RE: Free will as a percentage, and the concept of free will as a single act of willful deliberation to alter your existence.
I don't cite sources on images. I am extremely philosophical in all that I do, and I cannot respect "data ownership" as a concept.
If data exists, and I am able to pick it up and copy it, then that is how it is.
All I believe in is the honor to not claim data or ideas as your own if you had not written them or created them. However, once released into public, data becomes inanimate objects, which like a rock, I can pick up and use however I want, including modifying it.
To give power to my case, this rock can be copied infinite times.
I have no moral or ethical reason to source images, unless I am doing an art gallery show or book review, just as I do not source all the multitudes of books and philosophies I've read that I often subtly refer to (without sourcing) in my writings.
The written references and modification of pre-existing ideas cannot be easily sourced, and I value them just as much as I value an image.
I source neither.
Again, if I was doing art shows, playing music, or acting like something someone else wrote was mine, without sourcing it, I'd be a dishonorable person.
But I'm not. My viewers read my posts for the writing, not the images.
I can't agree with what you're saying but to each is own. I don't see that being extremely philosophical if you are presenting images that aren't of your own and trying to convey your philosophical message.
How old are you?
My view might be something that younger people understand more.
I grew up in the "Golden Age of Technological Piracy", so the concept of copyright or ownership of data is very shaky to me. I was raised in an environment of complete and utter free speech, and complete and utter data-transmission freedom.
I feel nothing at all when confronted with "You should source that".
It's just another image I found on the internet. There's no guilt or moral dilemma. It's just part of my culture. It almost seems wrong to source it. Like, what a waste of time for a thing no one is actually going to look at or click on.
It's just another link to some cloud hosted website. Who cares? I don't, and I doubt you do either. Most people look at a picture, appreciate it for a moment, and move on. Anything beyond that is just a platitude, or worse, sheer bureaucracy.
https://steemit.com/politics/@heretickitten/all-information-at-your-hands-is-yours-you-can-use-it-how-you-like-but-they-will-try-to-stop-you
Is what I wrote to better explain this.
I care. Sites need some traffic and I do click on the link and like to read the source. I will try to also contact the site owner and inform them that I found their site because of Steemit. That's how some users that we have on Steemit today found out about Steemit.
Hmm, that's nice of you, and I'm happy your moral code is strong, and that you care. (really)
But I don't think I'll change. I just see no reason to do so.
If a person wants to know the source of an image, there are many tools on the internet that can aid in their quest.
I'm also not a cultist. I don't have any strong desire to attract users to Steemit.
I'm only a writer, not a believer in Steemit, no matter how interesting the platform may be.
The charisma is strong, but it gets in the way of my writing.
The philosophies I've discovered in life do not point me towards a direction where I respect data ownership enough to source images, unless I'm specifically displaying the image for the sake of the image.
Instead, I've only seen the power of unbridled data freedom.
Absolute information anarchy.
Then you'll enjoy this :)
https://steemit.com/philosophy/@kevinwong/the-end-of-intellectual-property-on-imagination-artificial-intelligence-and-procedural-generation