Humanitarian Government #21: Turning the Tables

Humanitarian Government #21: Turning the Tables

Good day and let me spin a tale today. Not of untruths like we see so much of, nor of a US no longer being a US but now called Erf and different than we are today, or of commentary about something going on, how it's rooted in in the past but wrong.

No, let me spin a tale of humans owning themselves.

Now, I know people are going to say that here in the US, there is no more slavery and people own themselves and slavery is wrong. But what if what reality the you're looking at and paying attention to is only a small portion of 'real life' and you ARE a slave?

Doesn't matter your gender, religion, politics, race, creed, whatever that makes you, you. In fact those who OWN you want those differences so if one or two separation stressors start to fade on breaking you apart from everyone else, they can apply one or two more?

OK, I can feel confusion hanging in the air and see cocked heads and cloudy eyes silently asking 'What the fuck are you talking about?'

Let me try to explain, then give something that might be a way to balance out things.

What if I said I have a library of several hundred million books? Each one hand-crafted with a unique story: some good, some bad, some lighthearted comedies and some depraved psychological thrillers with no light-at-the-end-of-the-tunnel endings? Not only that, but my library isn't the only one to exist: there's about 200 (give or take) other libraries like mine and some have more books and some less.

Now, what if I said that there's a book out there with your name on it as the main character: to include your address, the tone of your voice, the character looking exactly how you are, what you've learned and how and more? If you start saying 'that's creepy', that's fine: because that's exactly where I want you to be: creeped out.

Thing is: that's exactly what you are to Big Biz and Tech. They want you to think you're unique, but forget that fact at the same time. Sort of like a certain form of cybernetic life in a very famous and recognizable science fiction franchise that homogenize their population but absorbs uniqueness and calls that progress. See, I have boundaries and respect other peoples work, I will refer to other peoples works, however I won't drag that work in directly into something like this for one reason: law and lawsuits.

OK, let me try again.

You are an individual with a unique genetic code, history, work and education life, children (maybe), and all that (the written story). Your looks change through your life, but that is also your book-cover, your voice the narrator if you go the audio-book route of publishing. Get it now? That library? That's the US or whatever country you belong to. But that book wasn't published for open access reading: somewhere along the line it was made for artistic enjoyment and some sort of acknowledgment of the artist to let them know to keep the story line going. Because your life, your story isn't just one long novel, its part of a series and it interconnects with all other stories. Get it?

But Big Tech especially doesn't see anything not being theirs, they have made you into a series of ones and zeroes, mine data from you in whatever way possible and sell it so they can sell you more of something else. You're a resource for their bottom line. But just like any of the 'Bigs' we have today: they underestimate the very base that makes them money. But, you are also the author of your story-the artists and it's time for the artist to do like all good artists do when being shafted by publishers: we're not renewing our publishing contract with you, and we're even going to buy our copyright back from you. Only thing is: you never signed a contract to publish our stories to begin with.

Copyright?

Yes, one word with a huge body of law, intricate as hell and just as complicated. But also, a way to take us and our existence back and essentially tell Big Tech: F-U for taking our data, not exactly keeping it safe, and expect to profit off us in any way possible. I refer to 'copyright' in a unique way, you can call it something else, but it's the closest concept I could get so you might understand.

Issue: The Law and You

I use books as my example, but it could be of any form of material that covers a unique artistic form of expression. I don't write music and from what I understand, those are more common grounds for lawsuits in today's world. But books are just words, right? Not interactively woven into a form of music and instrumentation, right? Not so much anymore. Remember: electronic and auditory forms of writing and getting those words out is in there. But it's not just words: it's how they were put together. For us those words are our genetics, where and how we grew up, how we look and sound, and the three billion and four or more things that makes each of us unique. Yes, some of us carry the same name: first, middle, and last but that's a fluke of some variation, it doesn't mean I'm violating the copyright or uniqueness of another woman who carries my name. Because unless someone cloned me and managed to have that woman live the same life and turn out the same way, etc....she can't be me.

So I'm hoping you understand what I'm getting at. Each breath makes you even more individually you, and that individuality can be a commodity and even though I hate thinking this way, it might just need to exist.

When it comes to copyright, it's essentially saying that you can't pass off something similar or identical as your own. In this world of corporate think and capitalism, that means money. Guess what? That's exactly what Big Tech is doing, though: they take your data, feed it to simulators or AI and then use that to predict your life: thinking, shopping, etc, and make money off that. In short: they are re-creating you in a digital matrix, betting that their simulations and AI will get you right or close enough to prove out something so they can sell that outcome and/or collected data to someone else.

But genetics plays into this too. We've got crop seeds and testing and more directly tied into all this: a basis on why I honestly think we could become copyrighted works of thinking art and force Big Tech to recognize that how they are making their money and gaining power is from thinking, living, breathing individuals.

