To win the information war we must have ZERO-CENSORSHIP
The flip-side to zero-censorship is
that everyone needs to be able to use LOGIC to clearly distinguish between FACT and OPINION so we don't get herded like sheep by the mass-media (PR = Propaganda = Cambridge Analytica).
For example, we all get suckered when we fall for terms like, "good for consumers".
It sounds nice. It even gives me a warm feeling inside when I hear it mentioned in the news.
But what they're hiding is, that while whatever BS they're pushing may seem "good for consumers" it's definitely not good for small businesses and it's not good for privacy rights and it's not good for individual content creators and it's not good for workers.
Please buy as much as you can, create nothing, and turn your brain off.
Then you'll be the perfect "consumer" and everything will work out just fine.
In order for SCIENCE to work properly, ALL SCIENTIFIC STUDIES MUST BE PUBLISHED with 100% of their raw data.
If the raw data is "proprietary" or "top-secret" or "lost" then it's PSEUDOSCIENCE and should be treated as such.
ZERO-CENSORSHIP.
In order for new ideas to thrive and give regular creative people a chance to thrive, COPYRIGHTS AND PATENTS MUST BE LIMITED TO 20 YEARS.
ZERO-CENSORSHIP.
In order for GOVERNMENT TO WORK PROPERLY AND TO INSURE INTEGRITY AND ELIMINATE CORRUPTION all government records must be made PUBLIC. Preferably on a public BLOCKCHAIN.
NO MORE BACK-ROOM DEALS. NO MORE INSIDER TRADING. NO MORE NEPOTISM. NO MORE LIES.
ZERO-CENSORSHIP.
ZOMBIEBASICTRAINING
+proHUMAN +proFAMILY
Your scathing critique is requested.
@logiczombie has set 7.777 STEEM bounty on this post!
Bounties let you earn rewards without the need for Steem Power. Go here to learn how bounties work.
Earn the bounty by commenting what you think the bounty creator wants to know from you.
Find more bounties here and become a bounty hunter.
Happy Rewards Hunting!
Congratulations to the following winner(s) of the bounty!
Find more bounties here and become a bounty hunter.
Find more bounties here and become a bounty hunter.
Find more bounties here and become a bounty hunter.
Find more bounties here and become a bounty hunter.
Find more bounties here and become a bounty hunter.
Find more bounties here and become a bounty hunter.
Find more bounties here and become a bounty hunter.
Find more bounties here and become a bounty hunter.
This is a pleasant surprise
Thanks very much !
Interesting that your bounty is 7.777
Logical reasoning is once decline even for people who studied it in school. Our thinking is mass produced by the media and few notice
Posted using Partiko Android
Hi @logiczombie
Thank you for following @haccolong account. As a follower of @haccolong, this post has been upvoted by @hoaithu's Curation Trail.
This is free upvote first when you follow @haccolong . Although it is quite small, I hope you enjoy them.
To earn more rewards with your Steemit account. Check through some of the ways at this post.
I will continue with random upvotes in the future & wish you lots of luck. :)
100% agree on scientific papers. However, even then I can see misinformation sneaking in through the cracks of language and marketing - through omission or clever wording - they can effectively mislead you even if the content is scientifically accurate.
As for copyright, I see it differently... i have come to the conclusion that the only true property that we hoomans ever possess is our mind and our ideas. And therefore I value ideas and content as being the sovereign property of its creator. And unless we create other incentives (non-monetary) to entice people to share this property, I think this idea of ending copyright so early would infringe on the rights of ownership of the creator. Currently, by law, copyrights end after the author dies +70 years (to benefit his legacy). and I would be willing to grand that we can do away with the inheritance of legacy... but this would also trample on some basic libertarian principles... so the question is, should we tax (or even steal) people's intellectual property for the benefit of society? or should we respect the individual sovereignty of their minds?
Only corporations can afford to defend copyrights.
As an individual, you can't afford to defend your "original idea" even if you're in the right.
This is the exact opposite of the original intent of copyright law.
