Information Wants To Be Free DistroTube
video description
Date: 2022-03-30
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 10
CJ
The simple answer to this question is no ..... not ALL information should be free. The complicated part is explaining the reasoning behind the answer. The reasoning is huge to cover in a time frame that matches the general populations patience. Lots of people want answers and they want it now....
First problem is that information is treated as all the same when in fact it is not.... some information should be private because humans should have the right to privacy and the protections that come with privacy.... this just a very small start to many reasons why not ALL information should be free.
ANOTHER of many reasons is Fear... Humans will kill or destroy out of fear.... Good Example. Swimming even if a person is a decent swimmer if the circumstance leads to the possibility of drowning instinct will kick in and will start trying to reach for anything to keep the head above water even a fellow being human being will become a platform to propel upward not caring in the moment that the using a person will very likely kill that person. Crowds in a Panic will ignore human life in protection of their own life....
Human Instinct sucks....
It isn't just the fear of death..... Humans are more complicated than simple fear Of death.... its fear of loss. Some people value the lives of others over their own and will do anything to protect.... Some people have more selfish reasons such as the loss of money or personal property ..... for others Love can motivate a person to do things even if those things lead to hurting, destroying, even killing for love and the very thought and fear of losing a love one will push human instinct ahead of rational thought and take information that wasn't meant for revenge or personal pleasure and cause Chaos. Instinct kicks in and damage begins all in the name of Love.......
Of course in all this commotion that fear causes it is often followed by hatred which was mentioned a little before leads to revenge or irrational behavior that justifies the reasons why a person chooses choas over rational orderly decision making.
Seems like a really long reply....
This is on purpose. Because the reasoning behind the answer to No ...( not all information should be shared freely) IS TO Big to address in this form of media response.
I choose right to privacy and the human factor/human instinct that can drive people to make very bad, very unhealthy decisions and manipulate information regardless if the information was intended for good and use this information to cause chaos as my examples
But there are other reasons and the limitations of this form of communication has been exceeded but the topic has barely been addressed...
The surface barely scratched..
DT I APPRECIATE that you brought awareness but the EXECUTION was a bit thin.
Bring in a couple experts in fields that can often butt heads with freely sharing information such as security expert, a respected privacy advocate, a psychologist and spend the time address the concerns as well as the benefits that each field faces when releasing all information freely. A live session would be a more efficient method followed with a live chat that questions from some in audience may be presented and discussed.
This is a huge topic that is not easy to simply answer yes or no
reply
The simple answer to this question is no ..... not ALL information should be free. The complicated part is explaining the reasoning behind the answer. The reasoning is huge to cover in a time frame that matches the general populations patience. Lots of people want answers and they want it now....
First problem is that information is treated as all the same when in fact it is not.... some information should be private because humans should have the right to privacy and the protections that come with privacy.... this just a very small start to many reasons why not ALL information should be free.
ANOTHER of many reasons is Fear... Humans will kill or destroy out of fear.... Good Example. Swimming even if a person is a decent swimmer if the circumstance leads to the possibility of drowning instinct will kick in and will start trying to reach for anything to keep the head above water even a fellow being human being will become a platform to propel upward not caring in the moment that the using a person will very likely kill that person. Crowds in a Panic will ignore human life in protection of their own life....
Human Instinct sucks....
It isn't just the fear of death..... Humans are more complicated than simple fear Of death.... its fear of loss. Some people value the lives of others over their own and will do anything to protect.... Some people have more selfish reasons such as the loss of money or personal property ..... for others Love can motivate a person to do things even if those things lead to hurting, destroying, even killing for love and the very thought and fear of losing a love one will push human instinct ahead of rational thought and take information that wasn't meant for revenge or personal pleasure and cause Chaos. Instinct kicks in and damage begins all in the name of Love.......
Of course in all this commotion that fear causes it is often followed by hatred which was mentioned a little before leads to revenge or irrational behavior that justifies the reasons why a person chooses choas over rational orderly decision making.
Seems like a really long reply....
This is on purpose. Because the reasoning behind the answer to No ...( not all information should be shared freely) IS TO Big to address in this form of media response.
I choose right to privacy and the human factor/human instinct that can drive people to make very bad, very unhealthy decisions and manipulate information regardless if the information was intended for good and use this information to cause chaos as my examples
But there are other reasons and the limitations of this form of communication has been exceeded but the topic has barely been addressed...
The surface barely scratched..
DT I APPRECIATE that you brought awareness but the EXECUTION was a bit thin.
Bring in a couple experts in fields that can often butt heads with freely sharing information such as security expert, a respected privacy advocate, a psychologist and spend the time address the concerns as well as the benefits that each field faces when releasing all information freely. A live session would be a more efficient method followed with a live chat that questions from some in audience may be presented and discussed.
