Should knowledge be free?

MusicAdventurer said:

So what option did you pick? Or which would be closest to what you believe? Do you believe we should have informed or ignorant voters?

Click to expand...

We are going to have ignorant voters regardless of the information available on the internet. Don't make the mistake of assuming that easy availability of information will result in a better-informed population. You and I are interested in politics, thus we post in forums such as this, and we google subjects, and read opinions and articles. The majority of the public, and even a good number of voters, are just marginally interested, especially in the really critical issues.

Don't get me wrong- I'm not in favor of government intervention regarding internet information available- I just don't think it would result in a less-informed voting population.

Paschendale said:

This is largely changing. More and more, every does need to be a professional.

I don't know about information being free, but it should never be restricted. Access to information needs to be unfettered, and unfiltered. If you're asking whether or not we should fund Wikipedia with taxes... actually, I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. Though Wikipedia seems to be doing just fine on its own. Even if is it not publicly funded, it's publicly maintained. It's operated by and for the public at large, and that is the correct way to collect and transmit the general body of knowledge. Not everyone needs to know everything, and no one ever could. But anyone should be able to know anything they want.

Click to expand...

I agree with this sadly. There were more trades and high wage labor positions at one time but you can barely live on what they pay now.

MusicAdventurer said:

Alright, for example, certain foods and or drugs have been shown to be better or worse for human health. Should all information regarding this be available to the public or only part of it?

Click to expand...

It already is available to the public. Places like the Mayo Clinic or WebMD specialize in this sort of thing and generally offer the information free of charge.

Speaking of drugs though, many man-made pharmaceuticals are proven to have many nasty side-effects which are often glossed over. Compare that to certain plants which have been growing in the wild for thousands of years which don't have nearly the same number of adverse affects. In this case, not only is there a cost to information but there is an attempt to suppress information.

I don't intend to hijack this thread into some tangent, I am simply trying to point out that freedom of information is generally the norm and only regulation can stifle it.

TNAR said:

It already is available to the public. Places like the Mayo Clinic or WebMD specialize in this sort of thing and generally offer the information free of charge.

Click to expand...

Well ... that is only a certain amount of information and the opinion based on the results of certain studies - in science, we know nothing, theories can only be supported or disproved, never proved and thus there are never any true "facts" (as far as science is concerned)

TNAR said:

Speaking of drugs though, many man-made pharmaceuticals are proven to have many nasty side-effects which are often glossed over. Compare that to certain plants which have been growing in the wild for thousands of years which don't have nearly the same number of adverse affects. In this case, not only is there a cost to information but there is an attempt to suppress information.

Click to expand...

Yes this is true ... and this is related to what I am referring to ... if you've ever attending college and perused scientific articles, you will find that libraries only allow you to access certain articles, other, groundbreaking or contradictory articles are often not available unless one pays for them ... it's an academic sort of regulation/suppression

TNAR said:

I don't intend to hijack this thread into some tangent, I am simply trying to point out that freedom of information is generally the norm and only regulation can stifle it.

Click to expand...

Yes, I understand what you are saying... however, we are only told what we can access freely on the web and what associations feel we should see and learn

Why shouldn't we be allowed access to the original documents that lead such sites, like Mayo Clinic, to list said info?

MusicAdventurer said:

This poll and discussion forum is in response to the recent SOPA and PIPA issue (see below for a quote from wikipedia):


Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

for more info visit this site:

SOPA and PIPA - Learn more - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To broaden this issue, should all information be free to citizens, or only certain types of information?

For example, social science type information, i.e. psychological, sociological, political science, social work, etc., and medical articles (research related etc.) are often not available to citizens without a charge. Much of this information could be used by the general public in order to inform better public policy, however, most citizens have to pay to view the info. Should part of our taxes go toward freeing up this type of information for the general public? Should only those who can afford it, be allowed to know critical information such as this? Or should we keep citizens uneducated? Would this even make a difference? What kinds of limits (if any) should be placed on how educated we allow our citizens to become without charge? Is it democratic to keep citizens ignorant, thus limiting their ability to make educated votes? Why or why not?

Click to expand...

You stacked the deck, so I am not voting. Thank you..

The Internet as it is today...is the single most important tool against governments that's ever existed in human history. What's that worth to you?

MusicAdventurer said:

… the opinion based on the results of certain studies - in science, we know nothing, theories can only be supported or disproved, never proved and thus there are never any true "facts" … Why shouldn't we be allowed access to the original documents that lead such sites, like Mayo Clinic, to list said info?

Click to expand...

I think I understand what you are saying in this particular context. Suppose you conducted some intensive research into various causes of a particular disease or into solutions for some mechanical problem. Would you not want to be compensated for your efforts? You certainly have the option to release your study free-of-charge since you are the original owner but it is also your right to withhold that information. So in this specific regard I think we disagree.

However, once you publish your findings (for fee or gratis) it becomes part of the common domain and ought to be freely distributed as those who possess this information see fit. For instance, if you discover a really great way to cure ugliness and you tell your three closest friends, they now have the ability to release this information to others without affecting the effectiveness of your cure or your idea.

On the other hand, certain companies exist solely to distribute what is otherwise “free” information. Take Google for instance. Google makes money by distributing freely available information as well as pointing you in the right direction to information you must pay for.

MusicAdventurer said:

…libraries only allow you to access certain articles, other, groundbreaking or contradictory articles are often not available unless one pays for them ... it's an academic sort of regulation/suppression

Click to expand...

Definitely. In many cases this is simply market forces at work. It costs money for the library to retain all of that material so it is only natural that they attempt to recoup some of their costs. At the same time, I find it pretty ridiculous that you cannot make a photocopy of a book and let your friends borrow it.

