Building in Public
- Leah
- Jan 21
- 7 min read
Updated: 3 days ago
Part 4 of 'How Democracies Lose Their Minds — And How We Rebuild Them'
Most large systems are built behind closed doors and revealed once finished. That model may work for technical infrastructure. But epistemic defence depends on public legitimacy — not just deployment.
A black-box accountability system would be instantly dismissed as biased, no matter how rigorous the methodology. A curated information platform built in secret would be accused of capture, no matter how independent the team. Dialogue infrastructure designed without community input would fail to serve actual needs.
If we’re trying to rebuild shared reality and institutional trust, authority alone isn’t enough. Buy-in has to be earned.
This isn't just idealism. It's structural necessity.
Building in public isn't optional. It's the condition under which epistemic infrastructure becomes defensible.
Here’s what we can build, what I’ve learned from years of testing these concepts, the infrastructure it requires, and who is needed to make it real.
How I Got Here
THENO — THE NO — started as my refusal to accept epistemic collapse as inevitable.
For years, I've been analysing where open, enlightened Western societies took the wrong turn. Working with individuals and organisations. Testing different approaches to building information resilience and improving collective sense-making. Watching the same patterns repeat: institutions failing, media filtering reality, citizens fragmenting into parallel realities.
THENO became the platform for going further: publishing these essays, sharing insights with clients, seeding concepts into the organisations and individuals I work with. A way of saying "no" to the trajectory we're on.
While I love working with individuals & organisations, I know it won't build what we need: Consulting services aren't civic infrastructure. Individual resilience development doesn't scale to societal repair. Analysis matters when it leads to better decisions.
That's what this is: the transition from analysis to architecture, from testing concepts at small scale to building infrastructure that can operate at civic scale.
I never pretended that one person can do this alone.
Laying the Foundation for Epistemic Defence: Layer 1
The first layer is information infrastructure — what I described in the previous essay as curation that surfaces signal without capture.
The use of platform bans and access restrictions is a common surface-level response, creating a potential blind spot: they fail to address the underlying problems that justify them in the first place.
The base that sustains the rest: An educational platform that does two things simultaneously: provides curated access to high-quality content AND teaches discernment. Not just "here's better information" - but "here's how to evaluate information quality yourself”.
Users don't just consume curated content. They develop the capacity to curate for themselves. They learn to assess credibility, detect manipulation, distinguish signal from noise. The platform makes them smarter, not just better-informed. Not a mirror. Not a proxy. A capability-building layer.
What Comes After Layer 1
If Layer 1 proves the model works, the architecture expands:
Layer 2: Dialogue infrastructure built on the curated foundation. Public conversations with content creators and contributors to Layer 1. Working groups developing methodology. Structured engagement across perspectives. The coordination layer that makes Layer 3 possible.
Layer 3: Accountability infrastructure developed collaboratively through Layer 2. Making institutional coherence trackable. Not one organisation's algorithm, but transparently developed methodology with distributed expertise.
Each layer independently valuable. Each creating preconditions for the next. Each testable before committing to the next phase.
This is how we build civic infrastructure — not all at once, but with each component proving itself before becoming foundation for what follows.
What Serious Building Requires
I'm not looking for funding because I ‘have an idea’. I've spent years developing these concepts. I'm looking for co-builders who understand what it actually takes to construct something like this responsibly.
A. Technical Capability
Platform engineering - Building for resilience and integrity, not growth hacking. Systems designed to survive platform volatility, jurisdictional pressure, and long-term operation.
Security architecture - This will be attacked. Both technically (attempts to compromise) and socially (attempts to capture or discredit). Defence needs to be built into architecture from day one.
UX design - Making complexity accessible without oversimplifying. Serving both casual users seeking quality information and engaged participants contributing to development.
Looking for: builders who understand civic infrastructure, with the capability to design systems that remain adaptive rather than harden into rigid structures, and who prioritise getting it right over getting it done fast.
B. Mission-Aligned Resources
We're not building a charity seeking perpetual subsidy.
There are solid business models here — subscription tiers, creator revenue sharing, organisational services. The economics work. Content creators can earn sustainable income. The platform can be profitable. There are additional layers beyond the three-layer architecture — ways to create participatory economics that align incentives at scale.
This just isn't optimised for the kind of returns that let founders buy yachts in year three.
What's needed is capital that understands the difference between “bad business model” and “business model that takes 5 years instead of 18 months”. Between "won't make money" and "won't make money fast enough for venture economics”.
Responsible capitalism exists. Business models that serve users, compensate creators fairly, and generate sustainable returns without surveillance, manipulation, or extraction. The question is whether enough people still believe that's possible — or if we've all accepted that only predatory models work.
