Wheras Web 2.0 is mainly interaction and social networking and the Semantic Web is about finding what you are looking amongst googols of data, the Free Net is all about what really matters i.e. freedom of knowledge and information and communication and sharing!

This was the internet how it used to be and how it should be. It is based on responsibility and respect for live people with all their good and bad habits, ideosyncrasies etc.

On such a net nobody would have to hide their true identity as there is a total freedom of communication. Now if someone is lying or libeling others of course that would be included in that freedom too and no one would be obliged to accept those things. But nobody could ever be blamed for the fact of communicating!

Everyone would be aware of the consequences of libel and harmful lies, thus it would be handled in a natural way . The Free Net would thus be self correcting.

The only crime on such a net would be acts calculated to impede or destroy the Free Net base itself or the free flow of information or data on it.

Such things as children porno are not necessarily condoned by netizens but noone is allowed to think or decide or stop the communication of another. If a person is abusing children for this pornography, the abuse would be punishable under common law, the communications relating to it can never be punishable.

So if a homosexual netizen, to use an odd example would abhor heterosexuals making love, he would abstain from looking at such sites. Noone is allowed to force another to watch pictures or accept data communicated on the Free Net as true.

The underlying philosophy is of course a view of man as fully responsible for their own thoughts and actions. Childrens’ access would be completely under the responsibility of the parents, who can install filters etc as they deem necessary.

Movies can still be rated for ages or christian type imprimaturs. Evangelists can still advise their audiences any way they wish. People can call others to join them in refusing to visit certain areas of the Free Net. People of a particular community can forbid their members to go certain places on the Free Net, but the ultimate responsibility will lie with the individual netizen

The sole function of the government would be to provide and safeguard the necessary infrastructure and protect the freedom of the Free Net. This would not be a matter of politics or political parties as these represent minority groups who wish to decide for and constrain other groups. The Free Net itself would not be a subject of political discussion but an agreed upon fact.

If you have not realized it by now: Ideas like ‘online piracy’ could have their place too. There could be ‘intellectual piracy games’, netizens could pretend to own certain ideas or designs and even request payments. But to be part of such always remains the decision of the individual netizen.

One thing will always be clear that once a netizen has published a creative work or communication it is shared with the entire Free Net. The basic human copy right is to be protected and integral part of the Free Net which started out as a filesharing computer network, that its files now may include complete movies does not alter the fact they are still binary files. The fact that someone ‘magically’ transforms a celluloid picture or a film in a cinema in sequences of zeroes and ones and communicates these binary mathematical and electrical sequences on the Free Net, does not change that communication freedom.

Publishing in the 2012 and on the Free Net means making public and thus sharing!

All this for the amusement and fun of mankind!

Long live the Free Net!!!

PS:

I bet you that more netizens would vote for such a Free Net Act, than would vote for a SOPA (Stop Online Piracy) or PIPA (Protect Intelectual Property) Act.

Let’s write and vote for an FN Act?

∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞

Copyright Note: This work is licenced under the Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Netherlands License. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/uk/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 559 Nathan Abbott Way, Stanford, California 94305 , USA.