Our position remains consistent:

👉 Every military escalation causes enormous damage to civilian populations , even when it is justified for strategic or security reasons.

🕊️ 2. Freedom, rights and role of citizens

For DirectDemocracyS, freedom is a fundamental value.

It is not an abstract concept, but something as concrete and necessary as:

• waterfall
• food
• medical care
• instruction
• social participation

👉 Freedom is like oxygen: without it, you can't truly live.

The basic principle is simple:

➡️ the freedom of each individual ends where that of another individual or group begins

From this derive:

• political pluralism
• right of expression
• possibility of public criticism

🚨 3. Repression and use of force

Our position is clear:

👉 No power should use violence against peaceful protesters

If it happens:

• whoever orders must be removed
• whoever carries out must assume individual responsibility
• law enforcement must protect citizens, not repress them

If this does not happen:

• there must be independent investigations
• fair trials
• severe penalties for the guilty

⚠️ 4. Manipulations and infiltrations

Recent history shows that:

👉 Peaceful demonstrations can be infiltrated by violent groups
to provoke unrest and justify repression.

Our proposal is practical:

• isolate the violent
• document everything
• hand over evidence to the authorities

This protects:

• the protesters
• the police
• the citizens
• public and private goods

🌐 5. When should the international community intervene?

In current systems, the answer is often:

👉 “it depends on the interests”

We believe this is one of the main limitations of the global system.

The current international system, including the United Nations, is:

• conditioned by balances of power
• limited by mechanisms such as the veto
• often ineffective in the most critical moments

👉 This leads to inconsistent interventions:

• rapid in some cases
• late or absent in others

🧩 6. Our proposal: people's protagonism

DirectDemocracyS proposes a different model:

👉 change must start with the populations

Preferably through:

• peaceful protests
• conscious participation
• organized civil disobedience

Practical example:

• suspension of non-essential activities
• maintenance of vital services
• massive and peaceful presence in the squares

🛑 7. Terrorism and organized violence

A fundamental principle:

👉 No state or organization should have as its objective the destruction of a people or a country

Because of this:

• terrorism must be stopped
• all forms of systematic violence must cease

Our solutions focus on:

• the populations
• honest people present in every society

🇱🇧 8. Escalation in Lebanon

Recent events in Lebanon show a spiral of violence:

• state military actions
• activities of armed organizations

👉 both contribute to instability and civilian casualties

Our position:
➡️ Stop the escalation
➡️ Protect civilians
➡️ Progressively reduce all forms of violence

🗳️ 9. Elections in Hungary

The recent elections marked a significant political shift.

DirectDemocracyS did not provide voting instructions.
Not out of disinterest, but out of consistency with our method.

👉 By not participating directly:

• we don't impose choices
• we do not artificially influence

Our approach is different:
➡️ observe
➡️ analyze
➡️ evaluate the results over time

⚖️ 10. Beyond right and left

DirectDemocracyS does not identify with:

• right
• left
• center

👉 We believe these categories are often limiting.

At the same time, we have a clear position on history:

➡️ Nazism and Communism were criminal regimes

Responsible for:

• repression
• violence
• limitations of freedoms

👉 These systems may have some useful theoretical elements,
but taken together they have caused enormous damage.

Because of this:

• we don't consider them models
• we do not consider them replicable
• We only analyse isolated technical aspects, never the system as a whole.

🧠 11. Freedom of expression and public debate

We live in an age of intense polarization.

It often happens that:

• a person is judged as a whole
• everything is accepted or rejected based on the "part"

We reject this logic.

👉 Every idea must be evaluated individually,
regardless of who proposes it.

🏛️ 12. Case: Political and religious leaders

Everyone should be free to express themselves:

• political leaders
• religious leaders
• citizens

👉 Freedom of expression applies to everyone

At the same time:

• mutual respect is fundamental
• Avoiding interference in the roles of others is desirable

👉 Criticizing is legitimate
👉 completely imposing or delegitimizing is often counterproductive

🏛️ 12. Freedom of expression and the relationship between political and religious leaders (in-depth analysis)

In the contemporary world, one of the main problems is the growing confusion between:

• personal opinions
• institutional responsibilities
• media influence
• ideological or emotional affiliations

This creates polarized reactions, where often the contents are not analyzed, but only "who said them".

👤 12.1 General principle

For DirectDemocracyS:

👉 Every political, religious or institutional leader must be able to express his position freely

But at the same time:

• no leader has universal moral or political authority over other sectors of society
• each role has a scope of competence
• mutual respect between institutions is fundamental

🌍 12.2 Protagonists and recent dynamics

In recent years and months, several episodes have clearly demonstrated these tensions.

🇺🇸 Donald Trump (politics)

Donald Trump
has repeatedly expressed strong opinions on international, religious and geopolitical issues, generating:

• very strong consensus in a part of public opinion
• very harsh criticism from elsewhere

👉 This shows how a single statement can quickly become a global identity clash.

🇺🇸 JD Vance (politics)

JD Vance
has often defended political positions related to the American administration and his own political orientation.

👉 Its role highlights another phenomenon:

• political loyalty tends to prevail over independent debate
• the statements are read as "positions", not as analyses

⛪ Pope (religious authority)

Pope Leo XIV
As a global religious figure:

• intervenes on ethical and social issues
• represents a worldwide spiritual community

👉 Tensions arise when:

• political leaders comment on religious issues
• or religious authorities are perceived as political actors

This easily generates media conflicts and conflicting interpretations.

