The right to actively distinguish between contributing to the public record and engaging in heresay
suggested by Kino2013-10-23
Kino: There should be certain markers that a creator of content can use to give legitimate truth value or a measure of authenticity to an online publication. By adding to the public record in this way the contributor opens themselves up to scrutiny and allows for an archiving into the public record. Such non-propaganda contribution to the public good should be rewarded higher in any sort of compensatory system explored above. Conversely a user of the net should have the freedom to banter, flirt, be at times hot headed and speak opinion and belief and not have such idle banter used as a way to incriminate themselves by such utterance. Instead of higher compensation and archiving, such contributions should be flagged with a level of privacy and respect and if used for analysis that analysis must use the highest ethical standards for how human subjects are used in sociological studies in a scientific setting. Such protections should include anonymity, a measure of time before such data can be accessed for such study, etc. Such utterance should also be protected from search and seizure. People exchanging idle banter should not be incriminating themselves by association or by utterance and should not bring suspicion on their communication partners. Two other kinds of utterances could be contributed towards some fair use/open source/artistic remix canon and conversely it should be possible to establish deep private connections to loved ones, family, etc.
Kein Kunstler: Have you tried using general incredulity? It's distributed only as source. Inchoate, it'll be slow and use much memory, but if you enable it's ``intelligence'' feature, it'll gradually become faster and smaller. Expect geometric progress; soon, the resources freed by it's verification obviation are more than all resources used by general incredulity. Eventually, general incredulity becomes so fast that it seems instantaneous. Some users turn off it's ``intelligence'' feature, because they think that there're no more improvements, but there are small improvements, and the sum of many small improvements is a large improvement. (It is wiser to configure it to work with the ``priorities'' subsystem.)