FreedomFromAll said:

You stacked the deck, so I am not voting. Thank you..

Click to expand...

Your welcome - I believe I stated (and I quote) "To broaden this issue" ... and I broadened it ... this was for discussion purposes ... not voting purposes

Removable Mind said:

The Internet as it is today...is the single most important tool against governments that's ever existed in human history. What's that worth to you?

Click to expand...

What's it worth to you? Would you say priceless?

TNAR said:

I think I understand what you are saying in this particular context. Suppose you conducted some intensive research into various causes of a particular disease or into solutions for some mechanical problem. Would you not want to be compensated for your efforts? You certainly have the option to release your study free-of-charge since you are the original owner but it is also your right to withhold that information. So in this specific regard I think we disagree.

Click to expand...

Actually, I am for being compensated for research efforts, very much so

TNAR said:

However, once you publish your findings (for fee or gratis) it becomes part of the common domain and ought to be freely distributed as those who possess this information see fit. For instance, if you discover a really great way to cure ugliness and you tell your three closest friends, they now have the ability to release this information to others without affecting the effectiveness of your cure or your idea.

Click to expand...

Again, not seeing any disagreement

TNAR said:

On the other hand, certain companies exist solely to distribute what is otherwise “free” information. Take Google for instance. Google makes money by distributing freely available information as well as pointing you in the right direction to information you must pay for.

Click to expand...

I am totally for this

TNAR said:

Definitely. In many cases this is simply market forces at work. It costs money for the library to retain all of that material so it is only natural that they attempt to recoup some of their costs. At the same time, I find it pretty ridiculous that you cannot make a photocopy of a book and let your friends borrow it.

Click to expand...

Right ... so here's where things can get interesting ... who is to decide which articles should be bought and which ones should not? Which ones should be available to the public? Which should not?

MusicAdventurer said:

Right ... so here's where things can get interesting ... who is to decide which articles should be bought and which ones should not? Which ones should be available to the public? Which should not?

Click to expand...

The owner. But the real question is who is the owner?

If you do the research, you are the owner as we established earlier. Once you publish that paper, however, it becomes public domain and other people may now become owners of copies of your work. They, in turn, ought to be allowed the choice to offer your information for a fee or without charge.

I like what the Creative Commons organization is doing with copyrights. It is much more agreeable and I think encourages innovation and sharing.

TNAR said:

The owner. But the real question is who is the owner?

If you do the research, you are the owner as we established earlier. Once you publish that paper, however, it becomes public domain and other people may now become owners of copies of your work. They, in turn, ought to be allowed the choice to offer your information for a fee or without charge.

I like what the Creative Commons organization is doing with copyrights. It is much more agreeable and I think encourages innovation and sharing.

Click to expand...

I think we're on different pages here ...

I agree with what you are saying ... however, I am asking questions related to what is best for a knowledgeable society (society includes the owner and his/her profits)

MusicAdventurer said:

So what option did you pick? Or which would be closest to what you believe? Do you believe we should have informed or ignorant voters?

Click to expand...

I prefer something much like the status quo, which is not really represented on your board of options. We have a government that declares what is to be considered public domain, but we also have copyright laws and a market system that compensates content providers or authors in means which typically are more in line with their wishes than that of the masses.

We can have informed voters, but we cannot allow the masses to dictate that, for instance, the academic, provide his insight pro bono.

Fiddytree said:

I prefer something much like the status quo

Click to expand...

A very conservative stance ... unfortunately things cannot change for the better if change is not realized

Fiddytree said:

We can have informed voters

Click to expand...

We do? Hm... I smell another poll brewing ... then again .... you are right, our voters are "informed" .... however, the adequacy of their knowledge is questionable

MusicAdventurer said:

A very conservative stance ... unfortunately things cannot change for the better if change is not realized



We do? Hm... I smell another poll brewing ... then again .... you are right, our voters are "informed" .... however, the adequacy of their knowledge is questionable

Click to expand...

1) Says you and your poll. Modifications can occur, but I do not advocate broad strokes like are your options.

2) Their knowledge is questionable because they have their own specialties to worry about.

Fiddytree said:

1) Says you and your poll. Modifications can occur, but I do not advocate broad strokes like are your options.

Click to expand...

We'll just have to agree to disagree then .. sometimes, broad strokes are the best way to affect change .... unfortunately, too many are too scared to make them

don't get me wrong, I would hear possible modifications to broad strokes

Fiddytree said:

2) Their knowledge is questionable because they have their own specialties to worry about.

Click to expand...

True ... so are you saying that they should not be voting about things that is not their specialty? Are you saying that we should broaden education in order to compensate for this lack of knowledge. Or are you just saying that things are the way they are and we should not try to make them better?

TNAR said:

Almost forgot to add that this poll is misguided. Information should not be regulated by the government. In fact, I cannot really think of anything more dangerous to liberty than this sort of regulation...

Click to expand...

Agree. This is a very bad thing and we do not need to Big Bro'ed to the point to where it does infringe on freedoms.

Kali said:

Agree. This is a very bad thing and we do not need to Big Bro'ed to the point to where it does infringe on freedoms.

Click to expand...

I agree and I am more for free information (with some exceptions) than against it

MusicAdventurer said:

I agree with what you are saying ... however, I am asking questions related to what is best for a knowledgeable society (society includes the owner and his/her profits)

Click to expand...

I guess I don't understand what you're trying to hint at.

MusicAdventurer said:

are you saying that they should not be voting about things that is not their specialty?

Click to expand...

Here's a question directed back at you. Obviously the Constitution guarantees the right of everyone (of voting age) to vote but does this mean that everyone is qualified to vote? Should everyone vote?

Yes and no.
It's complicated.

The films I make are not mere "information."