This is a huge topic that is not easy to simply answer yes or no
reply
Tom-s
Hey DT! I think you are making a real point in what you said. WikiLeaks case, as you mentioned, is very difficult to talk about. As you do, I believe that information should be free (freedom and cost wise) but I also share the idea that books, videos and such (if, desired by the producer/maker) should be paid, because there is time and money invested into them.
It is a very debatable topic.
I may add that, I truly believe the wrongness (at least, in legal terms) of hacking activities and leaking classified documents. It should be frowned upon. No one has the right to access others information without their consent. However, I think that, in some cases, even understanding the legality of the action (which, again, it is not legal and should not be done), the action can cause good, because information should not be hidden from the public (whatever info may be) if it is something that is concerning; it could be, idk, the effects of certain prescription pills, corruption in the government, etc.
I think it is very complicated to find an universal pov which could satisfy everyone.
What I think is that information needs to be free so we can make our decisions being aware of it.
reply
Hey DT! I think you are making a real point in what you said. WikiLeaks case, as you mentioned, is very difficult to talk about. As you do, I believe that information should be free (freedom and cost wise) but I also share the idea that books, videos and such (if, desired by the producer/maker) should be paid, because there is time and money invested into them.
It is a very debatable topic.
I may add that, I truly believe the wrongness (at least, in legal terms) of hacking activities and leaking classified documents. It should be frowned upon. No one has the right to access others information without their consent. However, I think that, in some cases, even understanding the legality of the action (which, again, it is not legal and should not be done), the action can cause good, because information should not be hidden from the public (whatever info may be) if it is something that is concerning; it could be, idk, the effects of certain prescription pills, corruption in the government, etc.
I think it is very complicated to find an universal pov which could satisfy everyone.
What I think is that information needs to be free so we can make our decisions being aware of it.
reply
Nathan
Kind of odd that you're advocating information being free, then turn around and make an exception for WikiLeaks. Especially odd considering that WikiLeaks is a publisher, not a hacking organization, and the information that was made public was given to them by a whistleblower (who are SUPPOSED to have legal protection, but often don't). The NY Times and other major outlets also published the same information, which is ultimately why the Obama administration decided not to prosecute. But no, exposing war crimes, including killing journalists... there should be an exception for THAT kind of information being free? Meanwhile Assange, who isn't even a citizen of the US or of the UK (he's Australian), is dying in UK prison, being held on the behalf of the US, and having one kangaroo court hearing after another...completely illegal based on international law (United Nations). But hey, some information really shouldn't be free, right??
I can understand the knee jerk reaction though; if you get most of your information from TV news it's not your fault.
reply
Kind of odd that you're advocating information being free, then turn around and make an exception for WikiLeaks. Especially odd considering that WikiLeaks is a publisher, not a hacking organization, and the information that was made public was given to them by a whistleblower (who are SUPPOSED to have legal protection, but often don't). The NY Times and other major outlets also published the same information, which is ultimately why the Obama administration decided not to prosecute. But no, exposing war crimes, including killing journalists... there should be an exception for THAT kind of information being free? Meanwhile Assange, who isn't even a citizen of the US or of the UK (he's Australian), is dying in UK prison, being held on the behalf of the US, and having one kangaroo court hearing after another...completely illegal based on international law (United Nations). But hey, some information really shouldn't be free, right??
I can understand the knee jerk reaction though; if you get most of your information from TV news it's not your fault.
reply
Friedrich
As one who now writes patents for a living, I do consider this to be a deep topic. Firstly, I don't like the personification of information, as it does not have -wants- or -desires- of its own. We humans may want it to be free, or we may want to profit on it, or we may want to restrict its use as creators of said information, etc.
Personally, I don't like paywalls, as I see them highly unreasonable. The same paper I can read at the library for free, I have to pay 30 bucks for it online???
But there you have it. We don't live in a perfect world.
I have made some contributions to open source, and I intend to do more of the same. But I choose to do this with my work. Others may charge for theirs, etc. It's all a matter of choice.
We speak of freedom. But freedom is not just for the consumer of information, but also the producers of the same, unless you wish to make them slaves to the consumers.
reply
As one who now writes patents for a living, I do consider this to be a deep topic. Firstly, I don't like the personification of information, as it does not have -wants- or -desires- of its own. We humans may want it to be free, or we may want to profit on it, or we may want to restrict its use as creators of said information, etc.
Personally, I don't like paywalls, as I see them highly unreasonable. The same paper I can read at the library for free, I have to pay 30 bucks for it online???
