On a more serious note, what yell said makes sense.

Why is it so hard to do Xeno?... Reality doesn't let us.

I'd like to think the reason is that I am a such a highly imaginative and intelligent person that I am the first in the world to have imagined the following:

We need a universal social network of which each connection acts as independent nexuses or 'shapes' of interactivity through which the individual can express to and perceive from every other individual's independent nexuses or 'shapes' of interactivity.

Each nexus or shape is like a self-perpetuating, self-multiplying spore with multidimensional mirrors which spin and invert and transform all according to how users want to share content to the world.

Such 'shapes' of interactivity need not be limited to individuals.  Such could also be clubs, organizations, and even businesses, although not through creating a new nexus point.  Rather, these shapes of individuals' interactivity can be perceived by the system as forming a separate group 'shape' of interactivity. 

There's no need for groups to have their own nexus points, but rather to simply be the shape that exists in the empty space between group members' inter-connectivity as they interact with each other within the group.  There is also no need for individuals to be perceived as belonging to specific groups simply because they interact with such 'shapes' of interactivity.

At the root of the matter is that a single individual's nexuses of interactivity can form multiple shapes to represent that individual only in so far as that individual wants to be represented by those shapes of interactivity, whereas the shapes of the group itself must be transparent for ethical or legal reasons.  This is not to say that the individual can't participate as a member of a group and representing that group in certain capacities and still have his or her privacy assured.  It would all depending on the guiding ethical principles of the group or legal requirements of the nation in which the individual is located.

For the individual, the shapes representing their interactivity with other nexus points of shapes of interactivity should be as transparent or opaque as the individual prefers.  For in such case, they are not representing any group.

The shape which represents a corporation, association, political party, group, club, etc. on such a social network would be required by law to be transparent to certain degrees depending on the nature of the group and the laws of the country in which that group operates.

If full transparency occurred across the board, we'd all be able to know much better about what is going on in the world, how people think about things, share knowledge, share implications of knowledge, share ideas for solutions to problems.  This in my opinion would be to all our benefit as a civilization.  The system shouldn't force such on us, though.

Abuse is prevented by design: the group, be it a chess club or a transnational corporation, is represented to the world as the overall shape of its shapes of interactivity with other group or individuals' shapes, rather than a separate nexus point for that group, the premise being that a group is not an individual and it is thus not have the same level of protection as an individual should have; such is indicative of reality, for it to have its own point in the network as if it were an individual is absurd, for groups are not individuals.  Thus the overall shape representing the group should consist of of its various shapes representing the individual group members' interactivity.

As such, the interaction of employees of a company, or shareholders of a company, or players of a video game would be presented as shapes of interactivity which represents their group's overall shape of interactivity as if it were a nexus point when in fact it isn't.

This system would hold to account the individual for the portion of such content that they've contributed whether as an individual or as a representative member of a group.

Of course, individuals alone, individuals as part of a group, and groups themselves would all be able to maintain their privacy by deciding to what extent and to whom their contribution of interactivity is available.  In fact, they'd be better enabled to do so with such a system than with the systems presently available today.

The fact that such groups and individuals are maintaining their privacy would be clear to everyone however, again for ethical reasons.

The individual would be able to ensure that their privacy is maintained, for all contributions would stored on the user's device, and could be deleted or updated as the user might see fit.  Such content would remain the user's property under their own individual copyright, although it would be perceivable and potentially shareable to everyone, until such time as the individual withdraws their interactivity by simply deleting it from their own device or moving it out of their shared home space.   

All interactivity would be stored on the respective individuals' devices rather than a centralized corporation's server.

And yet, would would still function as a cloud server, only decentralized rather than centralized.  It would be a universal cloud, where each person's interactivity is stored by them, and where the extent of access to their interactivity is determined by them, whether it is to specific individuals only, specific groups only, or the whole world, all as the individual chooses.

And, again, they can ensure such because the portion of data which is their interactivity is stored on their hardware.