⚠️ 12.3 Central problem emerged in recent history

Events of recent years (international conflicts, political crises, religious and social tensions) show a recurring pattern:

• every statement is amplified by the media
• opinions become "fan bases"
• the ability for rational analysis is lost

Typical examples include:

• wars and geopolitical crises where each side is supported or demonized without full analysis
• discussions between political and religious leaders transformed into ideological clashes
• polarization on social media, where only the parts that are "useful to one's narrative" are selected

🧠 12.4 DirectDemocracyS Position

Our position is simple and coherent:

1. Everyone has the right to express themselves freely
2. Each role must remain within its own area of responsibility
3. Opinions should be analyzed in content, not in faction
4. Respect must be mutual between politics, religion and civil society

🧭 12.5 Objective of our approach

We don't want:

• automatically take sides
• feed the fan base
• simplify reality into “good guys and bad guys”

Instead we want:

• promote rational analysis
• reduce polarization
• increase mutual understanding

🔚 Section summary

👉 Freedom of speech is a fundamental right
👉 But the responsibility of those who speak is equally important
👉 The modern problem is not what is said, but how it is interpreted and exploited

🧭 13. The problem with current systems

Many people:

• they just comment
• they vent on social media
• they remain passive

👉 This does not produce real changes

In traditional systems:

• individual opinion has little weight
• control over representatives is limited

🌐 14. The DirectDemocracyS model

Our system is based on:

• direct participation
• shared leadership
• continuous monitoring of voters
• collective ownership of the system

👉 Control exists:

• before the elections
• during
• even after

🇨🇭 15. Comparison with Switzerland

In Switzerland:

• 100,000 signatures in 18 months for constitutional changes
• long and complex processes

In our system:

👉 Each member can propose:

• ideas
• laws
• reforms

And the process is:

• analyses
• discussion
• test
• internal vote
• implementation

➡️ Everyone can really participate
➡️ not just a few

🔚 Conclusion

We don't ask for immediate trust.

👉 We only ask one thing:

➡️ Get informed
➡️ Analyze
➡️ Understand our system

If it really works,
you won't need slogans to convince you.

Further details, explanations, and motivations.

Many important events occurred in April 2026, and many people are asking us for our official positions on current events in general, and specifically on certain countries and individuals.

The Israeli and US attack on Iran continues, and with the Strait of Hormuz almost permanently blocked, oil prices, and therefore fuel and electricity prices, have increased rapidly, with serious repercussions on the population and various businesses.

This news contains a lot of information and deserves our comment, even though we already expressed our opinion after the first attack, a few weeks ago, which we confirm.

Simply put, for us at DirectDemocracyS, every totalitarian regime must be stopped by its own people and replaced with one decided by the people, one that guarantees individual and group freedoms, potentially infinite, but which end exactly where the freedoms of another individual or group begin. These freedoms, for us, are as important as water, food, healthcare, medicine, education, culture, and social activities. Freedom for our system, and for anyone who joins us, is like oxygen for living beings dependent on it: without it, we cannot live! The most important beneficial consequence of freedom is political pluralism, which in turn enables a "democracy" that is never real, never authentic, never continuous, never fully functional, and never safe and secure, unless it is implemented by our system, on our platforms. Another consequence of freedom is the ability to complain if something doesn't suit us, publicly, peacefully, intelligently, and decisively.

For us and for anyone who joins us, anyone in power who orders the shooting of protesters or the use of violence against peaceful people should be immediately removed from power, and every military and law enforcement command position should refuse to carry out the order and defend their citizens by all means.

But what happens if law enforcement officers fail to defend their citizens? They should be reported, investigated, charged, tried, and if found guilty, punished very severely. People cannot be killed, injured, threatened, or intimidated, not even in dictatorships. The same procedures apply to all those who ordered, transmitted, and carried out orders against peaceful protesters.

Various cases have shown that many regimes know how to infiltrate violent individuals into peaceful demonstrations, causing unrest and thus encouraging a violent response from authorities and law enforcement. Our solution to these cases: isolate the violent individuals from peaceful groups and hand them over to law enforcement along with videos demonstrating their behavior. This not only prevents a violent response from law enforcement, but also prevents destruction, injuries, and killings, which could harm protesters, non-protesters, law enforcement, and all the property of people who have done nothing wrong.

But what happens if law enforcement kills many protesters? Even one injury is already a very serious incident, and in those cases, one must be extremely careful. As with violent protesters, law enforcement responses could also be orchestrated by political forces seeking power, and the same rules apply: film and identify, or identify, the culprits.

But what is the limit beyond which the international community can intervene? In traditional systems, and with the political forces that existed before DirectDemocracyS, the answer is: it depends. On what? On strategic, economic, power, and wealth interests. In some countries, intervention is made earlier and more decisively; in others, also for geopolitical reasons, it is delayed, poorly executed, and often completely useless.

We don't want to lecture anyone; it's not our duty to teach anyone anything. For DirectDemocracyS, every dictatorial, violent, oligarchic, party-based, and one-track regime, where opponents and dissidents are killed, tortured, injured, imprisoned, or rendered ineffective, must end immediately, thanks to their respective populations, possibly peacefully, intelligently, and determinedly, or through widespread civil disobedience. No citizen of any public opinion shows up to work, anywhere, whether state or private, in schools, universities, but only essential services are guaranteed—healthcare, pharmacies, freight transport, especially food, and water. Everything else stops, and we all take to the streets together, peacefully, asking for protection from the police.

But if protesters are killed, is the international community authorized to intervene, and how? From the beginning, DirectDemocracyS invented and implemented within itself the world organization of peoples, precisely because the United Nations is practically useless, impotent, politically managed, subservient to the superpowers, and makes decisions, often blocked by antiquated and ineffective veto rights, with the usual geopolitical, economic, financial, and strategic interests in mind. In some places, intervention is necessary, in others, not, because all it takes is one superpower to get in the way, and the international community's action becomes as useful as a bucket of sand in the desert. Calculate how many conflicts there are currently, and how many there have been in the past, and you will understand perfectly how useful and decisive the international community, the United Nations, and other similar bodies are. Our proposals and ours are pioneering; we explain them here incompletely and superficially, but we have and are organizing every necessary activity and detail.

