To win the information war we must have ZERO-CENSORSHIP

Author: 3RU7AL ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 80
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 6,010
    3
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    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.

  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,463
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @3RU7AL
    I agree with parts of what you are saying. The backroom deals, insider trading, nepotism are all things that should be fought against. But sadly, this kind of thing is also human nature. Alot of politicians say they will fight against these things, but once they get some power they find that these things are useful. I'm not certain how you get rid of that stuff. But a good start is banning all private funding of elections. No more super pacs, no more billionaires funding campaigns for shitty candidates. 

    The 0 censorship part I don't really agree with though. There are things that should be illegal to say. Libel laws for example are a form of censorship, but they are needed to curb slander. I would argue that hate speech should not be protected either. If you are using your free speech to call for violence or oppression of a group of people, that should not be protected either in my opinion. 
  • TheRealNihilist
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 4,896
    4
    8
    11
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    TheRealNihilist
    --> @3RU7AL
    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
    You know this is pivotal to win the information with zero censorship right?

    I think everyone's ability to use LOGIC to clearly distinguish between FACT and OPINION is more important that zero censorship. Without LOGIC to clearly distinguish between FACT and OPINION you have what is going on now. People supporting communism and nazism. Even though I think cenorship is bad if people knew what was fact and opinion it wouldn't be a problem. 
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 8,375
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @HistoryBuff
    It's illegal to do a youtube search for Eric Ciaramella.
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 6,010
    3
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @HistoryBuff
    I agree with parts of what you are saying. The backroom deals, insider trading, nepotism are all things that should be fought against. But sadly, this kind of thing is also human nature. Alot of politicians say they will fight against these things, but once they get some power they find that these things are useful. I'm not certain how you get rid of that stuff. But a good start is banning all private funding of elections. No more super pacs, no more billionaires funding campaigns for shitty candidates. 
    You can't ban indirect money.  You can't ban issue ads.  Remember?  Zero-Censorship.

    You hamstring con-artists by teaching children how to use logic to distinguish FACT from OPINION.

    And then you make all elected officials wear body-cameras and phones that record everything they say and their location at all times (saved to a permanent public record blockchain) as long as they serve as an elected official.

    I mean, the NSA is already recording all internet traffic, email and phone conversations for CITIZENS already.  It's only fair they record everything about PUBLIC OFFICIALS as well, except it needs to be made part of the public record.
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 6,010
    3
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @HistoryBuff
    The 0 censorship part I don't really agree with though. There are things that should be illegal to say. Libel laws for example are a form of censorship, but they are needed to curb slander.
    If you teach people to distinguish FACT from OPINION, then slander will solve itself.  Hate speech will be categorized as broad-brush ad-hominems and the people advocating hate will be asked to support their statements with FACTS.
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 6,010
    3
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @TheRealNihilist
    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
    You know this is pivotal to win the information with zero censorship right?

    I think everyone's ability to use LOGIC to clearly distinguish between FACT and OPINION is more important that zero censorship. Without LOGIC to clearly distinguish between FACT and OPINION you have what is going on now. People supporting communism and nazism. Even though I think cenorship is bad if people knew what was fact and opinion it wouldn't be a problem. 
    While I agree that drawing a bright line between FACT and OPINION is priority #1, I believe censorship (all types) is also a fundamental problem.

    Secret information is the rotten-core that allows corruption to thrive.

    Never-ending Copyrights and Patents and proprietary information are Weapons-of-the-Powerful used to stifle creativity and suppress small businesses.  They should be strictly limited to 20 years.  And exclusions for "prior art" must be strictly enforced.
  • TheRealNihilist
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 4,896
    4
    8
    11
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    TheRealNihilist
    --> @3RU7AL
    While I agree that drawing a bright line between FACT and OPINION is priority #1,
    What is your plan on resolving this?


    Secret information is the rotten-core that allows corruption to thrive.
    Do you think no information should be gated?
    Example of something I would use is what if science has researched all possible ways in finding a cure for a cancer but ultimately failed. Should science have a duty to come out and say we haven't found a cure for cancer pretty much saying to a lot of people, you can't live healthy lives while also impacting the people that care about them.

