Bureaucrats, developer, Administrators
9,854
edits
What to accept as fact: Difference between revisions
typo
(quite trolled, see if you can argue) |
(typo) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
[[Trolls]] advocate that [[faction]]s have ways to combine [[edits, votes and bets]] in such a way that only information that the factions can agree on gets through to the [[Publish Wiki]]. This might involve a [[revert currency]] or a system of real world [[campaigner]] commitment to demonstrate the bodily truth, i.e. that there is [[some body]] asserting the truth of the allegations, etc. | [[Trolls]] advocate that [[faction]]s have ways to combine [[edits, votes and bets]] in such a way that only information that the factions can agree on gets through to the [[Publish Wiki]]. This might involve a [[revert currency]] or a system of real world [[campaigner]] commitment to demonstrate the bodily truth, i.e. that there is [[some body]] asserting the truth of the allegations, etc. | ||
[[Lawyers]], the opposite of trolls, will argue that even a [[no body]] like a corporation enjoying [[corporate | [[Lawyers]], the opposite of trolls, will argue that even a [[no body]] like a corporation enjoying [[corporate privileges]] should be able to use [[libel chill]] and "[[interference with commerce]]" laws to silence or marginalize an [[ethical minority]] that wishes to make it hard or impossible for the [[brand management|advertising and persuasion process]] to represent products falsely. | ||
To a troll, a fact is what someone bets their body on. To a lawyer, a fact is what the client has paid them to claim is a fact. There is no middle ground. Only one of the who choices provides any [[moral purchasing potential]] at all. | To a troll, a fact is what someone bets their body on. To a lawyer, a fact is what the client has paid them to claim is a fact. There is no middle ground. Only one of the who choices provides any [[moral purchasing potential]] at all. | ||