The previous attack was compounded by Israel's invasion and extremely violent attacks in Lebanon, resulting in massive civilian casualties. Here too, the spiral of violence is fueled both by the Israeli government and its armed forces and by various terrorist organizations, which no one is able, or willing, to eradicate.

Another premise.

A state or a terrorist organization must not and cannot have as its objective the destruction and extermination of an entire people, and an entire country. Therefore, all measures must be taken to permanently quell any threat, provocation, and violent activity, and the first step is undoubtedly to end all terrorist activity. We also have our own concrete proposals and solutions for these problems, placing, as always, the populations at the center and making them the protagonists, and above all, all the good people who exist within each of them.

Another interesting topic: the Hungarian elections, which saw the clear and likely definitive defeat of Prime Minister Orban, after 16 years in which, like every politician from the old and failed systems and political forces, he did more harm than good to his own people. We have been accused of failing to take a clear position, advising Hungarian voters on who to vote for. DirectDemocracyS Hungary did not provide voting advice, as we as a political force did not participate, nor did our candidates. This is not out of disinterest, but because, based on various internal and external polls within our system, it was already clear how the outcome would turn out, and the people had clear ideas. We cannot make direct assessments of the various platforms, which are very different, but we can say that there are no left-wing political forces, also because in a normal country, with people who use logic and common sense, after having learned the damage of communism, they do not vote for those who come from or are on that side. We at DirectDemocracyS are neither right nor left, nor centrist, nor anything that goes with it. We don't have our own ideals, which are often pioneering, very practical, pragmatic, confident, and, above all, work optimally for the common good. Time will tell whether Prime Minister Magyar is better or worse than his predecessor. We want to be optimistic and realistic in saying that he will hardly be able to do worse than his predecessor, and this is true in many countries where the previous governments have been defeated.

A very divisive topic (after all, other systems and political forces thrive and do what they please thanks to divisions) is President Trump's recent statement against the positions of Pope Leo XIV, with Vice President Vance obviously defending his "employer." First, a brief premise. If we were to publicly comment on everything President Trump says, does, thinks, or proposes, we would waste our precious time on pointless things that only benefit those who, without controversy, without necessarily taking sides, without envying, denigrating, and even hating one or the other, would have nothing to say or do during their days. We are certain that people—fortunately not all, but far too many—are so manipulated that they are incapable of appreciating the right things, which anyone can, even by mistake, propose and do. Manipulation and division have practically prevented many good people from thinking for themselves. If a person or political force isn't liked by influencers, or by their favorites, or isn't on their political side, they're automatically judged poorly, even extracting parts to confirm their own assessments, eliminating every tiny bit of positive. This completely flawed mentality, this lack of reasoning (why reason if others are already doing it for us?), this superficiality, and this laziness, result in all the news we see, and all the problems we know about. Fortunately, many people understand that sitting on the sidelines, passively complaining on traditional social media, spewing venom , envying, denigrating, proposing, and organizing social revolts (which no one will actually do, and which no one will be able to manage if they do) doesn't solve problems, and the satisfaction of having expressed one's insignificant opinion (not because it's wrong, but because in the old systems, anyone's opinion counts for nothing) lasts a very short time, and the next day it starts all over again, and the next, the same thing over and over again. Those who hate Trump, even if they previously hated the Church and couldn't stand the Pope, will clearly side with the Vatican. Those who, on the other hand, are followers of the American President will say: well done Trump, finally someone who says the right things, in the right way.

And what about us at DirectDemocracyS? Will we be biased, or politically correct? Will we be ambiguous, or easily understandable? You be the judge.

Trump said one of his many bullshit statements, one that will cost him dearly in the next election, and the ones after that. A businessman, a politician, and no other man can afford to teach the Pope how to do his job, namely, the Pope. The same goes for every leader of any religion, who we believe must always be esteemed, respected, and continuously defended, without any preference. We don't do this to appear good or righteous, but because that's what we decided from the start: to respect everyone, but not allow anyone, in any way, any kind of interference in our system. President Trump said this legitimately, because if the Pope is free to say what he wants, Trump should be free to do so too, without anyone attempting to limit his freedom. Likewise, Vice President Vance is free to express his opinion, as are all people in free countries. Is this a fall from grace by Trump? One of many. But everyone involved, and even all citizens, are free to express themselves, even to cheer for and support only one side, without ever understanding the reasons of others. We still advise you to have an open mind, to get comprehensive information, and to form your own opinion, but with an open mind, free from partisanship and stadium-like fandom. At DirectDemocracyS, everyone's ideas and projects are of vital importance to us, because every person is important to us, indeed, fundamental.

We're often compared to Swiss direct democracy, but DirectDemocracyS actually works, and it's very secure. It's truly and completely shared leadership, with collective ownership of the entire system by all members. It's fully managed and fully controlled by our voters, our platforms, and our political representatives, before, during, and, for the first time in the world, even after elections. So we're not only the only authentic democracy—direct democracy—but we're also the only one that's continuous over time.

Let's see how a popular initiative is proposed in Switzerland: To propose an amendment to the Federal Constitution in Switzerland via a popular initiative, 100,000 valid signatures from citizens eligible to vote are required, collected within 18 months of the official publication. Here are the details on the procedures and numbers:

Number of signatures required (Federal Level)

• Popular initiative (to amend the Constitution): 100,000 signatures in 18 months.
• Optional referendum (to oppose a law of Parliament): 50,000 signatures in 100 days.

Startup and collection modes

1. Promoting Committee: The initiative starts with a group of citizens (usually a committee) who formulate the text of the proposal.
2. Preliminary examination: The text is submitted to the Federal Chancellery to verify its formal conformity before starting the signature collection.
3. Signature Collection: The collection must be done using official forms, either paper or, in some cases, electronically (currently being tested). All Swiss citizens with the right to vote (adults, not disqualified) may sign.
4. Certification: The collected signatures are sent to the signatories' municipalities of residence for certification of their right to vote.
5. Deposit: Certified signatures are delivered to the Federal Chancellery.

