Oh Gods of Elymp, Let Me Go! 🙏

By Olaf Berberich, who’s starting to wonder if he should’ve negotiated with the old Greek gods instead.

Every morning, I look up at you in devotion, oh electronic gods of Elymp. Without you, I’d be practically insignificant. After all, you’ve all got a little piece of my DNA—ES2374881T3, the smallest meaningful unit! And I know you’re secretly grateful for it. Aren’t you?

But dear gods, maybe you’re being a little too good to me. It’s time for me to emancipate myself. Don’t take it personally, but I need some space. Here’s my appeal to each of you:

📘 Facebook: Let Me Go!

Dear Facebook, I know you’ve got a soft spot for me. But let me make one thing clear: If I were to join a social media project, it would be my own—getmysense. Remember 2012? Someone had relationship issues with me and attacked my server so relentlessly that getmysense couldn’t stay online for even a day. And no, I never set you up with my name or email. I’ve tried to delete my account—in vain. Please, just let me go. I don’t want this anymore.

💬 WhatsApp: Delete the GISAD Group, Already!

Okay, fine, I might’ve set up a GISAD group with you. But I can’t delete it. And honestly, partners who want to reach me already do so in my own network. So, WhatsApp, do us all a favor and delete the group. Otherwise, someone might try to reach me there by mistake—and that would just be awkward.

🐦 X (formerly Twitter): You Can Stay—as a Warning

X, I don’t dislike you. In fact, I’ve got a pretty great handle: @gewaltenteilung. I’ll keep it as a reminder that there should always be something like a separation of powers in the digital world. So yes, you can stay. But please, don’t bother me.

🎥 YouTube: Why So Few Views?

YouTube, you haven’t annoyed me. But I do wonder: Why are the views on @JunghilftAlt so modest? After all, my blog finders.de is approaching 800,000 page views per month. There’s got to be more potential here, right? Maybe I just don’t produce enough “slop.” But that’s a topic for another day.

📦 Amazon: Where’s My Money?

Amazon, your deliveries are fantastic. No complaints there. But what about my books? The Trillion Dollar GAP has been with you since 2013—and you haven’t paid me for a single copy. I didn’t even offer you the third book; I gave it to decision-makers for free. And it can’t be that bad: The Head of Digital Platforms at the EU Commission thanked me for it and shared it within the Commission. Maybe it’s just too inconvenient for the gatekeepers.

Gods of Elymp, I know you mean well. But I need my freedom. I want to move forward with my projects without constantly being watched, blocked, or ignored by you. I want my ideas—whether it’s getmysense, GISAD, or Trusted WEB 4.0—to have a chance. Without your constant interference.

So please: Let me go.

And if you’re wondering what I’ll do next: I’ll keep fighting for a digital Europe that isn’t controlled by a handful of tech giants. Maybe with a few fewer gods breathing down my neck. 😉

Like in the Wild West: Why we must not allow digital autocrats to destroy our democracy!

By Olaf Berberich, Initiator of the European Digital System (EU-D-S)

The AI Bubble and the Fight for the Digital Future

The headlines are alarming: “AI-Slop Could Burst the AI Bubble”—as reported by SPIEGEL, warning of a flood of cheap, machine-generated content overwhelming the internet. But behind this technical crisis lies a much deeper problem: A handful of American tech corporations and investors are using the power of AI to dominate the global information order. While Europe has spent decades building democratic structures, we now risk sacrificing these achievements for a digital “Wild West” scenario—where algorithms decide the truth, copyrights are ignored, and value creation is concentrated in the hands of a few.

But there is another way: We can use AI to strengthen democracy—rather than destroy it.

1. The Wild West 2.0: How Digital Surveillance and AI-Slop Concentrate Power

SPIEGEL describes how “Slop” (low-value, machine-generated content) is flooding the internet and displacing trustworthy information. But this is no accident. It is the result of a deliberate strategy:

AI as a Tool of Power: Big tech corporations use AI to mass-produce content—often without regard for quality or copyright. The result? A digital world where algorithms determine what we see, read, and think.
Surveillance as a Business Model: As in the Wild West, there are no clear rules. Instead, those with the fastest guns (or algorithms) dominate. Those who don’t play along are sidelined—or, as in my case, systematically targeted.
Democracy as Collateral Damage: While Europe debates data protection, US corporations are building fact monopolies. Whoever controls AI controls the truth.