But there you have it. We don't live in a perfect world.
I have made some contributions to open source, and I intend to do more of the same. But I choose to do this with my work. Others may charge for theirs, etc. It's all a matter of choice.
We speak of freedom. But freedom is not just for the consumer of information, but also the producers of the same, unless you wish to make them slaves to the consumers.
reply
Mike
6:12 Yes, we can charge the physical copies of the books, but if the information itself is free, what's stopping a pdf file being spread for free? Why would most people pay the author for book in the first place? Perhaps they can charge by providing support with the information in that book, kinda like how Red Hat charge money for support, but that doesn't work with stuff like novels and music, where I don't think anyone need any support with if things are open sourced
To be clear, I love the idea of free and open source, but there has to be a sound model where there's money right in front of people for them to even think about changing their ways
reply
6:12 Yes, we can charge the physical copies of the books, but if the information itself is free, what's stopping a pdf file being spread for free? Why would most people pay the author for book in the first place? Perhaps they can charge by providing support with the information in that book, kinda like how Red Hat charge money for support, but that doesn't work with stuff like novels and music, where I don't think anyone need any support with if things are open sourced
To be clear, I love the idea of free and open source, but there has to be a sound model where there's money right in front of people for them to even think about changing their ways
reply
Nathan
Let's pause for a moment and first and define -information-; because not all information should be free of cost under how things are at this time. People who design something should have some way to recuperate the cost of devising new methods. Unfortunately, under our current system 'new' includes creating a -buy now- button on a web site. Or, power allows companies to implement and stall payment to genuine creators that try to use the system. That is why you see such a rabid approach to -freedom-, it's a rebound to how power is wielded across the world in an effort to keep the powerful in power and anyone else pretty much screwed.
reply
Let's pause for a moment and first and define -information-; because not all information should be free of cost under how things are at this time. People who design something should have some way to recuperate the cost of devising new methods. Unfortunately, under our current system 'new' includes creating a -buy now- button on a web site. Or, power allows companies to implement and stall payment to genuine creators that try to use the system. That is why you see such a rabid approach to -freedom-, it's a rebound to how power is wielded across the world in an effort to keep the powerful in power and anyone else pretty much screwed.
reply
Emperor
Whether information should be free or not is a value judgement, and depends on individual circumstances.
More important is that you should be allowed to speak freely and freely act on the information you poses.
You are correct that information is difficult to contain indefinitely, but it is possible to contain temporarily, and some information is time sensitive, and there is value in early access.
A good example are films, most films will end up on torrent sites for free, but that takes time and many people are still willing to pay for early access and see it in a cinema.
reply
Whether information should be free or not is a value judgement, and depends on individual circumstances.
More important is that you should be allowed to speak freely and freely act on the information you poses.
You are correct that information is difficult to contain indefinitely, but it is possible to contain temporarily, and some information is time sensitive, and there is value in early access.
A good example are films, most films will end up on torrent sites for free, but that takes time and many people are still willing to pay for early access and see it in a cinema.
reply
Sabelo
HEY DT! this i s off topic but (I just wanted to get you opinion on something ) I do lots of graphics design and DEvelopment in Java like apps (don't really use terminal applications but do need los of resources some times) I'm using pop os because of tilling and graphics applications ,but I feel like its bloted ,should you recommend a tilling window manager for me if so which is a good start
reply
HEY DT! this i s off topic but (I just wanted to get you opinion on something ) I do lots of graphics design and DEvelopment in Java like apps (don't really use terminal applications but do need los of resources some times) I'm using pop os because of tilling and graphics applications ,but I feel like its bloted ,should you recommend a tilling window manager for me if so which is a good start
reply
Kenny
7:02 With wikileaks that's different though. It's not that 'information wants to be free' . It's that citizens have the right to know what their governments are doing and trying to hide from them.
Whistleblowers are necessary, not because of some abstract need for information to be free, but because governments need to be held accountable to the people they serve
reply
7:02 With wikileaks that's different though. It's not that 'information wants to be free' . It's that citizens have the right to know what their governments are doing and trying to hide from them.
Whistleblowers are necessary, not because of some abstract need for information to be free, but because governments need to be held accountable to the people they serve
reply
Daniel
I like a more libertarian approach. I think that it is up to the individuals/companies whether they want to release information for free. Once the information is out there, anyone should be allowed to use the information however they like (patents prevent this, unfortunately).
Governments, however should always be open about everything.
reply
I like a more libertarian approach. I think that it is up to the individuals/companies whether they want to release information for free. Once the information is out there, anyone should be allowed to use the information however they like (patents prevent this, unfortunately).
Governments, however should always be open about everything.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