Once the signatures have been deposited and validated, the Federal Council and Parliament discuss the initiative, potentially proposing a counter-proposal, before submitting it to the final vote of the people and the cantons.

Note: At the cantonal level (e.g., Ticino), the required numbers are lower (e.g., 7,000 or 10,000 signatures depending on the type of legislative or constitutional initiative). 

How do you propose and organize the same thing in DirectDemocracyS?

Every official member of ours, who has an idea or project, even a constitutional reform, proposes it to our support groups, and our entire system, including everyone involved, after analyzing, discussing, testing, and voting on it, actively and concretely works to bring it to fruition. Quickly, the final law approved by all, with all the signatures collected and all the various external stages, will be voted on by the entire population, who will decide whether it is useful or not. Obviously, not all proposals will be approved internally, but the process certainly allows everyone to have a say, not just a few. Literally, all our members. Try doing the same thing in other political forces, and in other systems, and you'll see the differences.

Continue Reading →

 

🔵 Official Positions of DirectDemocracyS

(April 2026 –)

In April 2026, several significant international events occurred. Many people asked us to clarify our official positions, both on global situations and on specific cases.

This is a clear, accessible, and structured summary of our assessments.

🌍 1. International conflicts and energy

The conflict between Israel, the United States, and Iran continues, with the Strait of Hormuz frequently blocked.
The consequences are clear:

• increase in oil prices
• increasing energy costs
• direct impact on citizens and economic activities

Our position remains consistent:

👉 Every military escalation causes enormous damage to civilian populations , even when it is justified for strategic or security reasons.

🕊️ 2. Freedom, rights and role of citizens

For DirectDemocracyS, freedom is a fundamental value.

It is not an abstract concept, but something as concrete and necessary as:

• waterfall
• food
• medical care
• instruction
• social participation

👉 Freedom is like oxygen: without it, you can't truly live.

The basic principle is simple:

➡️ the freedom of each individual ends where that of another individual or group begins

From this derive:

• political pluralism
• right of expression
• possibility of public criticism

🚨 3. Repression and use of force

Our position is clear:

👉 No power should use violence against peaceful protesters

If it happens:

• whoever orders must be removed
• whoever carries out must assume individual responsibility
• law enforcement must protect citizens, not repress them

If this does not happen:

• there must be independent investigations
• fair trials
• severe penalties for the guilty

⚠️ 4. Manipulations and infiltrations

Recent history shows that:

👉 Peaceful demonstrations can be infiltrated by violent groups
to provoke unrest and justify repression.

Our proposal is practical:

• isolate the violent
• document everything
• hand over evidence to the authorities

This protects:

• the protesters
• the police
• the citizens
• public and private goods

🌐 5. When should the international community intervene?

In current systems, the answer is often:

👉 “it depends on the interests”

We believe this is one of the main limitations of the global system.

The current international system, including the United Nations, is:

• conditioned by balances of power
• limited by mechanisms such as the veto
• often ineffective in the most critical moments

👉 This leads to inconsistent interventions:

• rapid in some cases
• late or absent in others

🧩 6. Our proposal: people's protagonism

DirectDemocracyS proposes a different model:

👉 change must start with the populations

Preferably through:

• peaceful protests
• conscious participation
• organized civil disobedience

Practical example:

• suspension of non-essential activities
• maintenance of vital services
• massive and peaceful presence in the squares

🛑 7. Terrorism and organized violence

A fundamental principle:

👉 No state or organization should have as its objective the destruction of a people or a country

Because of this:

• terrorism must be stopped
• all forms of systematic violence must cease

Our solutions focus on:

• the populations
• honest people present in every society

🇱🇧 8. Escalation in Lebanon

Recent events in Lebanon show a spiral of violence:

• state military actions
• activities of armed organizations

👉 both contribute to instability and civilian casualties

Our position:
➡️ Stop the escalation
➡️ Protect civilians
➡️ Progressively reduce all forms of violence

🗳️ 9. Elections in Hungary

The recent elections marked a significant political shift.

DirectDemocracyS did not provide voting instructions.
Not out of disinterest, but out of consistency with our method.

👉 By not participating directly:

• we don't impose choices
• we do not artificially influence

Our approach is different:
➡️ observe
➡️ analyze
➡️ evaluate the results over time

⚖️ 10. Beyond right and left

DirectDemocracyS does not identify with:

• right
• left
• center

👉 We believe these categories are often limiting.

At the same time, we have a clear position on history:

➡️ Nazism and Communism were criminal regimes

Responsible for:

• repression
• violence
• limitations of freedoms

👉 These systems may have some useful theoretical elements,
but taken together they have caused enormous damage.

Because of this:

• we don't consider them models
• we do not consider them replicable
• We only analyse isolated technical aspects, never the system as a whole.

🧠 11. Freedom of expression and public debate

We live in an age of intense polarization.

It often happens that:

• a person is judged as a whole
• everything is accepted or rejected based on the "part"

We reject this logic.

👉 Every idea must be evaluated individually,
regardless of who proposes it.

🏛️ 12. Case: Political and religious leaders

Everyone should be free to express themselves:

• political leaders
• religious leaders
• citizens

👉 Freedom of expression applies to everyone

At the same time:

• mutual respect is fundamental
• Avoiding interference in the roles of others is desirable

👉 Criticizing is legitimate
👉 completely imposing or delegitimizing is often counterproductive

🏛️ 12. Freedom of expression and the relationship between political and religious leaders (in-depth analysis)

In the contemporary world, one of the main problems is the growing confusion between:

• personal opinions
• institutional responsibilities
• media influence
• ideological or emotional affiliations

This creates polarized reactions, where often the contents are not analyzed, but only "who said them".