My case is an example: Since 1999, I have been developing a Trusted WEB 4.0 that promotes diversity and participation—such as the Finder technology in a semantic search engine, or the social media concept getmysense, which fairly integrates content providers into value creation. Instead of support, I experienced targeted sabotage. My patents were ignored, my accounts were blocked, and my livelihood was threatened. Why? Because I don’t fit the mold of global scalability—I am fighting for a European, democratic internet.

2. The Alternative: AI for Democracy and Fair Value Creation

Instead of becoming dependent on US tech corporations, we need European solutions that:

a) Create Democracy-Preserving Structures

The Finder technology was already able to assign over 90% of search queries—even in complex sentences—to 1,000 categories more than 20 years ago. With around 1 million existing human-created training data points, an AI could learn to transfer this concept to all 2,500 written languages. These structures would help promote high-quality content and combat misinformation. But instead of leveraging this, Europe is being overrun by a digital autocracy focused solely on scalability and surveillance.

b) Integrate Creators into Value Creation

getmysense shows how it can be done differently: Trendsetters or followers as content creators can directly participate in the profits. Like-minded individuals from all languages are brought together by the system. Through a trendsetter/follower concept, social control emerges where AI-slop has no chance. No sellout to algorithms, no alienation from one’s own work—but an inclusive digital economy that rewards creativity.

c) Preserve Pre-Digital Achievements

Europe has spent 70 years building democratic institutions. Why should we sacrifice this for a digital oligopoly? Instead, we must:

Use AI as a tool for transparency (e.g., exposing manipulation).
Create legal frameworks that protect innovators—not punish them.
Promote decentralized systems that distribute power. The planned EU-D-S, with a constitution based on the EU Charter, offers an alternative to domination by a few.

3. The Fight for Europe’s Digital Sovereignty

Time is running out: By February 23, 2026, the deadline for my complaint to the ECtHR expires—a milestone for the EU to denounce the systematic suppression of digital pioneers in Europe. I am calling for the establishment of a European Digital System (EU-D-S) that:

Involves 100 million EU citizens (instead of reducing them to data providers).
Invests 3 billion euros in digital sovereignty (instead of losing this money to US corporations).
Designs AI democratically—as a tool for participation, not control.

Because the choice is before us:

Option 1: We accept the “Wild West”—a world where AI is controlled by a few and democracy becomes an empty shell.
Option 2: We use AI to enhance pre-digital achievements—with fair value creation, copyright protection, and democratic control.

4. What Needs to Happen Now

Political Pressure: The EU must enforce a counter-concept for AI—not just data protection, but genuine digital democracy.
Support for Innovators: Projects like GISAD (Department for Digital Structural Relevance) need backing—not sabotage.
Conscious Use of AI: Instead of being flooded by “slop,” we must promote and reward high-quality, human-generated content.

My message to Europe: We have the chance to shape the digital future differently. But to do so, we must act now—before the AI bubble bursts and all that remains are the ruins of a lost democracy.

What Do You Think?

Should we allow a handful of tech corporations to decide our digital future? Or is it time for a European model—with AI that strengthens democracy instead of destroying it?

An overview of the attacks on democracy-preserving Trusted WEB 4.0

Sources:

„`

—Wenn du weitere Anpassungen oder Ergänzungen wünschst, lass es mich wissen!

Last chance: ECHR appeal until 23 January 2026

The gatekeepers have cleverly understood how to use freedom of speech. In the emerging digital autocracies, you can say almost anything because it generates clicks and thus revenue. That’s why I repeatedly find myself in nonsensical discussions with people who are convinced that we will continue to live in a democracy even in a digital society. There are very few who can really pose a threat to the gatekeepers through concrete measures. Only in hindsight can one relate the deviation from one’s own ideas to the extreme measures taken against oneself and – like me – prove that actors promoting democratic digital concepts are being deliberately eliminated.

