What is the truth? I have had many a discussion, and many a disagreement, on what is “truth”? The most common argument is that truth is all based on perception. I disagree. I believe that truth is truth, based in fact. Based in reality. Some would argue, again, what is reality? What is my reality compared to what is your reality?

Without delving too much into esoteric reference and metaphysical possibilities, I would like to address the truth as fact. To me, if a “truth” cannot be proven or have no relevance to shared truth, how can it be the truth? I believe that colour can be a truth and ALSO a perception, since many of us view colour in different ways.

The truth is not opinion, nor is it perception. Reality can be a perception, but the truth is that if you and I are sitting at a table, the table is a table is the truth. That we are sitting is the truth. I have even had to defend this opinion of the truth, that maybe that is NOT a table. Seriously, folks, how far is one willing to go?

So, let’s take it in a point of reference to something that may or may not be a truth. I will make a statement:

The tech industry has terms and conditions of service that infringe on my right to do business the way I want to do business without giving them access to my contacts, my phone calls, my emails, texts, videos, etc. By not clicking “I agree” to their terms and conditions of service, I am UNABLE to use the necessary applications to carry on business IN THE WAY that the PUBLIC EXPECTS.

This is true. They have terms and conditions that infringe on my right to do business ethically, because I do not find their terms ethical. Now, ethics is a perception. That I cannot use necessary applications to carry on business the way the public expects is a truth. I cannot unless I sacrifice my ethics and agree to their ludicrous terms that violate my right to do legal and ethical business according to my standard of integrity.

So, is this truth or opinion? Is it perception or reality? I think the above relies on the word “infringe”.

So, it would seem that to infringe is a violation of the laws and rights of me, as a person. What are my rights? What are my rights to use technology without having to click “I agree”?

What do you think? It is an interesting example, is it not? Most people assume that they should not care about privacy anymore. Is that truth? Reality? Perception?

It is true that tech and big business make up their own rules. There are no precedents, or prior circumstances to refer to, because they have been dictating the terms and conditions of their service since they began. But it has gotten to a point where these services are now EXPECTED and INDISPENSABLE to public use. Therefore, they require the correct legal avenue to state laws about what is or is not allowed.

When someone in the public sees a person, me, doing business WITHOUT these types of tech, from social media use to not using the square point of sale system, it impacts their idea of my level of professionalism. It adversely affects my reputation as an ethical person, and a knowledgable business person. It is too challenging for most people to bend their mind around me doing something to take a stand for what is right, the principle of the thing, the moral and ethical issue involved. Instead, they opt for the easier judgement that I am not a very good business person. Case and point: I have to update my ipad with the latest updates, which include a very long document of terms and conditions of THIS SINGLE UPDATE TO MY IPAD in order to 1. Use my online banking, 2. Use an installed app like PDF viewer, or Square Point of Sale (Both free). How is this fair? How is this honest, or legal? It should not be legal.

So, saying, “It should not be legal” would be an opinion, a perception. But is it the truth? I personally believe that we, the people, should be creating the laws about tech. The tech industry should NOT be dictating the terms of life to us, simply because they have become moguls of indispensable methods of service. This is wrong. Why is it wrong? (Again, is that truth or perception). It is wrong because each person deserves a CHOICE in order to be part of society and function in it with the freedom to choose. One might say, you are free to choose NOT to update, and NOT to use those apps, which is true in my case. I am choosing NOT to agree to the ludicrous terms and conditions of service for a simple UPDATE because I do not agree that should be required to function in society like everyone else.

What ever happened to, “If your friend jumped off a bridge, does that mean you do it, too?” Why is it that we all expect each other to make the same choices, but claim that we are enlightened or that we respect everyone’s autonomy?

Ultimately, truth needs to be defined in all ways. We all need to AGREE on the truth before anything goes any further. The ONLY people who will suffer from exposing the truth are the ones who are trying to HIDE the truth. Otherwise, why don’t we have full transparency?

What is the truth about justice? Is it justice to have to spend all of your money, go into debt, just to fight for justice that is written in the law simply because the defender has limitless resources to pay for the top lawyering team in the country? How is that just?

What are we each doing to perpetuate truth in our lives? I have a solution, but it may not be easy for most of you.

If you can be 100% honest and truthful with everyone around you, and they do the same, and so on and so on, I believe we will get back to a point of being able to RECOGNIZE the truth. We are so far gone from what is true anymore, without reliable sources of the truth (need I say more about fake news, real news, or even WHY ARE WE HAVING TO QUESTION WHAT IS REAL OR FAKE WHEN IT IS ON A NEWS CHANNEL??!?!?!?!)

What is the truth to you? I am VERY interested in this discussion.

Thank you for sharing time. I appreciate you and the way you view topics such as “truth”.

Love,

Dawn