Kategorie: The real Trillion Euro GAP

1. Real Situation in 2017: De Facto Censorship Prevents Discussion on Preserving Democracy

My professional books published by Springer on the blueprint for a digital society and the infrastructure for a digital constitution were added to the library of the German Bundestag but systematically ignored by the press. Meanwhile, in 2016, my human-machine model received significant media attention. The reason: While my model on communication disorders between humans and machines was accepted as a psychological thesis, my books directly challenged the legitimacy of the gatekeepers—and thus the power structures of the digital economy.

At the same time, my professional reputation was damaged by a false entry from Hightext Verlag Graf und Treplin OHG (online since 2001), which was only tagged with a noindex in 2024 (AG Krefeld 10 C 22/24) due to the „Right to Be Forgotten“ (EU Court ruling C-123/12). Until then, this entry blocked my alternative career and demonstrated: Freedom of the press does not guarantee that democratic debates take place. This is precisely where Article 1 of the EU-D-S Constitution comes in, which enshrines the obligation to foster a living democratic discourse.

2. Development Without Obstruction: Active Societal Discussion for Digital Inclusion

Without the de facto censorship of my work, Finder Technology (since 2000) and getMySense since 2002 – could have enabled a new culture of discussion. My approach: Digitally mapping the EU Charter—not through bans, but through the self-commitment of businesses within the framework of the EU-D-S. The diversity of solution providers (from religion to erotica) would have ensured that no aspect of pre-digital life was neglected. Inclusive digital participation—scalable, simple, and accessible to all.

„`

1. Real Situation in 2016: Compatibility with Pre-Digital State Not Achievable

After presenting Trusted WEB 4.0 in September 2015, I received significant media attention for my explanation of why humans and machines/technology do not understand each other. Against this backdrop, I prepared the founding of GISAD in 2016. My experiences from 2015 had shown: The public sector is unable to maintain the constitutional order digitally without external help.

Digital sovereignty requires that innovations from global clusters be adapted to people within a holistic concept—and in close interaction with them. Every person has specific strengths. With an AI optimized by the Finder Technology (see my later patent application 10 2026 000 788.7), such a comprehensive concept could be implemented. Success is not only achieved by those who succeed in a cluster but by those who position themselves at the forefront of value creation and create multiple added values for all stakeholders.

Data processors are not successful because they understood democratic societies, but because they implemented scalable business models without regard for societal consequences. For founders, startups become a gamble. Investors factor in failures and refinance them through the few highly scalable successes—and the growth of their power. They can monitor, manipulate, and expand their power through division.

An alternative, sustainable digital concept must proactively involve all people as part of a democratic society. It is about creating the right framework conditions for capital, risk, and sustainability for all those affected.

Despite investments of €6.5 billion in EU startups in 2016, most successful companies were later acquired by non-European corporations. One could also say: The EU took on the financing for unconstitutional concepts.

2. Development Without Obstruction: From Democratic Guiding Principle to Self-Sustaining System

If the Finder Technology had been consistently implemented since 2000, its category structure would have automatically created a comprehensive system comparable to the EU-D-S. If the „digital year“ at GraTeach had been continued from 2001—with interdisciplinary development of the digital society—and integrated into the trendsetter program getmySense in 2002, then neither GISAD for developing metrics on societal structural relevance nor the EU-D-S as a counter-concept to the gatekeepers would have been necessary. The existing autocratic digital concepts would have had no chance.

Today’s democratic upheavals could have largely been avoided. Citizens would have been able to compare the concept of Trusted WEB 4.0 with gatekeeper concepts. They would have had to adapt much less to a disruptive new situation. Proven societal structures would have been preserved.

1. Real Situation in 2015: No Lessons Learned from Past Mistakes

My professional books were included in the library of the German Bundestag, after I predicted the attack on the Bundestag via svchost.exe. My expertise was acknowledged—yet nothing changed. Instead, I myself repeatedly became the target of attacks, simply because I advocate for the constitutional order.

In 2014 and 2015, I applied to the State Office for the Protection of the Constitution in Schleswig-Holstein, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, and the State Chancellery of North Rhine-Westphalia for a position. A simple legal analysis would have been sufficient to recognize that I had been a victim of attacks for years—precisely because I am committed to defending the democratic constitutional order. According to its mandate, the Office for the Protection of the Constitution should have protected me from further state encroachments.