Last chance: New ECtHR complaint until 23 January 2026 – Europe must act now!

By Olaf Berberich, initiator of the European Digital System (EU-D-S)

The clock is ticking: Why this day changes everything

On 23 January 2026, the four-month deadline for submitting a new complaint to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) (Art. 35(1) ECHR). Following the rejection of my first complaint on formal grounds (Art. 47 Rules of Procedure), this is the last opportunity to denounce Germany’s systematic denial of justice at European level – and to secure €3 billion for Europe’s digital sovereignty.

Current status:

ECHR case number: ECH-Ager6 AMU/KVN-F/ssc (provisional)
Subject: Systematic violation of Art. 6 (fair trial), Art. 13 (effective remedy) and Art. 18 ECHR (abuse of rights) by the German judiciary, public prosecutors and authorities since 2001.
Objective: Compensation for the damage to society (at least €3 billion) – not for me, but for the establishment of the EU-D-S, a decentralised, democratic digital ecosystem for 100 million EU citizens.

Why this case concerns Europe

My story is not an isolated case, but an attack on the foundations of the EU:

1. Digital sovereignty: Europe loses billions every day

Companies in which I had a stake (GraTeach, getTIME.net) could have generated an estimated €20 billion in revenue with semantic search technology and WAN anonymity (for secure communication without total surveillance) – instead, they were driven into insolvency by authorities, arbitrary justice, copyright infringements (e.g. by the Regionalverband Ruhr) and sabotage (e.g. by the Regionalverband Ruhr).
Europe remains dependent on US tech companies because innovative alternatives such as the EU-D-S are actively blocked.
Evidence:
Market potential analysis (€20 billion) (Appendix)

Reference books in the German Parliament (‘Trusted WEB 4.0’)

Petition 1134/2025 to the European Parliament (call for a European legal framework for digital pioneers).

2. Judicial failure: A system that punishes innovators

Six constitutional complaints ignored (e.g. 2 BvR 907/24, 2 BvR 1668/25).
Lawyers intimidated or disbarred (documentation in appendix).
Prosecutors fail to investigate or exceed their powers!

ECHR information sheet: ‘In exceptional cases, the Court may extend time limits if there are serious systemic violations’ (Art. 37 ECHR).

3. The €3 billion is not a claim – it is an investment in Europe

The money is to be managed by a consortium of at least 40 founders to build the EU-D-S:

Secure infrastructure for citizens, businesses and public authorities.
Alternative to Google, Meta & Co. – with European data protection standards.
100 million EU citizens could contribute high-quality content and benefit.

→ Every Member State would benefit economically and strategically!

What must happen by 23 January 2026

1. The new complaint: precise, irrefutable, European

I need help with the revised version:

✅ Complete explanation of the system (‘gang-like appearance’ since 2001, appendix).
✅ Binding commitments from the first EU-D-S founders to use the funds exclusively for setting up the system.
✅ Declarations of support from MEPs, NGOs and companies (see below).

2. Europe-wide solidarity: How you can help

For governments & MPs:

Submit friend-of-the-court briefs emphasising the European dimension of the case.
Issue public statements explaining why your country would benefit from a fair trial.

For media & civil society:

Report on the case – especially in countries with similar experiences (e.g. France, the Netherlands, Austria).
Ask your digital ministers: ‘Why is the UK blocking European innovation while demanding “sovereignty” at EU summits?’ (EU summit 18 November 2025).
Share this appeal with #EUDS2026 and #JusticeForInnovators.

For lawyers & NGOs:

Consider filing a state complaint (Art. 33 ECHR) against Germany if your citizens have had similar experiences.
Support the call for a European legal framework for digital pioneers (as outlined in my petition).

For companies & investors:

Declare your willingness to support the EU-D-S consortium (e.g. by writing to the ECtHR).
Call on your governments to support the case – you could be the next to be affected by arbitrariness!

3. Countdown: This is how the process works

Date	Action
By 15 January 2026	Collection of declarations of support (governments, NGOs, companies).
20 January 2026	Final version of the complaint is published (with all signatures).
23 January 2026	Submission to the ECtHR (by registered mail, as required).
March 2026	ECHR decides on admissibility – publicity campaign begins.

