Growing Future has joined the ranks of those who want to raise awareness about well intended, poorly structured “help.” This cyber-censorship project is getting a lot of attention, because people want the freedom to use the websites they want to use. The Internet was created as a “wild frontier,” where people could say what they wanted to say – it was up to the readers to choose to visit, or not, to share, or not. This “trust” was intrinsic in the development of the “World Wide Web.” That only works if people use their good sense, and if people are held accountable for saying the truth.

There are many websites that don’t report the truth, but that should be something that can be handled without “censorship.” A rating system similar to “Politico.com” is one idea. People need to learn to think before they believe what they read. But the government making that decision isn’t helpful. It just lets one person control another person.

It’s hard for some people to see correlations between farms and tech, but actually technology started with farming. The first person to push into the soil to plant something, instead of broadcasting it, was using technology. The hoe, the plow, irrigation are just a few ideas of how “tech” started on the farm. But there is a similarity much more pertinent. The American people have let the government decide with a simple set of regulations, what food is safe, and what isn’t. We’ve gotten so “trusting” (read as ignorant) that many people eat bad food in the name of “healthy.” Rather than teach people what is “enough,” we make processed food so people can eat more useless calories all in the name of “being full.” We, as a people, have abdicated our choices to the USDA and FDA, and as a result we are accepting highly processed, genetically modified foods instead of helping people access better food close to home.

The SOPA/PIPA protest is one way to get people to understand what censorship could do, and it’s easier than asking people not to eat for the day. But in the case of SOPA/PIPA it is a good intent with bad outcomes, rather than giving people the tools to make better choices. Something has to be done about piracy, but I think somehow we have to stress “intent” rather than action. If a person has a financial goal or a political one, and misleading people is part of that agenda, that’s a different issue than a person who just wants to share good song or a relevant website. One is malevolent, the other is well-intentioned. The government may have good intent here, but as usual they are looking for the easy way out, as lead by the lobbyists, instead of listing to people who actually use, or produce, the content.

Encouraging knowledge seems more efficient than swatting websites, or small farmers.

Advertisements