    The simple way of my argument would be:

    A can harm the public if they know. 
    They should be strictly limited to 20 years.
    Is this arbitrary or do you have reasoning for why it should be 20 years?

  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 6,010
    3
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @TheRealNihilist
    While I agree that drawing a bright line between FACT and OPINION is priority #1,
    What is your plan on resolving this?
    By spreading the word, and by living as a LOGICZOMBIE.

    People endlessly moan about "lies-in-the-media" and "untrustworthy-politicians" and "hate-speech" but all of these are just RED-HERRINGS.

    We need to explain to these people that sifting FACT from FICTION is EASY.

    I've seen 10-year-olds do it.

    Spotting logical fallacies is literally child's-play. 

    This single activity will dismantle government corruption and corporate corruption and media lies.
  • TheRealNihilist
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 4,896
    4
    8
    11
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    TheRealNihilist
    --> @3RU7AL
    By spreading the word, and by living as a LOGICZOMBIE.
    What would be like the turnover?

    Example for every 1 logiczombie there is x amount of people becoming one as well.
    People endlessly moan about "lies-in-the-media" and "untrustworthy-politicians" and "hate-speech" but all of these are just RED-HERRINGS.
    What do you do about people who value opinions over facts because they have a mistrust over highly regarded institutions?
    We need to explain to these people that sifting FACT from FICTION is EASY.
    A person can simply come back to and say, are you calling me stupid for not conforming to your worldview?
    I've seen 10-year-olds do it.
    10 year olds are more malleable than grown adults. I can't imagine how an adult would be able to commit to a career change for being in it for a long time so I can't imagine a Religious person pretty much saying well most of my life is in vain. I think it is a difficult pill to swallow. If it wasn't clear I was speaking about majority of cases. I'll try and find a link. 
    Spotting logical fallacies is literally child's-play. 
    Saying this doesn't help them understand. You are basically saying they are worse than children or implying that to be so.
    This single activity will dismantle government corruption and corporate corruption and media lies.
    If everyone made a good faith approach to it then I would say yes but how do you get people to do that? Don't talk about kids more so Republicans, Religious folk and lefties as well (commies and socialists).

  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,463
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @3RU7AL
    you can't ban indirect money.  You can't ban issue ads.  Remember?  Zero-Censorship.
    Of course you can. And if you want actually free elections then you have to. If a billionaire can flood the airwaves with ads pushing his narrative he can drown out any other narrative he wants. That is how the same stale ideas have been sold and resold to the american people for decades. If you want new ideas, you need to be sure that people who don't want new ideas to spread can't dominate media.

    Truly free media, is media solely controlled by the rich and powerful. it isn't free at all. 

    You hamstring con-artists by teaching children how to use logic to distinguish FACT from OPINION.
    You think you can teach every child to be smarter than people who have spent their lives specializing in lying to people? That is just guaranteed to fail. 

    And then you make all elected officials wear body-cameras and phones that record everything they say and their location at all times (saved to a permanent public record blockchain) as long as they serve as an elected official.
    This seems wildly restrictive. I mean I am all for accountability for elected officials, but people also have a right to privacy. I mean you would be taping them going to the bathroom, making personal plans, recording personal data (pin numbers, etc) every time they looked at them. It is completely not feasible. 

    I mean, the NSA is already recording all internet traffic, email and phone conversations for CITIZENS already.  It's only fair they record everything about PUBLIC OFFICIALS as well, except it needs to be made part of the public record.
    Your argument is that the government is doing something terrible, so we should make sure they do that terrible thing to everyone. That is the exact opposite of what we should be doing. We should be making that illegal. 

    If you teach people to distinguish FACT from OPINION, then slander will solve itself. 
    This is just patently false. The line between truth and slander is often very small. There is often some level of truth in the slander to sell it. You cannot ever teach people to be able to distinguish between the 2. It takes a great deal of work to do that and 99% of people wont do it.