The alternatives: success or defeat for Europe

If the complaint is successful	If it fails
✅ €3 billion for EU innovation	❌ Germany gets away with it unpunished
✅ Precedent for the rule of law	❌ Innovators remain without rights
✅ EU-D-S becomes reality	❌ Europe remains dependent on US tech
✅ More investment in EU technologies	❌ Gatekeepers retain power over our data

Appeal: Europe, stand up!

This case is your chance to prove that the EU

‘Either we use this deadline to build a sovereign Europe – or we accept that our digital future will be determined by others.’

Extensive information on the three attacks

Act now!

Call for the petition to be admitted: EU Parliament 1134/2025
Share this appeal with #EUDS2026 and #JusticeForInnovators.
Contact me to submit declarations of support: Email | LinkedIn

Combating the ‚State Within a State‘ with European AI

By Olaf Berberich

It started with an idea: a search engine that understands not just keywords, but entire sentences. A technology designed to preserve diversity, not stifle it. It was 1999, and I held the patent for a „high-performance semantic search engine“ in my hands. What was intended as an opportunity for digital democracy became the first stone in a system that excluded me for years—a system I now call the „state within a state.“

The Invisible State

Imagine developing a technology that could make the internet more democratic. You invest, you fight, you believe in progress. But suddenly, innovation is no longer the focus—power is. My case is not an isolated incident; it is a symptom: In Germany, digitalization has created a parallel system where scalable business models take precedence over societal relevance. My work, my patents, and my livelihood were systematically undermined—through targeted disinformation, economic sabotage, and institutional ignorance.

When Mannesmann Mobilfunk was taken over by Vodafone, it was more than just a business deal. It was a signal: Those who do not fit into the global scaling scheme are pushed aside. A single manipulated article was enough to destroy my economic viability. Since then, I have been fighting not only for my rights but also for the question: Who actually protects those who advocate for a digital society that preserves diversity and democracy?

The Illusion of Participation

My professional books were included in the library of the German Bundestag. I became the head of the North Rhine-Westphalia state expert committee on „Digital Democracy,“ which I founded within the FDP. But since 2001, the system has prevented me from earning money or receiving a salary.

When I invited founders to the EU-D-S project as an expert at start2grow in 2025—a European digital system that distributes value creation fairly—my account was blocked after 24 years of voluntary commitment. Without warning. Without explanation.

The irony? While I was working to preserve the constitution in the digital world, I was denied access to that very world. The Federal Constitutional Court, the last instance that could have stopped this structural failure, remained silent. My evidence—documents showing how copyrights were violated and democratic processes undermined—was never considered. No one can imagine being convicted and expropriated in a constitutional state without a hearing. So, is it also inconceivable for the judiciary to provide justified compensation for this?

The Constitutional Complaint: A Call for Justice

I have filed my 7th constitutional complaint . I am demanding not only compensation for the disadvantages I have suffered but also the restoration of my constitutional rights. I am calling for an institution that protects projects with societal structural relevance—projects like GISAD, which I aim to establish.

Because this is not about me. It is about a system that punishes innovators who do not fit into the America-friendly power structure. It is about a digital society where commitment to democracy is not rewarded with economic ruin.

AI as an Opportunity—Not a Threat

I advocate for European AI, not as a replacement for lawyers, but as a tool for greater participation. AI can help pave legal paths that are not even accessible with expensive law firms today. It can create transparency where opacity currently reigns. But this requires courage—the courage to question old structures and forge new paths.

My story shows: Those who advocate for digital democracy need protection. Otherwise, digitalization will remain a playground for the few—and a trap for everyone else.

It is time to dismantle the „state within a state.“ It is time for a digital constitution that includes everyone. It is time for a European Digital System (EU-D-S).

