Must click links
Like chapter 11 of "Satyartha Prakash", what follows is implicit review of existing, in that they will flat on 1 point or more. That mine does not, likely extensible by you to new situations you can imagine or encounter, develop criticism on your own without help, feeling that you can ask for help in the rare cases of doubt, means I have done THE excellent job.
As has been repeatedly
pointed out to me – abusive words do no strengthen the argument and I agree. I
still use them to indicate my own lack of tolerance forsome opponents. While
very few is number, I do hold as deserving some intemperate views on some –
child sexual protagonists, cannibals, etc. as free-speech criminals. But only
criminals, not different in opinion, or details.
Free speech has
painfully but inexorably won the day. Not even I suggest burning of the few
tome or proponents opposed to me. I do advocate retirement to libraries (access
publically available) to tomes as above, or how to make bombs, launch sarin
attacks on metro-tunnels, sex life of Martian aliens etc. Every censored
material is NEVER prohibited, either it can be displayed; or not. If not
displayable, it must be encrypted well, but the keys have to be made publically
available painlessly - only to record the access list and protect the sensibilities
of the opponents – with thwarting technological techniques used only to prevent
untraceable copies.
Let us call this
arun-arya censoring. Consider .latest wired abstract : The traditional censorship model—find the information conduit and
apply pressure—has all but collapsed. “Whose throat do you squeeze when anyone
can set up a Twitter account in seconds, and when almost any event is recorded
by smartphone-wielding members of the public?” writes Zeynep Tufekci,
sociologist at the University of North Carolina. Your speech is free. But you
are not.
See, while this may
be the golden age of
free speech,
it is not the golden age of truthfulness. The attention-harvesting and
ad-targeting strategies of big tech are all too compatible with misinformation
campaigns and censorship enforced by outraged, viral hordes. “Free speech is
usually understood as a vehicle ... for creating a knowledgeable public; for
engendering healthy, rational, and informed debate; for holding powerful people
and institutions accountable; for keeping communities lively and vibrant,”
Tufekci writes. “What we are seeing now is that when free speech is treated as
an end and not a means, it is all too possible to thwart and distort everything
it is supposed to deliver.”
Also: Ex-Uber engineer Anthony Lewandowski faces claims of stealing
trade secrets, an antifascist maintains a database of far-right foes, and at-home genetic testing
companies claim to know your baby’s traits before they’re even born.
The conflicts in censoring are very complex, no one but me have been
able to solve this judicial dilemma over past 5000 or more years. I can, have
discussed in this essay, consider nondeterministic solutions from ANY religion
to be sub animal, REQUIRE ANY opponent to SHUTUP or ARGUE in public!
True extreme mental conflict is Cloudfare, the DDos protection company from vigilante hackers, also police! Their bigger argument is about the danger of private companies like Cloudflare (not to mention Google or Amazon Web Services) determining what constituted acceptable speech. “Without a clear framework as a guide for content regulation,” Their Prince explained, “a small number of companies will largely determine what can and cannot be online.” Perhaps his most striking point came in a separate memo he wrote to his staff. “Literally, I woke up in a bad mood and decided someone shouldn’t be allowed on the internet. No one should have that power.”PRINCE’S DILEMMA OVER the Daily Stormer has been present in net culture from the early days of online communities.
Solution is simple to state –
True extreme mental conflict is Cloudfare, the DDos protection company from vigilante hackers, also police! Their bigger argument is about the danger of private companies like Cloudflare (not to mention Google or Amazon Web Services) determining what constituted acceptable speech. “Without a clear framework as a guide for content regulation,” Their Prince explained, “a small number of companies will largely determine what can and cannot be online.” Perhaps his most striking point came in a separate memo he wrote to his staff. “Literally, I woke up in a bad mood and decided someone shouldn’t be allowed on the internet. No one should have that power.”PRINCE’S DILEMMA OVER the Daily Stormer has been present in net culture from the early days of online communities.
Solution is simple to state –
Every nation (UNO) has a recognised majority (accepted by active
majority) which can determine any speech to be offensive and order it to be well
encrypted or decrpted, solely force-determine the reader list (technologically
one can prohibit untraceable copying and
false-flag references), the list itself encrypted and decrypted
according to laws of the nation.
This solution allows prevention of external enemies from collaborating with locals inciting resistance against totalitarian regimes. But can never silence encryptions chosen by the end-points under the rules. Committed source can still win. Point is loss of an easy way to use internet! Never should be important for police work! In fact, totalitarian regimes will likely be my first clients!
"Cannot communicate inside" can still be done done using this very clever simple solution, or my technological solution even legacy by my technological means.
In short, above be written as: Every nation (UNO) has a recognised majority (accepted by active majority) that can arun-arya-censor (as in latest arun-arya-dictionary) any speech.
"Cannot communicate inside" can still be done done using this very clever simple solution, or my technological solution even legacy by my technological means.
In short, above be written as: Every nation (UNO) has a recognised majority (accepted by active majority) that can arun-arya-censor (as in latest arun-arya-dictionary) any speech.
Rest is significantly more interesting as many applications are
considered. Any one dumb enough to think having a better solution must be able
to present solutions to all the following.
No comments:
Post a Comment