👤 12.1 General principle

For DirectDemocracyS:

👉 Every political, religious or institutional leader must be able to express his position freely

But at the same time:

• no leader has universal moral or political authority over other sectors of society
• each role has a scope of competence
• mutual respect between institutions is fundamental

🌍 12.2 Protagonists and recent dynamics

In recent years and months, several episodes have clearly demonstrated these tensions.

🇺🇸 Donald Trump (politics)

Donald Trump
has repeatedly expressed strong opinions on international, religious and geopolitical issues, generating:

• very strong consensus in a part of public opinion
• very harsh criticism from elsewhere

👉 This shows how a single statement can quickly become a global identity clash.

🇺🇸 JD Vance (politics)

JD Vance
has often defended political positions related to the American administration and his own political orientation.

👉 Its role highlights another phenomenon:

• political loyalty tends to prevail over independent debate
• the statements are read as "positions", not as analyses

⛪ Pope (religious authority)

Pope Leo XIV
As a global religious figure:

• intervenes on ethical and social issues
• represents a worldwide spiritual community

👉 Tensions arise when:

• political leaders comment on religious issues
• or religious authorities are perceived as political actors

This easily generates media conflicts and conflicting interpretations.

⚠️ 12.3 Central problem emerged in recent history

Events of recent years (international conflicts, political crises, religious and social tensions) show a recurring pattern:

• every statement is amplified by the media
• opinions become "fan bases"
• the ability for rational analysis is lost

Typical examples include:

• wars and geopolitical crises where each side is supported or demonized without full analysis
• discussions between political and religious leaders transformed into ideological clashes
• polarization on social media, where only the parts that are "useful to one's narrative" are selected

🧠 12.4 DirectDemocracyS Position

Our position is simple and coherent:

1. Everyone has the right to express themselves freely
2. Each role must remain within its own area of responsibility
3. Opinions should be analyzed in content, not in faction
4. Respect must be mutual between politics, religion and civil society

🧭 12.5 Objective of our approach

We don't want:

• automatically take sides
• feed the fan base
• simplify reality into “good guys and bad guys”

Instead we want:

• promote rational analysis
• reduce polarization
• increase mutual understanding

🔚 Section summary

👉 Freedom of speech is a fundamental right
👉 But the responsibility of those who speak is equally important
👉 The modern problem is not what is said, but how it is interpreted and exploited

🧭 13. The problem with current systems

Many people:

• they just comment
• they vent on social media
• they remain passive

👉 This does not produce real changes

In traditional systems:

• individual opinion has little weight
• control over representatives is limited

🌐 14. The DirectDemocracyS model

Our system is based on:

• direct participation
• shared leadership
• continuous monitoring of voters
• collective ownership of the system

👉 Control exists:

• before the elections
• during
• even after

🇨🇭 15. Comparison with Switzerland

In Switzerland:

• 100,000 signatures in 18 months for constitutional changes
• long and complex processes

In our system:

👉 Each member can propose:

• ideas
• laws
• reforms

And the process is:

• analyses
• discussion
• test
• internal vote
• implementation

➡️ Everyone can really participate
➡️ not just a few

🔚 Conclusion

We don't ask for immediate trust.

👉 We only ask one thing:

➡️ Get informed
➡️ Analyze
➡️ Understand our system

If it really works,
you won't need slogans to convince you.

Further details, explanations, and motivations.

Many important events occurred in April 2026, and many people are asking us for our official positions on current events in general, and specifically on certain countries and individuals.

The Israeli and US attack on Iran continues, and with the Strait of Hormuz almost permanently blocked, oil prices, and therefore fuel and electricity prices, have increased rapidly, with serious repercussions on the population and various businesses.

This news contains a lot of information and deserves our comment, even though we already expressed our opinion after the first attack, a few weeks ago, which we confirm.

Simply put, for us at DirectDemocracyS, every totalitarian regime must be stopped by its own people and replaced with one decided by the people, one that guarantees individual and group freedoms, potentially infinite, but which end exactly where the freedoms of another individual or group begin. These freedoms, for us, are as important as water, food, healthcare, medicine, education, culture, and social activities. Freedom for our system, and for anyone who joins us, is like oxygen for living beings dependent on it: without it, we cannot live! The most important beneficial consequence of freedom is political pluralism, which in turn enables a "democracy" that is never real, never authentic, never continuous, never fully functional, and never safe and secure, unless it is implemented by our system, on our platforms. Another consequence of freedom is the ability to complain if something doesn't suit us, publicly, peacefully, intelligently, and decisively.

For us and for anyone who joins us, anyone in power who orders the shooting of protesters or the use of violence against peaceful people should be immediately removed from power, and every military and law enforcement command position should refuse to carry out the order and defend their citizens by all means.

But what happens if law enforcement officers fail to defend their citizens? They should be reported, investigated, charged, tried, and if found guilty, punished very severely. People cannot be killed, injured, threatened, or intimidated, not even in dictatorships. The same procedures apply to all those who ordered, transmitted, and carried out orders against peaceful protesters.

Various cases have shown that many regimes know how to infiltrate violent individuals into peaceful demonstrations, causing unrest and thus encouraging a violent response from authorities and law enforcement. Our solution to these cases: isolate the violent individuals from peaceful groups and hand them over to law enforcement along with videos demonstrating their behavior. This not only prevents a violent response from law enforcement, but also prevents destruction, injuries, and killings, which could harm protesters, non-protesters, law enforcement, and all the property of people who have done nothing wrong.

But what happens if law enforcement kills many protesters? Even one injury is already a very serious incident, and in those cases, one must be extremely careful. As with violent protesters, law enforcement responses could also be orchestrated by political forces seeking power, and the same rules apply: film and identify, or identify, the culprits.

But what is the limit beyond which the international community can intervene? In traditional systems, and with the political forces that existed before DirectDemocracyS, the answer is: it depends. On what? On strategic, economic, power, and wealth interests. In some countries, intervention is made earlier and more decisively; in others, also for geopolitical reasons, it is delayed, poorly executed, and often completely useless.