I'm building on the assumption that we haven't all given up yet.
The kind of capital that built infrastructure for institutions to see clearly in adversarial environments understands that civic infrastructure can be both mission-driven and economically viable.
I’m not looking for a VC or perpetual fundraising. I’m looking for partners who know real impact and profitability can coexist — and that this makes for stronger, longer-lasting value than chasing growth alone.
C. Domain Expertise
They are out there:
Academics who can help develop rigorous methodology without getting lost in theory.
Journalists who understand what quality information looks like and how to assess source credibility.
Ethicists who can help build guardrails preventing the systems we build from becoming new vectors for old problems.
Legal experts who understand jurisdictional complexity and can help design for defensibility.
These people become more than advisors. They become collaborators in developing Layer 2 and Layer 3 — the dialogue and accountability infrastructure that requires distributed expertise.
D. Engaged Participants
Not consumers. Not users. Participants in building civic infrastructure.
People exhausted by information chaos who want something better. People tired of choosing between institutional gatekeeping and algorithmic noise. People who believe shared reality is still possible even when we disagree.
Early participants who will test, critique, improve. Who understand this is infrastructure under construction, not polished product. Whose engagement helps shape what this becomes.
What This Actually Is
This is civic infrastructure built for generational timescales.
If you've built living infrastructure — systems that last because they can adapt, that grow organically rather than calcify — where integrity matters more than speed, where getting it right matters more than getting it done fast - you'll recognise the constraints.
This is not another social media platform, not a partisan outlet, not a centralised authority arbitrating truth.
This is infrastructure for collective sense-making. The kind that helps free societies maintain shared reality without surrendering to authority or fragmenting into tribalism.
If you're focused on quick exits and personal branding, this will frustrate you. If you understand that some infrastructure just takes time to build right, let's talk.
The Commitment
If you engage with this — as co-builder, funder, expert, or participant — here's what you can expect:
Transparent development. We’ll publish constraints, decisions, failures. Building in public means actual visibility, not just polished updates.
Charter enforcement. The No Capture and Continuity charters aren't aspirational documents. They're operational constraints with accountability mechanisms.
Regular progress updates. What's working. What's not. What we're learning. What's changing.
Honesty about difficulty. Unknowns will surface only in production. I won’t pretend otherwise.
Indifference to branding. I don't care whether this continues as THENO, takes a new name, or gets absorbed into something larger. The work matters. The infrastructure matters. The brand doesn't.
Who This Is For
If you're looking for:
Quick exits and venture returns → This isn't for you
Simple solutions and easy answers → This isn't for you
Status from being "early" to something → This isn't for you
If you're still reading because:
You see what I see and it keeps you up at night → Let's talk
You've built hard infrastructure before and know what it takes → Let's talk
You have resources and want them to matter beyond quarterly returns → Let's talk
You experience this work as a ‘calling’ grounded in responsibility, not merely opportunity → Let’s talk
A note on capacity: I can't accommodate everyone who wants to participate. Layer 1 buildout requires a small, high-trust team. If this resonates but timing isn't right, subscribe for updates. As we prove the model and expand to Layer 2, more participation becomes possible.
The Choice
At this stage, epistemic defence systems are no longer a theoretical ideal — they are a functional requirement. The information void is too vast, societal fragmentation too severe, and the collapse of trust too dangerous.
The only question is whether it gets built deliberately — with integrity, transparency, and the constraints that make it defensible — or whether informal, potentially captured alternatives fill the void.
Building deliberately requires:
Starting with Layer 1 and proving it works
Being honest about what's hard
Rejecting shortcuts that compromise principles
Attracting people who care about getting it right
Patient capital and long-term thinking
Transparent development and collaborative methodology
The longer we delay building deliberate infrastructure, the more likely improvised and captured alternatives will define the space.
This is the hinge moment. Either we build it right, or we watch alternatives emerge that replicate the problems we need to solve.
What's Next
If this resonates — if you see what's needed and want to help build it — reach out: info@theno.online
Tell me:
What you see (the problem as you understand it)
What you bring (capability, resources, expertise, energy)
Why now (what makes this urgent for you)
I'm looking for a small number of serious people to build Layer 1 over the next 12 months. Technical co-founders. Mission-aligned capital. Domain experts. Engaged participants who want to shape what this becomes.
Not a crowd. A team. People who understand that civic infrastructure is built carefully, collaboratively, and with integrity as the primary constraint.
The analysis is mature. The architecture is clear. The principles are established.
Now comes the building.
If this is you, the door is open.
This is Part 4 of the series 'How Democracies Lose Their Minds — And How We Rebuild Them.'
Part 4: Building in Public (this essay)
Contact: info@theno.online
Subscribe below for updates.
Comments