Human Dignity
The person is not a metric, substrate, demographic resource, or expendable friction point. Editorial and program decisions begin with human standing.
These standards are designed to constrain the publisher, investigator, contributor, moderator, and institution—not merely the people they criticize.
THE MINISTRY'S PUBLIC PURPOSE
Cognitive liberty is the right to hear and be heard. Your thoughts can become public knowledge: speak, question, reply, publish, correct, and build together. Don't shadowban yourself.
A PUBLIC CULTURE OF THOUGHT
Evidence and criticism should remain accessible on fair terms. We oppose unexplained viewpoint-based removal or reach suppression and ask platforms for clear rules, observable corrections, accessible appeals and accountability. This is not a promise of unlimited distribution or immunity from rules against threats, harassment, doxxing or fraud.
STANDARD ZERO
No judgment whatsoever. The Ministry does not grade human worth, assign purity, diagnose dissent, score belief, classify a person as redeemable or disposable, or condition participation on an approved conclusion.
Evidence classifications remain descriptions of public records, not judgments of people. Total cognitive freedom is reciprocal: nobody may convert their freedom into custody over another person’s mind, privacy, body, records, speech, or ability to leave.
Twenty public standards governing dignity, non-designation, evidence, privacy, AI use, corrections, version history, appeal, Exit, and institutional accountability.
The person is not a metric, substrate, demographic resource, or expendable friction point. Editorial and program decisions begin with human standing.
No living person, group, race, religion, nationality, political party, government, company, church, technology, or movement is designated as “the Antichrist.”
Research may examine systems and public institutions. It does not publish target maps, harassment lists, or dossiers designed to expose people.
The Ministry does not issue threats, endorse attacks, or publish operational guidance for violence.
Do not publish private addresses, credentials, contact details, or sensitive personal information merely because it can be found.
Separate primary source, report, testimony, interpretation, doctrine, hypothesis, speculation, and unknown.
Use confidence labels when useful, but never let a label substitute for the underlying evidence.
Fix broken facts visibly. Record consequential corrections, retractions, and supersession.
Do not silently rewrite meaningful claims until the past becomes unreconstructable.
Disclose material relationships that could reasonably affect how a reader evaluates a claim.
Collect the minimum information needed for the actual function. Do not build speculative dossiers.
AI may assist drafting, comparison, extraction, or organization. Publication responsibility remains human, and the model is not evidence for external facts.
A digest proves exact bytes, not truth, authority, relevance, or success. Preserve provenance and reconstruction paths.
Where serious factual claims concern identifiable institutions or public actors, seek relevant source-aware correction or response where feasible.
Label testimony as testimony. Experience matters without becoming automatic proof of every external explanation.
Label institutional interpretation and contributor opinion so they do not impersonate reported fact.
A contributor’s argument is not automatically a permanent Ministry position.
Provide a visible path to contest factual findings, attribution, moderation, or correction handling.
Participation remains voluntary. Departure is not evidence of guilt or betrayal.
Readers may use these rules to challenge the Ministry itself. A rule that binds only the other side is not a standard.
The label should follow the evidence. It should never become a machine-generated badge that readers are expected to trust without seeing the source path.
Inquiry can be formally permitted while institutionally expensive. The difference requires evidence, boundaries, and a reason trail.
Read How Institutions Punish QuestionsCOGNITIVE LIBERTY · PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION
Don't shadowban your own thoughts. Publish a question, evidence, testimony, a contradiction, or a correction. Human knowledge needs more voices—not only the opinions an algorithm already knows how to recommend.
Share by choice, not by pressure. Protect other people's consent and sensitive details; you do not have to disclose personal information to make a public contribution.