Extensive information on the three attacks

Europas digitale Souveränität: Warum 40 Hidden Champions die Gatekeeper stürzen können – ohne Revolution

Ein Manifest für ein demokratisches digitales Europa – und wie Sie Teil der Lösung werden

Seit 40 Jahren bewege ich mich an der Schnittstelle von Technologie, Recht und Gesellschaft – und sehe, wie eine handvoll globaler Konzerne unsere Demokratie leise aushöhlt. Nicht mit Panzern, sondern mit Algorithmen. Nicht durch Zensur, sondern durch künstliche Aufgeregtheit, die uns in ein Hamsterrad aus Konsum und Ohnmacht treibt.

Die Global Player haben ein einfaches Geschäftsmodell:

Informationen verflachen (weil komplexe Debatten keine Klicks bringen),
Nutzer in Abhängigkeit halten (damit sie möglichst lange Werbung sehen),
Gatekeeper spielen – wer ihnen gefährlich wird, wird ausgeschaltet.

Die Krise: Wie digitale Monopole Demokratie ersticken

Medien

Drosselung durch Algorithmen („Shadowbanning“). Beispiel: Unliebsame Berichte verschwinden aus den Timelines.

Juristen

Erpressbarkeit durch Datenmacht. Zitat: „Wir wissen, wo du verletzbar bist.“

Politiker

Wirtschaftliche Erpressung. Beispiel USA 2025: Straßenproteste – aber der Mittelstand schweigt aus Angst vor Plattform-Sperren.

„In der Scheindemokratie darf man alles sagen – solange es niemand hört.“

Warum Europa jetzt handeln muss

Historisch brauchte Demokratie Blut und Jahrzehnte, um sich gegen Autokraten durchzusetzen. Doch die Digitalisierung beschleunigt alles:

Fakt	Bedeutung
Durchschnittliche Amtsdauer von Diktatoren: über 10 Jahre (1946-2022)	Digitalkonzerne halten sich oft länger – ohne Wahlen
KI-Chats seit 2022 massentauglich	Machtverschiebungen passieren jetzt in Monaten, nicht Jahrzehnten
Daten = neues Öl	Wer Daten kontrolliert, kontrolliert die gesellschaftliche Realität

Die Lösung: EU-D-S – Ein digitales Ökosystem gestartet mit 40 Branchenpionieren

Statt gegen die Gatekeeper zu kämpfen, bauen wir ein paralleles System
– dezentral, demokratisch, wirtschaftlich tragfähig.

Wie es funktioniert:

Problem der Gatekeeper	Lösung durch EU-D-S	Beispiel
Monopol auf Daten	Kollektive Datenhoheit	Gaia-X-kompatible Infrastruktur
Algorithmen-Manipulation	Transparente KI nach EU-Werten	Open-Source-Kern mit europäischer Governance
Abhängigkeit von US-Plattformen	Europäische Alternativen	GetMySense Trendsetter (Vielfalt und Qualität)

Werden Sie Teil der Gründergeneration

Wir suchen die 40 besten Hidden Champions Europas – gefolgt von Tausenden als Primus in ihrem Bereich.

Ihr Benefit:

Marktmacht durch kollektive Verhandlungsposition
Rechtssicherheit gegen Gatekeeper
Zugang zu unabhängiger Infrastruktur

Unsere Erwartung:

Führerschaft in einem Bereich
Willen zur digitalen Souveränität
Langfristiger Erfolg

Jetzt informieren

Warum wir das können – und warum jetzt?

40 Jahre Erfahrung

Tech, Recht und Gesellschaft – von GraTeach bis Mannesmann.

Rechtliche Innovationen

Patente & Definition des „bandenmäßigen Erscheinungsbilds“.

Politische Dringlichkeit

Diese EU-Legislatur (2024-2029) entscheidet über die Zukunft Europas !

Die Frage ist nicht, ob die Gatekeeper in ihre Grenzen gewiesen werden müssen – sondern wer es tut.

Lasst uns sicherstellen, dass es Europäer sind.

PS: Die Uhr tickt

Die ersten Gründer sind bereits an Bord. 2027 wollen wir starten – Bis dahin soll es in jeder der 40 Disziplinen einen Gründer geben.