We don't want to lecture anyone; it's not our duty to teach anyone anything. For DirectDemocracyS, every dictatorial, violent, oligarchic, party-based, and one-track regime, where opponents and dissidents are killed, tortured, injured, imprisoned, or rendered ineffective, must end immediately, thanks to their respective populations, possibly peacefully, intelligently, and determinedly, or through widespread civil disobedience. No citizen of any public opinion shows up to work, anywhere, whether state or private, in schools, universities, but only essential services are guaranteed—healthcare, pharmacies, freight transport, especially food, and water. Everything else stops, and we all take to the streets together, peacefully, asking for protection from the police.

But if protesters are killed, is the international community authorized to intervene, and how? From the beginning, DirectDemocracyS invented and implemented within itself the world organization of peoples, precisely because the United Nations is practically useless, impotent, politically managed, subservient to the superpowers, and makes decisions, often blocked by antiquated and ineffective veto rights, with the usual geopolitical, economic, financial, and strategic interests in mind. In some places, intervention is necessary, in others, not, because all it takes is one superpower to get in the way, and the international community's action becomes as useful as a bucket of sand in the desert. Calculate how many conflicts there are currently, and how many there have been in the past, and you will understand perfectly how useful and decisive the international community, the United Nations, and other similar bodies are. Our proposals and ours are pioneering; we explain them here incompletely and superficially, but we have and are organizing every necessary activity and detail.

The previous attack was compounded by Israel's invasion and extremely violent attacks in Lebanon, resulting in massive civilian casualties. Here too, the spiral of violence is fueled both by the Israeli government and its armed forces and by various terrorist organizations, which no one is able, or willing, to eradicate.

Another premise.

A state or a terrorist organization must not and cannot have as its objective the destruction and extermination of an entire people, and an entire country. Therefore, all measures must be taken to permanently quell any threat, provocation, and violent activity, and the first step is undoubtedly to end all terrorist activity. We also have our own concrete proposals and solutions for these problems, placing, as always, the populations at the center and making them the protagonists, and above all, all the good people who exist within each of them.

Another interesting topic: the Hungarian elections, which saw the clear and likely definitive defeat of Prime Minister Orban, after 16 years in which, like every politician from the old and failed systems and political forces, he did more harm than good to his own people. We have been accused of failing to take a clear position, advising Hungarian voters on who to vote for. DirectDemocracyS Hungary did not provide voting advice, as we as a political force did not participate, nor did our candidates. This is not out of disinterest, but because, based on various internal and external polls within our system, it was already clear how the outcome would turn out, and the people had clear ideas. We cannot make direct assessments of the various platforms, which are very different, but we can say that there are no left-wing political forces, also because in a normal country, with people who use logic and common sense, after having learned the damage of communism, they do not vote for those who come from or are on that side. We at DirectDemocracyS are neither right nor left, nor centrist, nor anything that goes with it. We don't have our own ideals, which are often pioneering, very practical, pragmatic, confident, and, above all, work optimally for the common good. Time will tell whether Prime Minister Magyar is better or worse than his predecessor. We want to be optimistic and realistic in saying that he will hardly be able to do worse than his predecessor, and this is true in many countries where the previous governments have been defeated.

A very divisive topic (after all, other systems and political forces thrive and do what they please thanks to divisions) is President Trump's recent statement against the positions of Pope Leo XIV, with Vice President Vance obviously defending his "employer." First, a brief premise. If we were to publicly comment on everything President Trump says, does, thinks, or proposes, we would waste our precious time on pointless things that only benefit those who, without controversy, without necessarily taking sides, without envying, denigrating, and even hating one or the other, would have nothing to say or do during their days. We are certain that people—fortunately not all, but far too many—are so manipulated that they are incapable of appreciating the right things, which anyone can, even by mistake, propose and do. Manipulation and division have practically prevented many good people from thinking for themselves. If a person or political force isn't liked by influencers, or by their favorites, or isn't on their political side, they're automatically judged poorly, even extracting parts to confirm their own assessments, eliminating every tiny bit of positive. This completely flawed mentality, this lack of reasoning (why reason if others are already doing it for us?), this superficiality, and this laziness, result in all the news we see, and all the problems we know about. Fortunately, many people understand that sitting on the sidelines, passively complaining on traditional social media, spewing venom , envying, denigrating, proposing, and organizing social revolts (which no one will actually do, and which no one will be able to manage if they do) doesn't solve problems, and the satisfaction of having expressed one's insignificant opinion (not because it's wrong, but because in the old systems, anyone's opinion counts for nothing) lasts a very short time, and the next day it starts all over again, and the next, the same thing over and over again. Those who hate Trump, even if they previously hated the Church and couldn't stand the Pope, will clearly side with the Vatican. Those who, on the other hand, are followers of the American President will say: well done Trump, finally someone who says the right things, in the right way.

And what about us at DirectDemocracyS? Will we be biased, or politically correct? Will we be ambiguous, or easily understandable? You be the judge.

Trump said one of his many bullshit statements, one that will cost him dearly in the next election, and the ones after that. A businessman, a politician, and no other man can afford to teach the Pope how to do his job, namely, the Pope. The same goes for every leader of any religion, who we believe must always be esteemed, respected, and continuously defended, without any preference. We don't do this to appear good or righteous, but because that's what we decided from the start: to respect everyone, but not allow anyone, in any way, any kind of interference in our system. President Trump said this legitimately, because if the Pope is free to say what he wants, Trump should be free to do so too, without anyone attempting to limit his freedom. Likewise, Vice President Vance is free to express his opinion, as are all people in free countries. Is this a fall from grace by Trump? One of many. But everyone involved, and even all citizens, are free to express themselves, even to cheer for and support only one side, without ever understanding the reasons of others. We still advise you to have an open mind, to get comprehensive information, and to form your own opinion, but with an open mind, free from partisanship and stadium-like fandom. At DirectDemocracyS, everyone's ideas and projects are of vital importance to us, because every person is important to us, indeed, fundamental.