    Hate speech will be categorized as broad-brush ad-hominems and the people advocating hate will be asked to support their statements with FACTS.
    This wont ever happen. When someone says something stupid like "islam is a religion of hate and should be banned" you can find enough very specific details to sell that. It doesn't matter that it is a gross misinterpretation, some people will believe it. If you allow people to do stuff like that, then hate and violence will be the result. 
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 6,010
    3
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @TheRealNihilist
    Secret information is the rotten-core that allows corruption to thrive.
    Do you think no information should be gated?
    Private citizens acting in a private capacity should have absolute and inalienable rights to their person and home and data-privacy.

    Example of something I would use is what if science has researched all possible ways in finding a cure for a cancer but ultimately failed.
    Are you suggesting that medical research should be secret?

    Should science have a duty to come out and say we haven't found a cure for cancer pretty much saying to a lot of people, you can't live healthy lives while also impacting the people that care about them.
    I'm not sure what "problem" you're describing.  If we want our media and politicians and corporate overlords to be HONEST, then we need to be HONEST about EVERYTHING.
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 6,010
    3
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @TheRealNihilist
    They should be strictly limited to 20 years.
    Is this arbitrary or do you have reasoning for why it should be 20 years?
    The original intent of copyright and patent laws were to PROTECT INDIVIDUAL INVENTORS.

    The 20 year time-frame is to allow the INDIVIDUAL INVENTOR to be able to earn a reasonable amount of money for their "original" idea or song or performance or machine or other process or innovation.

    I would propose that these copyrights and patents cannot be owned (only licensed) by corporations, but can only be owned by the original inventors with a minimum of 1% of all profits derived from the copyright and or patent required to go directly to the original inventor (or their family and or heirs) for a time period NOT TO EXCEED 20 YEARS.  At which point the copyright and or patent becomes 100% PUBLIC-DOMAIN.

    This policy is good for consumers because they can get free or nearly free music and movies and medicines and machines that are over 20 years old.

    This policy is good for creative individuals because they can create mashups and or modifications of games and movies and music without fear of GETTING SUED INTO OBLIVION.

    This policy is good for small businesses because anybody can open a shop and sell copies of PUBLIC-DOMAIN games movies and music and or combinations of or tee-shirts of these works.  They can even build cars and or phones and or any other device they wish that was made over 20 years earlier.
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 6,010
    3
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @TheRealNihilist
    By spreading the word, and by living as a LOGICZOMBIE.
    What would be like the turnover?

    Example for every 1 logiczombie there is x amount of people becoming one as well.
    I've been a LOGICZOMBIE for about 3 years now and I've converted at least 3 people that I know of.

    If every LOGICZOMBIE converts 1 person a year, this movement will spread exponentially (doubling every year, world domination in 24 years).

    If you double 4, 24 times, you get 6.7 billion.

    We just need a couple of mid-range names for this thing to really catch-fire.
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 6,010
    3
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @TheRealNihilist
    People endlessly moan about "lies-in-the-media" and "untrustworthy-politicians" and "hate-speech" but all of these are just RED-HERRINGS.
    What do you do about people who value opinions over facts because they have a mistrust over highly regarded institutions?
    Explain to them what epistemological limits are and logical fallacies such as "appeal to authority".
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 6,010
    3
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @TheRealNihilist
    We need to explain to these people that sifting FACT from FICTION is EASY.
    A person can simply come back to and say, are you calling me stupid for not conforming to your worldview?
    I would tell them that they are super intelligent for not trusting any information they can't verify logically.

    Skepticism is the gateway to coherent logic.
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 6,010
    3
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @TheRealNihilist
    I've seen 10-year-olds do it.
    10 year olds are more malleable than grown adults. I can't imagine how an adult would be able to commit to a career change for being in it for a long time so I can't imagine a Religious person pretty much saying well most of my life is in vain. I think it is a difficult pill to swallow. If it wasn't clear I was speaking about majority of cases. I'll try and find a link. 
    Most adults I've interacted with believe their views are (mostly) logical.