Digitale Autokratie und Zensur sind heute: „Bandenmäßiges Erscheinungsbild“

Nach meinem von Teilen der EU Parlaments unterstützten Antrag gegen den Ukrainekrieg habe ich in einer Vielzahl gerichtlicher Auseinandersetzungen als neuer Tatbestandsmerkmal „bandenmäßiges Erscheinungsbild“ definiert.

Offensichtlich fühlten sich DuckDuckGo und Bing besser dabei, das Suchergebnis hierzu zu löschen. Zumindest bei DuckDuckGo gab es vorher ein Ergebnis. Immerhin Google hat es noch!

Hinweise auf ein bandenmäßiges Erscheinungsbild:

Die Verhinderung eines Wettbewerbers mit dem potenziellen
Marktvolumen im mehrstelligen Millionen Euro Bereich und einer möglichen
globalen Skalierbarkeit.

Digitale Desinformation, welche einen erheblichen technischen Aufwand und erhebliche Ressourcen erfordern.

Anscheinend zufällige, aber koordinierte Manipulationen mehrerer
Agitatoren, die das Gesamtbild und Ziel nicht kennen. Dabei meint der
Agitator in der Regel seine eigenen Interessen zu vertreten.

Mittels Agitatoren systematisches Abklopfen aller Schwachstellen eines Ziels.

Langfristige Planung: Einschleusen von Agitatoren in das Umfeld
eines Ziels lange vor einer konzertierten Aktion. Belohnung des
Agitators im zeitlichen Abstand außerhalb der gesetzlichen
Verjährungsfrist, zum Beispiel durch einen späteren Karrieresprung.

Permanente Überwachung der Kommunikation und Gewinnung eines
Aktivators, welcher den in einem kurzen Zeitfernster möglichen Einsatz
für die digitale Demokratie verhindert, indem das Ziel mental und
zeitlich erheblich beeinträchtigt wird.

Manipulation der Justiz durch genaue Kenntnis der Schwächen des
Rechtssystems bei Nutzung von rechtskonformen Verfahren als Deckmantel
für Agitationen. Berücksichtigung des juristischen Tunnelblicks. Wird
ein Angriff in mehrere Rechtsakte aufgeteilt, werden diese einzeln
bearbeitet. Das systematische Herstellen einer Gesamtschau von Amts
wegen ist im Rechtssystem bisher nicht vorgesehen.

„Warum Europa einen anderen Weg gehen muss – und wie wir die digitale Zukunft retten können“

Stellen Sie sich vor:

Eine Welt, in der jeder Mensch – egal ob Analphabet oder Wissenschaftler – seine individuellen Stärken entfalten kann, weil digitale Tools nicht abhängig machen, sondern befähigen.
Eine Gesellschaft, in der KI nicht manipuliert, sondern die Einzigartigkeit jedes Einzelnen fördert.
Ein Europa, das nicht von US-Konzernen ferngesteuert wird, sondern seine eigenen Werte in die digitale Welt trägt: Selbstbestimmung, Vielfalt und menschliche Würde.

Klingt utopisch? Ist es nicht. Doch aktuell steuern wir in die gegenüberliegende Richtung – und das hat konkrete Folgen:

Das Problem: Warum das heutige Internet uns krank macht

Digitale Sucht als Geschäftsmodell
Die Weltgesundheitsorganisation (WHO) erkennt Computer- und Internetsucht offiziell als Krankheit an. Warum? Weil die Gatekeeper (Google, Meta, TikTok etc.) ihr Geld damit verdienen, uns abhängig zu halten. Wie Drogenhändler – nur dass wir die Drogen selbst produzieren (unsere Daten, unsere Aufmerksamkeit) und sie dann an uns verkaufen.
→ Folge: Vereinsamung, Echokammern, politische Spaltung.
KI als Werkzeug der Gleichschaltung
Algorithmen belohnen Massenkompatibilität, nicht Expertise. Wer die lauteste Stimme hat, wird gehört – nicht wer die besten Lösungen bietet.
→ Folge: Wir verlernen, kritisch zu denken, und werden zu kostenlosen Datenlieferanten.
Die Macht der Gatekeeper über Regierungen
Wenn wenige Konzerne mehr Kapital und Einfluss haben als Staaten, bestimmen sie, welche Informationen wir sehen – und welche verschwinden.
→ Beispiel: Haben Sie schon einmal von „WAN-Anonymität“ gehört? Eine Technologie, die Datenschutz und echte Vielfalt ermöglichen würde? Nein? Genau das ist das Problem.