We're often compared to Swiss direct democracy, but DirectDemocracyS actually works, and it's very secure. It's truly and completely shared leadership, with collective ownership of the entire system by all members. It's fully managed and fully controlled by our voters, our platforms, and our political representatives, before, during, and, for the first time in the world, even after elections. So we're not only the only authentic democracy—direct democracy—but we're also the only one that's continuous over time.

Let's see how a popular initiative is proposed in Switzerland: To propose an amendment to the Federal Constitution in Switzerland via a popular initiative, 100,000 valid signatures from citizens eligible to vote are required, collected within 18 months of the official publication. Here are the details on the procedures and numbers:

Number of signatures required (Federal Level)

• Popular initiative (to amend the Constitution): 100,000 signatures in 18 months.
• Optional referendum (to oppose a law of Parliament): 50,000 signatures in 100 days.

Startup and collection modes

1. Promoting Committee: The initiative starts with a group of citizens (usually a committee) who formulate the text of the proposal.
2. Preliminary examination: The text is submitted to the Federal Chancellery to verify its formal conformity before starting the signature collection.
3. Signature Collection: The collection must be done using official forms, either paper or, in some cases, electronically (currently being tested). All Swiss citizens with the right to vote (adults, not disqualified) may sign.
4. Certification: The collected signatures are sent to the signatories' municipalities of residence for certification of their right to vote.
5. Deposit: Certified signatures are delivered to the Federal Chancellery.

Once the signatures have been deposited and validated, the Federal Council and Parliament discuss the initiative, potentially proposing a counter-proposal, before submitting it to the final vote of the people and the cantons.

Note: At the cantonal level (e.g., Ticino), the required numbers are lower (e.g., 7,000 or 10,000 signatures depending on the type of legislative or constitutional initiative). 

How do you propose and organize the same thing in DirectDemocracyS?

Every official member of ours, who has an idea or project, even a constitutional reform, proposes it to our support groups, and our entire system, including everyone involved, after analyzing, discussing, testing, and voting on it, actively and concretely works to bring it to fruition. Quickly, the final law approved by all, with all the signatures collected and all the various external stages, will be voted on by the entire population, who will decide whether it is useful or not. Obviously, not all proposals will be approved internally, but the process certainly allows everyone to have a say, not just a few. Literally, all our members. Try doing the same thing in other political forces, and in other systems, and you'll see the differences.

Continue Reading →

DirectDemocracyS recommends that anyone, after properly informing themselves, join us by registering and creating a personal profile. For our first user type, the one predefined in our generic registration form, everything is very simple. Just follow the instructions. It's a quick, completely free process with no subsequent fees. There's no need for invitations, no need to upload ID documents, no need for bank accounts, no need for credit cards, no need for debit cards, no need for security deposits, no mandatory attendance (everyone accesses our reserved areas only when they want), and no need for volunteer work (there's no obligation to operate our vast system). Each of our users can remain completely anonymous forever, and even make their personal data completely invisible to anyone (both internal and external).

But what happens to those who can't, aren't able to, or don't want to join us, but like our system and want to help us, perhaps externally, perhaps by voting for our official representatives? They can simply become an external supporter, without having to do anything. However, they can visit our platforms in public areas, contact us via contact forms, even vote in general polls (which obviously won't be binding, to prevent security issues), and offer us suggestions, ideas, and criticisms. And if they wish, they can make a donation to help us improve and evolve.

Please note that from this point on, in this article and in other articles related to our activities, donations are transformed into a contribution towards expenses for materials and management. For tax purposes, in certain countries, what we call donations from external supporters, or, as you will see later in this and other articles, donations from all types of users and all types of profiles, may appear to be, or be considered, membership fees, or, as we have said, contributions towards expenses for materials and management. Depending on the country, based on communications and contracts, we may comply with all regulations and laws, whether national, state, or local. If value-added taxes or income taxes are due for all our collections, according to our agreements, we will pay the full amount due, precisely in the countries where we generate every single income, and for every single cent.

To harmonize and integrate all our rules, based on national, state, and local laws and regulations, any country wishing to collaborate with us must contact us via this contact form:

https://contacts.directdemocracys.org/contacts/business-contacts/directdemocracys-company/agreements-with-countries/world-agreements-contacts

To include any value-added taxes in our collections, in accordance with national, state, and local rules and laws, any country wishing to collaborate with us must contact us via this contact form:

https://contacts.directdemocracys.org/contacts/business-contacts/directdemocracys-company/problem-with-the-form-due-to-vat

Using the two previous forms, each country, state, and local authority, analyzing our system, will be required to specify whether, for which activities, how, and when taxes and value-added taxes are required. For those who do not contact us, we will apply the Internet's extraterritorial rule, and will consider our visitors, users, and collaborators as tax residents in the country of each of our individual activities, according to our rules.

Anyone who donates at least €12.50, simply by sending us the donation transaction code (via a contact form), will receive an external supporter card, be added to a private list of external supporters, and be able to purchase marketing products, services, and various goods from our system at very affordable prices—all of this permanently.

Explanation: The identification card is personal and can contain your real name and surname, or even a simple nickname, to remain completely anonymous. The identification card is valid for five years and can be renewed for another five years one month before its expiration date by sending a payment code for a recent donation of €6.25. The external supporter identification card is laminated and can only be replaced if lost, stolen, or damaged by making a donation of €6.25, even before its expiration date. The duplicate card will also be valid for five years, starting from the date of the donation for the duplicate.

An important clarification: the contributions for the membership cards of external supporters (the €12.50 and the subsequent €6.25 after 5 years) also serve to keep the system free for everyone else, creating a sort of "technological solidarity fund".