The reality is that we cannot defend any ideas. The only thing copyright grants to the creator is ownership of the distribution of a particular creation (not idea). Copyright is limited, and if one wants to extend that defense they might need to ask for trademark. However, I'm not sure i understand your position clearly... are you in favor of stronger copyrights or are you in favor of limiting them to 20 years for the sake of benefiting society?
I'm suggesting that if you write a book or a song or a movie, 20 years is more than enough time for you to make a reasonable profit.
And the copyright or patent should only apply to the individual creator (as originally intended).
Corporations don't need copyrights or patents, because they can simply out-produce or out-distribute their competitors (free-market-economics).
Copyrights and patents were intended to protect the "little guy", they were never intended to be a Weapon of the Fat Cats.
good stuff, thank you for clarifying. I actually agree with almost all of these ideas. The only one that im not convinced about is the 20-year expiration. I think it is very subjective to say what is enough time, and what is dimmed enough as far as an artist's potential to profit from their creation. I see some pros and cons stemming from this scenario... The pro might be pressure to promote one's own creations faster and more aggressively... the con might be the emotional anguish of an artist if they failed to benefit from their art, but someone later does...
But I do understand your view now, and I think that, as someone who believes in socialized medicine, education, etc. I have to be consistent and accept the idea of more socialized intellectual property (if it benefits society). which it will almost certainly will.
I agree it seems like a bit of a trade-off, but in-the-end, if individuals can remix or re-purpose ideas without the constant threat of being sued into oblivion, I think the world would be a much better place.
@logiczombie, In my opinion due to Mass Advertising Initiatives we are just limited to Mass Consumers. To understand who we are really firstly we have to understand that we are already deceived. Stay blessed.
Zero censorship is a nice idea.
But I saw this place advertised as censorship resistant, but I see in your comment section that censorship is alive and well here as well.
its really strange, I am actually laughing while I am typing this but I know its really really sad ! But what can we do about it really?
Is there some action we can take that would change that?
Wow I just had a look at the linked comment section !
Just use a different frontend.
All the information is on the chain, you just have to find it.
Also, "resistant" doesn't mean "proof". Steem is set up that it is technically possible to do a complete censor if you can manage to bag the top 17 of 21 witnesses into agreement.
your name is as scary as logiczomies;s image. I feel a little bit more reluctant to reply to you but.
how many enforcers are there ?
and what do you enforce?
and who do you do this enforcing for?
and how do you do the enforcing?
Which one would you suggest?
I prefer SteemPeak myself.
Yeah, we've got a pretty good discussion going (46 comments so far)!
I've had a couple posts go over 700.
haha my bad : )
I was really talking about your ''PLEASE UNCENSOR THIS REPLY.'' comment. It seems really ironic given the subject matter of the post.
I know its not funny but it kind of is!
If you decline payouts, you are immune to downvotes.
Yeah, I can't believe people try to argue, "downvoting-is-free-speech".
Do these same people believe that stealing money out of tip-jars is also "free-speech"?
Join the anti-censorship-brigade!
Learn to separate fact from opinion.
Sharpen your logical arguments defending ZERO-CENSORSHIP.
I'd be happy to coach you if you'd like to conduct a mock debate.
Ok I will give it a shot coach
bout time I learned some new things
Let me know when you post your defense of ZERO-CENSORSHIP.
I agree with you, and this is definitely not the platform for 'Zero-Censorship' unfortunately.
I agree 100%, censorship is fatal to freedom, and anathema to a free people!
>:(I agree with this. When exists at least 1% censorship, why not to change it for 2%? And who decides what is worth censoring and what not? Good point there!
Why not just cut through all the lies by teaching people how to distinguish FACT from OPINION?
Then you don't need babysitters policing every single news story and website on earth...
PLEASE UNCENSOR THIS REPLY.
https://steemit.com/@joe.public/comments
Direct linking is apparently disabled...
For example, https://steemit.com/informationwar/@joe.public/q1bnaz - goes nowhere
@joe.public quoted below,