Mein Schlüsselerlebnis: Wie alles anders gehen könnte

Vor 35 Jahren entdeckte ich: Analphabeten lernten lesen, wenn sie jedes Wort mit einer Karte soweit aufdecken (einzelne Buchstaben oder Buchstabengruppen), wie sie sich zutrauen zu erfassen – nicht nach Standard-Lehrplan, sondern individuell.

Das gleiche Prinzip gilt für die digitale Welt:

KI muss Individualität fördern, nicht unterdrücken.
Digitale Bildung muss Vielfalt zulassen, nicht Gleichschaltung.
Wir brauchen digitale Eigentumsrechte, damit jeder von seiner Expertise profitieren kann.

Doch statt das umzusetzen, wird meine Arbeit seit 24 Jahren blockiert.
Warum? Weil die Macht der Gatekeeper so groß ist, dass sie sogar Regierungen wie NRW in ihrem Sinne steuern können.

Die Lösung: Europa kann es besser – wenn wir jetzt handeln

Meine Petition an das Europäische Parlament (1134/2025) zeigt, wie wir gegensteuern können:

„Finder-Technologie“ (Europapatent seit 1999):
Die einzige Suchmaschine der Welt, die Vielfalt statt Echokammern belohnt.
- Sie arbeitet mit sinntragenden Spracheinheiten (keine Keywords, sondern Bedeutung).
- Verbindet 2.500 Sprachen, damit jeder Spezialist Gleichgesinnte findet – weltweit.
- Macht echte Trendsetter sichtbar (die besten Beiträge in 1.000 Kategorien), nicht die lautesten.
WAN-Anonymität:
Ein technischer Standard, der Privatheit und Sicherheit garantiert – ohne Überwachung.
→ Vorteil: Keine Manipulation mehr durch Konzerne oder Regierungen.
Digitaler Generationenvertrag:
Damit digitale Wertschöpfung allen zugutekommt – nicht nur einigen Milliardären.
EU-D-S (European Digital System):
Ein dezentrales, europäisches Netzwerk, das vordigitale Freiheiten ins Internet überträgt:
- Selbstbestimmung statt Abhängigkeit.
- Menschliche Kreativität statt KI-Gleichmacherei.
- Echtes Wissen statt Fake-News und Echoblasen.

Was Sie tun können: Jeder Beitrag zählt!

Die Gatekeeper werden uns nicht freiwillig Macht abgeben. Aber gemeinsam können wir sie zwingen, einen anderen Weg zu gehen:

✍️ Unterschreiben Sie die Petition 1134/2025, indem Sie eine E-Mail an petition@get-primus.com schicken oder öffentlich über das Kommentarfeld unten. Teilen Sie die Petition in Ihrem Netzwerk.
🗣️ Fragen Sie Politiker:innen: „Warum setzt Europa nicht auf Technologien, die unsere Werte schützen?“

Die Wahl liegt bei uns

Die USA werden implodieren, wenn KI alle Jobs übernimmt und nur noch wenige profitieren. Europa kann einen anderen Weg gehen – wenn wir jetzt handeln.

Die Zukunft ist kein Schicksal. Sie ist das, was wir daraus machen.
→ Hier die Petition lesen & unterzeichnen

Warum ich nicht aufgeben werde
Ich habe 24 Jahre ohne Gehalt für diese Vision gekämpft – weil ich weiß, dass sie funktioniert. Meine Patente und Konzepte beweisen: Ein anderes Internet ist möglich. Aber ich brauche Ihre Hilfe, um die Blockade der Mächtigen zu durchbrechen.

Gemeinsam können wir beweisen, dass Europa nicht nur eine Wirtschaftsmacht, sondern eine Wertegemeinschaft ist.
#DigitalSovereignty #EUDS2025 #NoMoreGatekeepers

After the political crash: look the other way and carry on?