Yet, on April 20, 2015, the District Court of Kleve (A/654/2015 I) disqualified another lawyer to the detriment of reopening the GraTeach insolvency proceedings. Is this a coincidence? Or is there an anti-constitutional connection here? Has the Office for the Protection of the Constitution truly fulfilled its duty to protect the free democratic basic order?

2. Development Without Obstruction: German Democracy as Transparent as Scandinavian States

Germany became the largest country in the EU through reunification. Yet instead of leveraging its size as an opportunity, it suffers from a lack of transparency and complexity. Hunting terrorists is not enough—an equally significant threat comes from data processors who undermine democratic structures by exploiting the inevitable gaps in a complex system.

With getmysense 2002 – Loss of confidence to the detriment of the economy, many citizens could have become experts in specific areas, reviewing and evaluating digital content with others. This way, even in a large, complex country like Germany, a level of transparency comparable to Scandinavian states could have been achieved.

However, a state like North Rhine-Westphalia, which continues to deny the failures surrounding the GraTeach insolvency, will never be able to act in accordance with the constitution in the future.

—

1. Real Situation in 2014: Hybrid Warfare and Digital Powerlessness

In 2014, Russia used the annexation of Crimea as a test case for a new form of warfare:
The combination of disinformation, cyberattacks, and social manipulation enabled it to divide the population and delay international responses.
Ukraine and Europe had no digital resilience to effectively counter these attacks.

The dependence on centralized platforms (e.g., Russian social media channels like VKontakte or state-controlled media) made it nearly impossible for Ukrainian civil society to spread alternative narratives.

Without a decision-making basis for the people, democracies will perish – especially in a digitized world.

2. Development Without Obstruction: Trusted WEB 4.0 as a Democratic Alternative

By 2014, the KHA-FDP resolution proposal, which was only introduced in 2022 and supported by liberal EU parliamentarians, could have already been implemented. A Federal Digital Minister would have had the political backing in 2014 to enforce the concept. However, by 2022, the situation had deteriorated to the point where the Digital Minister did not even respond to his own party’s proposal but continued independently! The digital one-to-one VPN road between exiled Russians and Russians in resistance would have been a standard tested since 2007 under the WAN anonymity framework.
This would have set the following levers in motion:

Decentralized Communication Infrastructure:
A one-to-one VPN road would have allowed exiled Russians and Ukrainian activists to bring uncensored information directly into Russia and Crimea.
Manipulation through Russian propaganda (e.g., the claim that Ukraine was overrun by „fascists“) would have been 30–50% less effective.
The fake referendum in Crimea (March 2014) would have received lower approval (60–70% instead of 96.7%), undermining the international legitimacy of the annexation.

Social Control Through Digital Cooperatives:
Local, trusted networks in Ukraine could have exposed disinformation and organized resistance – similar to pre-digital social control, where citizens alerted each other to misinformation.
The passivity of the Crimean population might have been broken if digital alternatives to Russian propaganda had existed.

GISAD as a Clearinghouse for Standards:
By 2014, GISAD could have already established European standards for digital sovereignty, such as:
Anonymous, censorship-resistant communication (decentralized VPNs, blockchain-based identity verification).
Transparent algorithms for social media to make manipulation by bots and troll factories (e.g., Russia’s „Internet Research Agency“) more difficult.
The costs for disinformation campaigns (estimated at €500 million/year) would have increased by 30–50% (€150–250 million) due to reduced propaganda effectiveness.

Economic Leverage:
Linking social benefits and economic participation with digital involvement would have created a broad basis for digital resilience in Ukraine.
Example: Ukrainian citizens could have been rewarded for fact-checking information, reducing the spread of disinformation.
The economic losses from the annexation (e.g., tourism in Crimea: ~€4 billion/year) could have been partially avoided.

1. Real Situation in 2013: Surveillance as a Tool of Power

I had already written my second book, „The Trillion Dollar Gap“. In an excerpt from the fictional story „QX – Island in Jezioro Kisajno“, I wrote: „The Quadrilla is to decide who should be promoted or eliminated.“ With this, I wanted to show that surveillance does not serve to protect citizens but rather to exercise power in secret—without democratic legitimacy.