    From this common ground (logic) it's a simple matter of identifying logical fallacies and explaining epistemological limits.

    For example, most religious people are quite astute at identifying logical fallacies in OTHER religions.

    From this common ground (religious skepticism) it's a simple matter of identifying logical fallacies and explaining Uniform-Standards-of-Evidence.
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 6,010
    3
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @TheRealNihilist
    Spotting logical fallacies is literally child's-play. 
    Saying this doesn't help them understand. You are basically saying they are worse than children or implying that to be so.
    I would compare it to a video game.

    Just because an adult can't manage to beat Super-Mario-Brothers, doesn't mean they are incapable of beating Super-Mario-Brothers.

    If I demonstrate that a 10-year-old can do it, this demonstration strongly implies that if they spend a little time practicing, they can probably do it as well.
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 6,010
    3
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @TheRealNihilist
    This single activity will dismantle government corruption and corporate corruption and media lies.
    If everyone made a good faith approach to it then I would say yes but how do you get people to do that? Don't talk about kids more so Republicans, Religious folk and lefties as well (commies and socialists).
    Most people are led-astray by appeals to personality (I like this author and choose to believe everything they say) and appeals to authority (this source is considered the best by most people and therefore I have chosen to believe everything it teaches).

    When you understand that these are logical fallacies and recognize that each claim must stand on its own merit, that's a game-changer.
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 6,010
    3
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @HistoryBuff
    you can't ban indirect money.  You can't ban issue ads.  Remember?  Zero-Censorship.
    Of course you can. And if you want actually free elections then you have to. If a billionaire can flood the airwaves with ads pushing his narrative he can drown out any other narrative he wants. That is how the same stale ideas have been sold and resold to the american people for decades. If you want new ideas, you need to be sure that people who don't want new ideas to spread can't dominate media.

    Truly free media, is media solely controlled by the rich and powerful. it isn't free at all. 
    That's why it's critical to inoculate the masses with the ability to discern the difference between FACT and OPINION.

    It's a bottom-up fix.

    Your proposing a top-down fix.

    No top-down fix can be effectively implemented unless you're the one already at the top.

    And if you're at the top, you will fall into the exact same traps that the current top-dogs suffer from.

    The popular metaphor for this is the "one-ring" from the Lord-of-the-Rings stories.
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 6,010
    3
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @HistoryBuff
    You hamstring con-artists by teaching children how to use logic to distinguish FACT from OPINION.
    You think you can teach every child to be smarter than people who have spent their lives specializing in lying to people? That is just guaranteed to fail. 
    The liars are the idiots.  They've been using the exact same playbook for hundreds of years.  Teach the playbook to the kids.
  • TheRealNihilist
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 4,896
    4
    8
    11
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    TheRealNihilist
    --> @3RU7AL
    Censorship
    Private citizens acting in a private capacity should have absolute and inalienable rights to their person and home and data-privacy.
    So people should be allowed to associate with Alex Jones?
    Where does this "inalienable rights" come from?
    Are you suggesting that medical research should be secret?
    It is a hypothetical. Do you think there is information too dangerous to know about?
    I'm not sure what "problem" you're describing.  If we want our media and politicians and corporate overlords to be HONEST, then we need to be HONEST about EVERYTHING.
    Do you care if information can lead to harm? 
    I would propose that these copyrights and patents cannot be owned (only licensed) by corporations, but can only be owned by the original inventors with a minimum of 1% of all profits derived from the copyright and or patent required to go directly to the original inventor (or their family and or heirs) for a time period NOT TO EXCEED 20 YEARS.  At which point the copyright and or patent becomes 100% PUBLIC-DOMAIN.
    So one person instead of multiple people? What if it was a joint effort into lets creating AI? Who gets sole ownership to the invention?

    Why 20 years again?