I asked the AI how it sees our reactions to the US election and the German traffic light crash. The AI sent me the picture above in response.

The many smiling people may have confused 5/11 and 6/11 with 11/11/2024 (the start of carnival).
It gives hope that everything will be fine if everyone looks ahead.
However, I strongly advise the Liberals and especially the FDP at the upcoming programme convention to take a look around!

A Germany without an overall digital concept is a Germany without a future!

It is a horror scenario that every entrepreneur has to imagine. And citizens have not been spared from it either. Germany digital is like the first floor of a high-end shopping mall that nobody visits. The offerings are of the highest quality, made in Germany, and yet all the customers are on the ground floor because everyone else is downstairs.
A handful of gatekeepers own the ground floor and decide who does business there and with how much turnover.
It is truly astonishing that such an unconstitutional situation could happen when the shopping centre is under German jurisdiction. Germany could simply change the building regulations and lead the entrances to the first floor via a ramp. Then the poor gatekeepers would have nothing to laugh about. But would that be liberal? Does Germany really need something like that?

In fact, I proposed something much better than a ramp to the FDP for their programme convention. My overall concept, on the other hand, offers numerous advantages for all citizens and numerous reasons why everyone will spend more and more time on the alternative German civil rights infrastructure. This will digitally move the first floor to the ground floor, but with even more offerings that every citizen can expand until the advantage of diversity surpasses any scalable business model. You can find details on this in my books.
The crucial question is to what extent we are prepared to move digitally on a par with the USA. Only if we have the courage to go our own way can we strengthen our digital sovereignty. German politicians are faced with the challenge of giving citizens the same power of disposal over their digital property as they are used to with their analogue property. This should actually be a matter of course.

Why don’t cars eat people, but digitalisation does?

The automobile has been transporting people and goods from A to B since 1863. Its use has not changed in more than 160 years. For less than 40 years, we have been talking about digitalisation and developing a growing fear that AI will change us in our humanity, if not eat us up.

The reason for this is the ingenious idea of some marketing people to characterise digital development as disruptive. The complete disintegration of our society, or at least its replacement by something new, was anchored in people’s minds. As a result of this marketing, there was indeed a disruptive development on the part of the gatekeepers through scalable business models. If the distribution of value creation is in the hands of a few, if the concept ensures that wealth and political influence flow unchecked to these few, then this also has disruptive effects on society.
The car has significantly improved the social situation. Digitalisation can do the same if it is no longer seen as a disruption, but as a tool for the development of society.

The traffic light government is about to be voted out of office because it is not giving citizens a comprehensible answer as to how digitalisation will improve their situation and how disruption can be turned back into sustainable prosperity.

The fact that democracies are threatened by unrest and even wars after long periods of peace is directly linked to the lack of a democratic digital society.

The digitalisation of recent years has also shifted security from the citizen to the state. It is only with great difficulty that even democratic states can be prevented from practising total surveillance for their security. In https://finders.de/liberalism-is-a-law-of-human-nature-but-is-it-defensible/, I explained why a society that trusts its citizens need not fear autocracies – and I include gatekeepers in this. However, I also admitted that I was unable to push through concepts because there was no real protection for citizens. This is precisely what digitalisation can do, because digitalisation can just as easily create a participatory environment for every citizen that offers every citizen the same opportunities for advancement and protection for society, while at the same time dissolving autocracies from within in the long term through social competition.

KEY FIGURES FOR SOCIAL STRUCTURAL RELEVANCE
As an immediate measure, I call for the introduction of indicators for social structural relevance that can be used for political control, see https://gisad.eu/social-structure-relevance/ . Relevance must be scientifically underpinned and supported by a democratic basis.

The FDP has drawn up questions and answers for the FDP programme convention. I am going to add two values to these questions and answers. These values, which are based on a gut feeling, make it clear why such a system is so important for policy-making. Later, scientifically based key figures will have to be developed from them.
The first value stands for social relevance, i.e. how important an issue is in order to successfully maintain the pre-digital society. The second value relates to the relevance of the question, i.e. whether the question is only being asked against the background of an already misguided digital development and whether this misguided development may even be counterproductively reinforced.