While her article makes a facile analysis, in my view, the random old lady is proposing that whether it be decentralized or not the underlying principle is the same which she terms as programmable freedom.
At the same time, I doubt McDowell is controlled opposition but rather this is an ideological problem between passionate people. I find it interesting that the goal post has shifted from mutual understanding to a clique versus clique; maybe it's the dynamic of social media. I am not defending anyone here simply stating a critical observation.
The really ironic part is that McDowell and Broze could probably agree on a lot but this blockchain disagreement is a major point of contention. In a truly genuine way I ask: Why can these two compassionate individuals work it out beyond personal attacks?
Potentially, but everything she actually mentions is about giant corporations actually creating "training centers" and shit like that, for centralized games, where the players can't ever own the assets... None of which is really transferable to the crypto/blockchain world, or decentralization as a whole.
Anyone who's done any research into Agenda 21/2030, the Great Reset, etc knows that their plan is Metaverse + Biometrics + Cashless. The three options this leaves people are:
So... when someone is actively pushing against 1 & 2... that only leaves them supporting the Agenda itself, as far as I can tell.
I don't know so much about this - the only things I've seen from her are all disinformation and coordinated attacks on people like Derrick (and MANY others in the freedom movement), doing her best to convince anyone that will listen that they (we now I'm sure) are part of the UN Agenda... Just like she did with the first chunk of this post about Derrick, before jumping to a totally unrelated topic, trying to make it seem like they were the same.
Derrick's reached out to her repeatedly to have an interview, she refused and blocked him, and continues making fraudulent hit pieces about him.
Nothing but personal attacks. She also deletes all comments on any platform that don't fit her narrative.
For example, I left a comment calmly replying to her post above, with a link to this post. She deleted the comment, then copy-pasted a few parts of this post into hers, out of context and out of order (formatted as though it is all connected) and then put this at the beginning of it (with no mention of the edit, response to me, or addressing the misleading way she stuck it all together):
She sure looks and quacks like a duck...
I followed her work and analyzed her video presentations without allowing my bias to take over. I agree with the major points you've outlined in the above posts. I don't think you are wrong in presenting a defense of your friend Derrick.
I am making an effort to go beyond the personal attacks and accusations of being controlled opposition. From this perspective, I've concluded for the most part it boils down to ideological differences and quotidian trivialities. I don't intend to downplay the seriousness of this discussion...which is why I find it disheartening that a meaningful resolution did not come about.
I was blocked by McDowell on twitter for directing her attention to consider some other alternative explanations about Cardano's involvement in Ethiopia. Since I had that interaction (or lack thereof) between her and myself...I know that you are correct in pointing out her unwillingness to have an open discussion with the "other side."
My point of interest in this is not to defend my position in crypto or support an ideologically aligned ally...rather to create a meaningful discussion between opposing parties. The onerous lies with McDowell because of her penchant to block, delete and sidelined opposing discussion.
I will attempt to be a bridge of understanding between the opposing camps. They are far too many people who believe prepackaged narratives: crypto all good, crypto all bad. I hope I can help in a meaningful way to further the discussion.