Questions and answers for external supporters.

Question 1. If I don't want to donate, can I be an external supporter?

Answer 1. To be our external supporter, you are not, and will never be, required to make donations or pay annual fees. Everything is voluntary.

Question 2. Can I join DirectDemocracyS by registering and creating a free personal profile?

Answer 2. Anyone can join us at any time, with any user type, including free membership, and even as an external supporter. Those who support us externally will continue to do so, if they wish, using either their user ID card or their external supporter card (if they have one).

Question 3. As an external supporter, can I participate in certain activities, both physically (for example, in micro-groups and local organizations) and online on various platforms?

Answer 3. There are activities dedicated to external supporters, who have an identification card, and even dedicated activities for anyone who supports us externally, including those who don't know us or who don't support us. Obviously, anyone outside of us will be able to participate in the reserved activities, according to our very detailed implementation rules.

Question 4. Can external supporters participate in street demonstrations, electoral rallies, and other activities, with their physical presence?

Answer 4. Our street demonstrations, our electoral rallies, and all in-person activities have very detailed rules, methodologies, and instructions, all of which are justified. Everyone can receive all the information and instructions in advance and must respect them. We keep the various types of users, and even the various types of outsiders, separate for obvious safety reasons, to prevent potential problems. We will never dream of prohibiting anyone from using public areas with us, as long as we do so in compliance with all our rules, to prevent boycotts, slowdowns, violence, and reprehensible activities. We, and no one who joins us, will disrupt or create problems at other people's public activities, and we will not allow anyone to do so at ours.

Question 5. If I pay for a membership card as an external supporter, can I use the donated money to pay an annual fee as a user?

Answer: 5. No, the membership card is reserved for our external representatives, who make an initial donation of €12.50. The membership card is valid for five years, renewable for another five years, at least one month before the expiration date, by making a donation of another €6.25. Annual fees are paid annually for some of our user types, which have very detailed implementation rules, including assistance for those experiencing financial difficulties. Since one donation and the other an annual fee, they cannot be used in different ways or in conjunction with each other. If an external supporter wishes to join us by registering and creating a personal profile, they can do so only once, choosing their preferred user type. For free and access memberships, there are no annual fees to pay.

Question 6. Do other types of users have identification badges?

Answer 6. Each user type has its own identification badge, which is primarily a file created according to our rules, which can be printed by each user (we recommend having it laminated), and is different for each user type. All our identification badges must contain a photograph (according to very detailed specific implementation rules), personal identification codes, encryption codes, authorization codes, QR codes, a unique DirectDemocracyS identification code, and the username (if different from the real name and surname). All our official representatives, and all our political representatives, being public figures, must also contain, by mandatory means, other real personal data, in order to be identified with their identity document, along with the DirectDemocracyS badge. Mandatory data for these 2 types of public profiles (official representatives, and our political representatives): real name and surname (as written in their identity document), date of birth (real, exact and complete), main country of residence and citizenship, geographic coordinates (for those who officially represent us in micro-groups), or , the partial address, encrypted, but verifiable in a secure manner, and respectful of everyone's privacy and data).

Question 7. What if I don't have the technology to print, and especially to laminate, these identification cards?

Answer 7. You can make color photocopies and laminate documents virtually anywhere in the world. Virtually everyone has a color printer, and if you don't want to laminate the document, simply print it (in color) in good quality, and if it deteriorates, you can print another one. For those who wish, for a fee, we can create, print, and laminate the identification card and send it to anyone in need. For a donation (contribution to materials and handling costs) of €6.25, each person will receive their own identification card at home. Of course, during regular mail times, for emergencies, you must contact our group to issue identification cards, which will then be sent via express courier, at market prices, to be paid in advance. In the event of loss or theft of your identification card, you must immediately contact our special security team, who will automatically deregister it and publish it in a public list of lost or stolen documents, respecting your privacy but preventing possible reprehensible or improper use through prevention. At the same time, they will authorize the team to issue identification cards with new codes, allowing you, or our external supporter, to print and, if you wish, laminate it, or pay for and have a new identification card delivered to your home.

Question 8. How does the ID badge photo work?

Answer 8. Like any ID card, it must contain a photograph of the person who owns it, and can display and use it. The photograph will be sent by the future ID card holder when requesting the ID card, and for higher user categories, such as official representatives and political representatives, it will be verified by our technologies with those available. For other user categories, the photograph sent is declared and will be linked, in an encrypted and anonymous manner, to the various encrypted sections of their personal data, respecting privacy, personal data, the right to anonymity, and the invisibility of personal data. Private photographs have nothing in common with personal profile photographs, which have different rules; they are always stored encrypted, but on different servers, and with different methodologies and instructions.

Question 9. What happens if a free or lower-level user submits fake photos of other people to make their own ID badge?

Answer 9. First, whenever someone uses their ID card in any way, the difference between the photographs will be immediately noticed. If we are informed and have proof (a photograph of the card and the person displaying it), we will take all necessary disciplinary action. Furthermore, we and our special security teams verify, both in person and online, even several times, that the photos of the person and the card are identical, or very similar.

Question 10. What if a user prints an identification card in his name, with someone else's photo?

Answer 10. If the photo on the ID badge and the one sent to our system are not identical, or very similar, at any time, with each use, with each check, we will take all necessary disciplinary decisions.

Question 11. What other security measures do ID badges have?

Answer 11. All necessary security measures to prevent any illegal use of this card. The main security measure is the ability to verify in real time, discreetly, simply, securely, and confidentially, at any time, in any language, and in various ways, its validity and legality, and to determine whether the person using it is the person whose photo is declared to our system and printed on the identification card. If you have any questions, you can contact our authorization verification team at this link:

https://contacts.directdemocracys.org/contacts/specials-groups/securities-groups/authorization-verification-group