    My 
  • TheRealNihilist
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 4,896
    4
    8
    11
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    TheRealNihilist
    --> @3RU7AL
    Copyright
    I would propose that these copyrights and patents cannot be owned (only licensed) by corporations, but can only be owned by the original inventors with a minimum of 1% of all profits derived from the copyright and or patent required to go directly to the original inventor (or their family and or heirs) for a time period NOT TO EXCEED 20 YEARS.  At which point the copyright and or patent becomes 100% PUBLIC-DOMAIN.
    So one person instead of multiple people? What if it was a joint effort into lets creating AI? Who gets sole ownership to the invention?

    Why 20 years again?

    My problem is what I made a while back when thinking about it.
    Here:
    "20 years is a long time. A company can simply create a plan to use measures to seize control of the market it when the patent is broken so that only large corporations are able to compete or actually make it competitive. Meaning small businesses would still be screwed. 

    My example would be Nintendo. If the Mario IP was made public to everyone. Why would they choose someone over Nintendo? Nintendo has the brand with past market successes while also having the money to undercut everyone else. 

    Another problem I would find would be what if someone makes the exact same Nintendo does but changes the color of Mario? They can cut costs thus making the time and effort Nintendo be in vain because someone else is able to copy what they did and sell for a much cheaper price. I know this is different to the first claim but I am using two different contexts. The 1st and 2nd paragraph would be that you will allow limited protection as in people can’t just straight rip off Nintendo’s Mario but the 3rd paragraph is if they are allowed. Both I wouldn’t consider to be good outcomes but just for different sides."

    From this do you find things that I have missed which make what I said nullified?
    I think I also gave problems that you considered positives so I don't think you should be annoyed if I didn't speak about all the claims you brought up. 


  • TheRealNihilist
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 4,896
    4
    8
    11
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    TheRealNihilist
    --> @3RU7AL
    Logic-Zombie

    I've been a LOGICZOMBIE for about 3 years now and I've converted at least 3 people that I know of.
    How much time did you spend with them and do you think your asking too much from all/most/some people? The / is whatever you decide to choose.
    Explain to them what epistemological limits are and logical fallacies such as "appeal to authority".
    How about people who have disdain to things they don't understand therefore don't actually take what you said to heart? 
    I would tell them that they are super intelligent for not trusting any information they can't verify logically.
    They can say back I don't care about logic only God or something essentially that whether it be good or bad faith. What do you have to say to that?
    Most adults I've interacted with believe their views are (mostly) logical.
    What if they say whatever is valid is what God says? Example: Mopac.
    If I demonstrate that a 10-year-old can do it, this demonstration strongly implies that if they spend a little time practicing, they can probably do it as well.
    How about people who are not able to do so? Disabled people, working all day etc.

    Given the adult is also older you would have to convince to them why they should do this instead of with a kid who just listens to their parents. How are you going to convince them?
    When you understand that these are logical fallacies and recognize that each claim must stand on its own merit, that's a game-changer.
    Okay. I have already asked a similar question, I was going to put here, above so no point in asking it again.

  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 6,010
    3
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @HistoryBuff
    And then you make all elected officials wear body-cameras and phones that record everything they say and their location at all times (saved to a permanent public record blockchain) as long as they serve as an elected official.
    This seems wildly restrictive. I mean I am all for accountability for elected officials, but people also have a right to privacy. I mean you would be taping them going to the bathroom, making personal plans, recording personal data (pin numbers, etc) every time they looked at them. It is completely not feasible. 
    Here's the problem.  If you allow public officials privacy within their own homes, that leaves the door open for them to conduct nefarious deals from their homes.

    If you allow public officials privacy when speaking with their friends and relatives, that leaves the door open for them to coordinate nefarious activities with their friends and relatives who could then conduct nefarious activities on their behalf.

    Perhaps, within their own homes there could be a separate system of recordings overseen by a system of rotating ombudsman.

    Ombudsmen would have full access to the activities of all other ombudsmen (to keep them honest), but those records would only be released to the public if a violation was detected and confirmed by multiple ombudsmen (and after a time period of let's say 30 years).

    I propose that private citizens should have an iron-clad right to privacy (the immutable and non-transferable right to control their image and voice and data) and a presumption of innocence in the face of any accusation (a high standard of evidence must be met prior to any arrest and or public release of the accusation).