So, what I'm suggesting is that we copyright ourselves, and as such: what makes you, you is YOURS to deal with, sell, or keep on your own terms.

However, I'm not saying that if you've done something illegal or under valid investigation, you're free of all the investigation, samples and such. I'm stating that because I'm sure that would be used and/or be a loophole that any form of taking ourselves back would be exploited.

Issue: How to go about this?

This will partially tie into my normal Humanitarian Government thinking: accountability and knowledge. Meaning, it's going to be work on an individual's part because they will have to be aware and knowledgeable enough to realize they are the active component and gatekeeper of their information. But that work isn't just us paying someone to scrub the dark web. No, this would be more along the lines that social media and Big Tech, contracts, and personal independence and reality all collide and create a new form of personal autonomy.

Because if you noticed: contracts is in there. Not that I want more legalities and litigation, frankly I wish both those words didn't have to exist. However, legalities and litigation are unfortunately forms of guardrails. These things as Terms and Conditions and being in typical legal writing forms probably are considered contracts. Again: I'm not a lawyer, I'm not a specialist in most anything, and as such this is more of a thought experiment.

But think: artists who act or sing, writers and all sign contracts to allow use of their image or work for public consumption. As far as I can see, those Terms and Conditions statements are more of a type of contract saying 'you're agreeing to give us whatever we want and the only say you get in limitations is if we're allowed to sell it raw to another company'. Nope, just nope. How about this instead: if we want to allow our information to be used for anything other than setting up an account on social media or something, you have to pay us for that information and use?

Issue: Possible structure

OK, how to work something like this?

For one, I'm going to make this very clear: Today is February 17 and this popped into my head at around midnight, it's now about 1130 (military time) and again I'm not an expert on anything. I've spent a total of about 2 hours writing, along with checking in on YT...so not much time in on this. So, if you're a lawyer, please feel free to run with this idea if you think it has merit, or comment and such on what you think on why this wouldn't work. I'll write later on anything that comes out from this.

But that birth certificate you have? Yeap: that would be doing double duty as your copyright. Pictures, recordings, school projects, church choir, whatever: is all you. Granted, parents co-op that copyright info until you meet majority age. This allows for parents to post family pictures and such. Yes, it makes it sound like you're treating yourself as a product: and yes it is. 100%. But then again: if Big Tech is treating you and what you are as a product and you can't fight back any other way than to treat yourself as a product to buy and sell, it's inhumane but necessary.

When you hit majority, even your parent's have to have your permission to post your picture or re-post things you've written. Does this dismantle social media? Well, unless the legal framework changes and it's 100% clear and outlined about your posts and such, that social media is no longer going to act as it is now. So, I would say yes. Is this going to put social media and services like YT in strange positions and be thrown into restructuring? Again, I would say yes. But, as I've said before about Big Biz in any form and what they want and do and the problems they've caused and they complain about: you did it to yourselves. You've pushed for free everything on your side and sell that free everything to others: you've made us an intelligent form of commodity that no longer will allow the money and benefits to skip us over.

Issue: Economics

So, what we are has made billions for social media companies and such. Yes, I will agree we as people aren't innocent in this issue. We gave information freely for a long time. Now?

That information is now being gathered for advertisements and algorithms, and government surveillance. They are generally publicly traded companies on the Stock Exchange: the same Stock Exchange that one could in theory join in being a part of but since most of us can't afford a full day's meals as a general rule anymore that's hard to fathom. So when I say Social Media and any other internet related company would have to buy directly our data, as part of our copyright, I mean it.

Now the amounts would have to be negotiated and such: society versus business, contracts and such. But the next step would be a force of punishment that might drive some completely out of existence: fines.

For one, I'd suggest that any legal framework be grandfathered back about seventy-five years, or three generations. Yes, that makes it very clear that the internet was publicly owned to start with, and it was.

One might say otherwise. But the monies that created the internet first came from the taxpayers. I'm not going into a history lesson of the handshake creation of modern internet from military use in this. But, if you're interested, look up DARPA, internet precursors, education and research information structures and such: it's interesting and I think doing that work will make it more important to you and more tangible in why I say the internet was a publicly funded but then privatized project. One of those projects that was developed by the government via our tax dollars, then sold back to the government in various ways, then sold again to the public, and each time, our tax dollars weren't taken out of the picture. If you want to know more on that: look up the history of Google and you'll understand why.

But since Big Biz/Gov doesn't want to control themselves, I'm thinking $2,000/year fine of provable internet presence would be a good start on paying the public back for mining data and the tax breaks and such given. Once the fine is paid off, and contracts written and payments started on allowable data to be used and such...then, just maybe, Big Biz/Gov might realize that greed and exploitation isn't a good model for anything.

Closing

I know this isn't my normally structured or even written article. Because this would be new. New law, new thinking, new was of fighting back on surveillance, and everything else.

But it is food for thought, and that part of Humanitarian Government is what the entire series is all about: open minds, new thought and actions.