For now, all of this is just a figment of my imagination.  It doesn't exist yet.  That being said, I am not all that imaginative.  It's not all that out-there an idea if you really think about it.  It's actually pretty much just common sense.  So much so, I am sure someone has thought up something similar.  In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if thousands of people are working on such a platform right now.

I wouldn't be surprised if it just sort of popped up on the net tomorrow.  Maybe it is some sort of new p2p-based social network client or app that you can download - something like mIRC, but where our inter-connectivity is the server to which we all connect - the backbone of the internet itself.

Would the backbone of the internet be sufficient and the computing power of individuals' devices be sufficient in maintaining the network in such a way that people could share their interactivity with anyone and in the unlikely event, everyone?  I believe so yes.  I haven't done the math, but I believe so, yes.

Individuals' multidimensional shapes of interactivity are made available to others', where each interaction with such activity changes each user's other shapes of interactivity as in a chain reaction throughout all networks.  Data would merely be reflected through the network rather than stored anywhere except the content-creating individuals' device and the device of the individuals presently authorized by the creator's preferences to perceive such data.  And as we are intending to share truths, implications, and ideas for solutions implied by the truths that we share, most of it would be text and links for the purposes of interacting in debates and arguments of interest to us as they occur; to perceive others' truth-telling from their personal stories that they might want to share and be perceived by the world, again only to the extent that the creator and owner of that interactivity wants other people to perceive or interact with it.

The creating individual and perceiving individual can retain their respective privacy by the very process of interacting.  Individuals' shapes of interactivity change form as they interact with other shapes of interactivity.  The individual can therefore rest assured that their privacy is secure as they are perceiving and sharing their truths, implications of truths, and ideas with other individuals.

Such multidimensional, constantly in flux shapes representing the interactivity of the individual would act as nexus points in a decentralized social network, a network which itself would be in constant flux based on individuals' choice of which shapes of interactivity they might choose to interact with or which shapes of interactivity they would like to share with others.

It is problem and a solution (depending on your perspective) that on the one hand, all individuals would be able to retain their privacy according to their preferences, but on the other hand the shapes of interactivity that form as a result of individuals' interactivity as representing a group's interactivity would necessarily be transparent.

But then, why would a group want to remain private?  It defeats the purpose of a group, doesn't it?  And doesn't it serve the interest of us all to have the shapes of groups' interactivity made available to all?

Again, whether it is a problem or a solution depends on one's ethical perspective.

All that's needed is an effective, efficient, user-friendly concept by which the user can perceive this system, visualize this system, and thus understand how their privacy is protected, how abuse is prevented, how systemic tyranny is prevented by the decentralization of systemic power.

And yet, in spite of (or perhaps because of) such decentralization, the context in which the ideas that we need in order to solve the problems we face in the world can be shared among us all.  In other words, it would work better than a centralized cloud server.

Simply put, it is insufficient towards our best interests as a civilization to be participating in a system whereby the solutions we need to solve the problems we face in the world are dispersed via a centralized system, controlled by a system that serves own best, short-term interests, and does so at the expense of the long term interests of the survival of species.

We need a platform which would allow us all to access ideas, share awareness of ideas, debate and discuss ideas, and to know who is sharing what, know what is being discussed and with whom, for the purpose providing the individual the opportunity to interact with that interactivity if they so choose, and do so while protecting people's right to privacy.

We are disenfranchised and isolated in spite of all this technological capability to interconnect.  Why?  It's because what we have now is a social network and societal system which is designed to serve the interests of only a few rather than all of us.

I wouldn't be surprised if such a social network that we need already exists and is available for free but that it just hasn't yet been discovered by the majority of us, perhaps because it isn't in Google's, Facebook's, governments', or any other establishment-orientated system's interest for it to be discovered by the majority.

What I am saying is needed is decentralization for government / business to have less power to prevent people from actualizing the fulfillment of their basic needs.