By 2013, the stage was already set for Europe’s later dependence on US surveillance tools like Palantir. The EU relied on centralized databases and automated analyses without sufficiently examining the risks of dependencies or their compatibility with European data protection standards. In December 2013, the Advocate General at the ECJ, Pedro Cruz Villalón, classified data retention as disproportionate and in violation of fundamental rights—a clear signal that the EU was wavering between security and fundamental rights. Yet instead of consistently upholding its values, it gave in.

2. Development Without Obstruction: AI Designed Democratically from the Outset

If I had not been forced to abandon my search engine patent from 1999 due to persecution, this technology could have actively shaped the discussion around AI and data sovereignty. The Finder algorithm uses the smallest meaningful unit, which is firmly linked to categories. This makes manipulation more difficult, as like-minded individuals from the same category automatically receive new entries for evaluation. Every AI learns from training data. The category framework trains the AI to allow different perspectives in various societal areas, thereby also training ethics. The genuine interest of evaluators in generating high-quality data significantly improves the quality of AI outputs.

The question is: Does the state want to deny its citizens digital participation? Scalable business models of gatekeepers aim only at power—not at societal added value. A productive digital activity for all must be a fundamental right. Those who are included do not boycott, are less likely to fall ill, and incur fewer social costs. Transforming social costs into participation payments would be an economic gain: High-quality data improves AI outputs and reduces frictional losses in digital transformation.

—

1. Real Situation in 2012: Everything Good Is Simply Shut Down

Everything was prepared for the getmysense launch in early 2013. Even a legislative initiative seemed tailor-made for getmysense. However, on the day of the launch, the server was attacked with such severe cyberattacks that I had to shut down the server with the old operating system. In the 16 years prior, the server had been online without significant interruptions. One last time, I dug deep into my pocket to go back online, purchasing the latest technology with the best available security tools. It was all for nothing.

2. Development Without Obstacles: What Could Have Been

The approach with getmysense and its systematic, user-driven categorization of content would have fundamentally changed AI development in the EU—on multiple levels:

a. Data Sovereignty and Training Data: The Decisive Lever

Since 2002, getmysense would have generated billions of high-quality, manually controlled categorization data. These data would not only have been quantitatively superior but, above all, qualitatively:

• Topics to Categories: Instead of unstructured data floods, Europe would have had a semantically processed knowledge base—ideal for training AI models that rely on precision and contextual understanding.
• Authors to Like-Minded Individuals: Networking users based on interests and expertise would have created social graphs that today could serve as the foundation for recommendation systems and collaborative AI applications.
• Embedded European Values: Unlike the data-driven, ad-funded models of US platforms, getmysense would have prioritized data protection, transparency, and inclusive value creation from the start—exactly the values that today, in the EU AI Act and with European AI companies like Mistral AI or Aleph Alpha, are considered competitive advantages.

Result: Europe would not only have had more data but better data—and thus eliminated the critical bottleneck for AI innovation.

b. Dominance in AI Development: Why Europe Could Have Led

• Early Lead in Structured Data: Most AI breakthroughs (e.g., deep learning since 2012) are based on large, well-annotated datasets. With getmysense, Europe would have controlled this resource a decade earlier—avoiding dependence on US data monopolies.
• Open-Source and B2B Focus: European AI companies today successfully focus on industrial applications, explainable AI, and privacy-compliant solutions—precisely the strengths that getmysense, with its user-centered, categorized knowledge base, would have promoted.
• Preventing the „Brain Drain“: Instead of European AI talent migrating to Google or Meta, a European ecosystem with local value creation (as envisioned in the EU-D-S concept) would have retained the best minds.

c. Economic Impact: What Europe Missed Out On

The lack of data sovereignty and platform dependence has cost Europe not only innovation but also tangible value creation since 2002:

• Lost AI Market Opportunities: Between 2013 and 2023 alone, $486 billion flowed into US AI companies—European startups received only $76 billion. With getmysense as a data foundation, Europe could have created 1,000 dynamic monopolies where optimal protection against gatekeepers and investment security would still allow a constant influx of new ideas and innovators, rather than just being suppliers to US corporations.
• Platform Fees and Data Outflows: Due to the dominance of Google, Amazon & Co., the EU has lost dozens of billions annually since 2012 in platform fees, advertising revenue, and cloud services—money that could have flowed into local innovation.
• Regulatory Costs: The current need to enforce the Digital Markets Act and EU AI Act is also a result of the missed opportunity to build fair, homegrown platforms early on. getmysense would have made this regulation unnecessary—through decentralized control and user-centered value creation from the start.

d. Societal Impact: Democracy Instead of Digital Autocracy

The concept would have had not only economic but also democratic effects:

• Against the „Attention Economy“: Instead of algorithms driving users into filter bubbles and polarization (as with Facebook or YouTube), getmysense would have strengthened public discourse through topic-based networking—a counter-model to today’s disinformation crisis.
• Inclusive Participation: The vision of involving all citizens in value creation would have become reality: Instead of a few tech giants siphoning off profits, users would have directly benefited from their data and knowledge work—a core concern of the EU-D-S project.

1. Real Situation in 2011: Simply Carry On?!

During the three-year probation period related to GraTeach, I worked intensively on preparing the launch of getmySense for 2012. Before the probation ended, I did not want to risk going to prison by re-engaging in efforts to preserve democracy. I programmed the project myself and implemented it without third-party funding. Distribution was to be handled by external agencies, and a partner for the German-speaking market had already been found. Additionally, a private investor was ready to finance expansion after a successful pilot project. To increase visibility, I submitted an application for the ECO Internet Award 2012.

2. Development Without Obstruction: What Could Have Been!

With GraTeach, I had already demonstrated that it takes about a decade for new ways of thinking to become socially established. A generation spans an average of 25 years—but it would have been enough if the 18-year-olds of 2011 had grown up with Trusted WEB 4.0. They would have first encountered getmySense in 2002, at the age of nine, and learned that the internet is not just about fun but also about inspiration. Schools could have critically discussed the design of a digital society early on. Students could have increased their pocket money by uncovering fake news. Compensation and deductions for fake news would be handled automatically. The penalty for fake news is calculated so that the system operates cost-neutrally through automatic micropayments. Thanks to the WAN anonymity concept, every user receives automatic payment access upon their first registration in the EU-D-S, without having to worry about data privacy. Even before university, some could focus on specific areas through the category concept and build a reputation by contributing or identifying errors (which are often unintentional). Recognition in a category within the EU-D-S could offset a poor school grade.

Those over 20—university graduates and master craftsmen—could have used the digital, interdisciplinary year developed by GraTeach to prepare themselves for the digital society while also giving back through projects at the digital site. The duration of the „year“ could have varied between two months and two years. Companies could have covered the internship fee upon hiring, while the public sector would only act as an interim financier. A win-win situation for all involved.

1. Real Situation in 2009: When the State Becomes Unbearable for Citizens

On September 9, 2009, the proceedings regarding GraTeach were supposed to be discontinued. Instead, I was pushed into a hearing that served not justice, but system relief. Although the public prosecutor had signaled a willingness to discontinue the proceedings, the conversation turned into a regular hearing where lawyers and the court acted together—not in the interest of the case, but in the interest of a „solution“ that was safe for them. Without legal representation and under massive pressure, I had to accept a suspended sentence. It was not about my actions, but about discontinuing the proceedings against the management and eliminating me as a „disruptive factor.“

My experiences show: Those who advocate for democratic concerns are not protected, but systematically hindered.

2. Development Without Obstruction: What Could Have Been

Without the systematic obstruction by judicial arbitrariness and structural disadvantages, GraTeach would not only have survived but would have become a lighthouse project for digital participation and decentralized value creation. A „digital, interdisciplinary year“ after studies would have strengthened digital competencies and promoted structurally relevant products. Blockchain and AI would not have remained mere buzzwords but would have been tools to break up power concentrations and create new value creation models.

The FDP would have had the chance to transform from a program party into a movement party—one that not only demands freedom but actively shapes it. Instead, politics remained stuck in theoretical debates while digital society urgently needed new rules.