Alt Media Illegal in the U.S. = More Need for SAFE

Obama signs a bill making Alternative media Illegal. This is making SAFE even MORE critical.

It seems the only way we’ll have free speech and freedom in general is if we hard code it. For all of you who think SAFE is an over reaction or that the every day person won’t care about security and freedom, take a good hard look at this and think again. It’s one thing not to care about privacy when all it means is the gov’t is passively watching your youtube channel or whatever. It’s another when you start being told what you can or cannot post. Aka when the states starts importing philosophies from China. And we all know how popular SAFE is with our friends from China. :smile:


Obama signs The “Countering Disinformation And Propaganda Act” Into Law.

The timing to counter that censorship is perfect trough safe network.


Assuming of course we can get the network up and running.


Sponsored media wasn’t/isn’t any better, true colors of the same system are showing. This is like the Red scare stuff. It comes out when the status of elite idiocy is threatened. We need a society based on information and appropriate inquiry and interest not on misinformation, ignorance and cynicism. We need a system based on trust and abundance not fear, mistrust and artificial scarcity and control.

If they want to criminalize, criminalize behavior aimed at converting to a society by and for arbitrary wealth at the expense of everyone and all else. Criminize wealth first systems of exploitation and concentration. Profit without corresponding and equivalent real contribution is crime.

Now seriously @Warren you expect anyone wishing to wear a crown and have laws to be in favor of such a system? Law has nothing to do with what is “just” or “fair” or “moral”. It’s simply the difference between those with power and those without, but with better table manners is all. So instead of shooting up the dining room and soaking everyone’s meal in blood you are quietly served a lawsuit with a smile. Civil but no less as deadly. But make no mistake, no one who would ever be in favor of the concept of law would ever truly be in favor of what you’re proposing because those most interested in gaining power, and holding it, are exactly that: Those wishing to obtain power at the expense of all others and all else. The law is not the too ofl, or here to protect you from, those with empathy, because those with empathy usually want to live, for the most part, in peace. Yeah you get your emotional conflicts and crimes of passion but people who feel empathy don’t want things like war or to commit genicide simply for the profit of it.

Law = violence. Pure and simple. Those who seek to initiate violence against others are the problem. No matter how good your intentions might be if you want to compel people to be good you’re still being a tyrant and committing violence. The problem isn’t seeking profit for the sake of profit. The problem is using the state, the machine of force and violence, in order to do it.

1 Like

We’re in agreement to a substantial extent and not just because of intents and motives for power/coercion but also because in practice even if the intents and motives were good the flaws in coercive programs, even beyond the unacceptibility of coercion itself, tend to accumulate and magnify into instability. Coercion as a tech is like surgery. Surgery is not the solution to every malady especially with blind moles as operarators. Analogously we would need an understanding of the micro biome when at this point its like surgery without pain killing.

On profit Id like to clairify. I don’t care about sustenance level take and wouldn’t label it profit relative to gain. On the contrary solidly taking care of subsistence level concerns and diaconnecting them from contribution would or is quite possibly an inevitable means of disempowering non contributory or canabalistic profit and power accumulation. Think of people would intentionally starve a population to keep them weak (a hedge) but compelled by hunger to comply. Now think of a free tech that would change the nature of human bodies so that bodies ran on photo synthesis or zero point and no longer required shelter,add to it othee tech that obviated education- would we deny people this? Its the same. If tech doesn’t free us from coercion what good is it?

It brings up an interesting thought about SI. one the ways, assuming benevolence, that it could reduce coercion through geuine agreement and cooperation without manipulation would be through increasing the power of explanation even without a correspinding cognitive increase on the side of someone trying to understand. Its a better solution to the silver tongue of the Buddha problem. It would be a better translator of understanding across the bridge of incomprehension.