Strongest objection
What pushes against this view?
The concept can become so broad that every interface choice or recommendation is redescribed as a rights violation.
QAEDA-ARG-007 · working thesis
Cognitive liberty is upstream of expression
In AI-mediated environments, freedom of expression is incomplete if the systems that shape, observe, or personalize the inputs to thought can covertly profile or steer lawful inquiry.
Current response
Why QAEDA still holds it.
QAEDA uses cognitive liberty narrowly around mental privacy, freedom of inquiry, meaningful agency, non-covert steering, and the ability to use or refuse cognitive tools—not as a veto against all mediation or product design.
Revision rule
What would change the argument?
Revise if the cognitive-liberty framework proves less precise or less useful than narrower privacy, speech, consumer-protection, or anti-discrimination doctrines for the same problems.
Open question
What remains unresolved?
Which protections should be legal rights, product norms, technical defaults, or merely editorial principles?
Argument graph
How this thesis connects.
supportsQAEDA-ARG-001 · Lawful inquiry begins with non-suspicionIf inquiry is part of the upstream process of belief formation, protecting it from generalized suspicion becomes central to cognitive liberty.related via operationalizesQAEDA-ARG-012 · Audit behavior, not only policy promisesThe audit framework translates cognitive-liberty principles into observable categories such as privacy, inquiry freedom, due process, agency, and data minimization.
Apply the argument
Decision tests that operationalize this reasoning.
These tests turn the argument into review questions. They do not create a score or change claim confidence.
QAEDA-TST-002Prove the nexus to harmful capability or conductDoes the intervention act on conduct, capability, or a transaction closely connected to the harm—or merely on a topic, identity, association, or inferred character?QAEDA-TST-005Protect lawful inquiry explicitlyDoes the intervention contain a clear rule preventing lawful reading, research, journalism, education, criticism, fiction, prevention work, or curiosity from being treated as harmful conduct by itself?
Trace the basis
Linked public records
These links do different jobs. Claim status owns evidence confidence; source IDs own preserved-file identity; annotations own passage context; positions own current commitments.
Claims
QAEDA-CLM-011supportedSearch-query sensitivityQAEDA-CLM-012supportedSurveillance and chilling effectsQAEDA-CLM-013editorial_inferenceCuriosity versus intentPositions
cognitive-libertyCognitive libertycore principleadult-agencyAdult agency before paternalismcore principlequery-non-suspicionLawful queries begin with non-suspicionworking positionPassage annotations
QAEDA-ANN-001Open evidence notePassage-level contextQAEDA-ANN-002Open evidence notePassage-level contextPreserved sources
QAEDA-SRC-018The Architecture of the Mind: Assessing Cognitive Liberty as the Defining Civil-Liberties Struggle of the AI EraProtected dossier fingerprintQAEDA-SRC-025Cognitive Liberty: The Foundational Civil Liberty of the AI AgeProtected dossier fingerprintQAEDA-SRC-030The Sanctity of the Query: Reconceptualizing Search Privacy in the Age of Artificial Intelligence and Mass SurveillanceProtected dossier fingerprintQAEDA-SRC-031The Chilling Effect: Surveillance, Epistemic Conformity, and the Erosion of Intellectual PrivacyProtected dossier fingerprintEssays
QAEDA-ART-001The unowned mind: cognitive liberty in an AI-mediated worldEditorial synthesisQAEDA-ART-002The sanctity of the queryEditorial synthesisReading paths
QAEDA-COL-001Start with the methodCurated navigationQAEDA-COL-002Cognitive liberty in the AI eraCurated navigationChallenge the reasoning
The graph is a map of current arguments, not a demand for agreement.
Point to a missing premise, stronger objection, counterexample, source, or revision condition. Stable IDs make disagreement specific.