And you're going to compete with them on price then? Even when they can and will sell every unit at a loss until you're driven out of the market. Unless you're wealthy enough to be part of the good ol boys club, you can't afford to play that kind of game. They can.

Because those big businesses are only motivated by the profit possibilities.

If you take away that protection then they'll just stop trying. They don't give a shit about any of the motivations you listed. They'll wait for you to come up with something new, then use the advantage of their size to force you out of the market. You'll end up either giving up or trying again at which point they'll just repeat the cycle.

And there's nothing you can do to stop them because now they can be as open and blatant as they want with directly using your exact plans.

None of those motivations you listed actually need IP to be abolished though.

If you're trying to differentiate yourself from the competitors, having IP protection is jn your favor. The large corporation you're competing with can't just swoop in and destroy you by making an identical product at a such a loss of profit until you run out of money.

If you're fueled by creating open source knowledge, well you can already do that. You can choose to release your IP into the world for anyone to use unrestricted.

And for a sense of community, well that's just the second point again. Abolishing IP was never going to make you feel community with Amazon. But having IP isn't preventing you from having community with individuals. You can still work on a project together without abandoning the idea of IP ownership.

Laypeople are perfectly happy to give baseless opinions on my actual field of expertise, only fair I return the favor on other fields. Also how do you propose we get a study which shows the problem if you aren't allowed to ask the question which prompts the study until after the study is done?

Besides, when societal dogma is driving more than anything else then the only expertise you need is to be a member of that society. And nobody can deny me that qualification.

No, I'm dismissing the idea that the "medical consensus" is unquestionable truth.

If questioning the medical consensus was always wrong then we'd still believe that handwashing was a waste of time, and cigarettes would probably be lauded as a way to resist the miasma.

When the consensus changed to say that cigarettes and underage drinking are bad, that didn't overthrow the idea that handwashing is still good. And when the consensus changes to say that the modern approach to transitioning has caused more harm than help, that won't overthrow the idea that underage drinking and cigarettes are still bad.

Exactly.

Most of us on the fediverse can sympathize with the idea that "its really frustrating not being able to use Reddit as a reliable spurce for obscure knowledge."

The difference is that we feel "its really frustrating that I can't rely on Reddit, because even if the answer is there I can't in good conscience support spez." Instead of "all the answers are gone because of these stipid protests."

The medical opinion backed up by doctors and the majority of the medical community used to be that alcohol for minors was fine and that cigarettes were good for you.

The medical community is perfectly capable of being wrong and prescribing societal dogma over anything else.

Sure, I can go harass people on gymnastics forums if that's what you want. But in that case it's only fair that I start harassing people on trans forums as well. I wasn't doing either of those things before, but you said I have to so I guess it's time to go bully some trans people.

I have no problem with condemning the people who push children into intensive training for competition gymnastics. And no, I don't believe them either when they argue that "the child wanted this." The parents wanted a child who fits a certain mold and the child is just trying to make their parents happy, or atleast not angry depending on how externally abusive that parent is being.

Also I absolutely support the idea of banning under 18s from getting nose jobs, boob jobs, lip fillers, taking PEDs, etc. Heck throw in piercings and tattoos as well for all I care. No procedure and no parental permission exceptions.

See the problem here is that you forgot that opinions are only allowed to include concerns or nuances that are on the approved list.

Anything you might be concerned about that isn't on the approved list puts you straight into wrongthink, double plus ungood.

I have opinions on when and how children should be allowed to access cigarettes, alcohol, and motorcycles. Are those opinions also boring, unnecessary, and entitled?