Letter Of Introduction

COUNTERBALANCING COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT VERSUS CENSORSHIP Thank you Jorg Sprave for well-expressed arguments for restructuring You-Tube's monetization policy rationally so all can contribute. The issue of censorship is world-web-wide for You-tube, Facebook & all web-sites with comment-sections or creative-platforms. We should be calling into question Censorship processes of: assessment, implementation, engagement & even the need for censorship. All humanity's worldwide 'indigenous' ancestor cultured Council-Process, whereby all were able or could be asked with Dialectic-Rights to express themselves through discovery-circles of Both-sided, Equal-time, Recorded & Public (or confidential) Dialogues. In our colonial 'exogenous' (L 'other-generated') system, there’s a combination of massive western monetary-oligarch command & control in a trickledown Finance-Media-Religion-Education-Military-Industrial-Legislative-Complex. The wealthy advertisers are just submissive pawns in this big-money colonial-oligarch system & You-Tube is just one of their acquired media controls.
Malicious content must be addressed but more through exposing it for its idiocy than through banning or covering it up. We want those with malicious intent to be publicly exposed, so that all may identify those involved, take-protective & even healing measures, rather than hidden behind Censorship 'blinds'.
Two unused counterbalances to the problem of 'malicious-content' are for each web-site including You-Tube to integrate: 1) popular feedback & rating-system's software of on-line text & video 'debate' (French 'de' = 'undo' + 'bate' = 'the-fight') & 2) Up, down & neutral arrows with cumulative numbers for each, integrated for both the original video, article or above each comment. An ISSUE icon enables viewers or readers to register their desire to provide content authors: a) exemplary approval & assistance in furthering research etc., b) offer for editing assistance to improve communication c) objection to content as malicious or damaging.
The Issues process involves: 1) writing an online Challenge statement under the Icon ISSUES section referring to a), b), or c). The Challenge should be at least a couple of paragraphs long. Other readers & viewers are provided the same opportunity to a), b) or c) & even debate the Challenge. When an Issue truly is malicious then the momentum of 10s to 1000s of openly displayed assessments at a specifically chosen tolerance level, require the author (original article, video or comment) to publicly 'debate' in an online text or in such as audio or video. Comments & Content are thus rarely removed but couched in these equally expressed debates. Issues of lack of personal approval for images of 'self' presented & open calls for violence would be censored. Participation in You-Tube or other web-sites would require that one agree to the public debate process or have their comments removed. Debate process involves collection of malicious complaint, online debate among complainers & choice of a spokesperson. Debate requires the above Challenge Statement, Caucusing of complainers, then scheduling date, time & duration (typically 90 minutes). The online debate software organizes the sequence & recording.
Debate, if employed & published widely by community animists, captures popular attention, develops the default worldview & thereby becomes the appropriate level of governance from which people are taking their clues & action. Human mind works 'dialectically' by contrasting & comparing both sides of complex issues in order to build its knowledge systems & make decisions. We want the other side to express, expose their faulty oligarch-directed logics, so sometimes it is essential to lead such confused submissives, 'down-the-garden-path' where they begin to understand the contradictions in their thoughts. Both-Sides-Now is one technique which simplifies debate process so all can engage. sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/structure/both-sides-now-equal-time-recorded-dialogues