Accountable Media


Accountable Media

Accountable media only takes money and influence from its legitimate end users. This means it takes money from each individual legitimate end user in proportion to a legitimate end user’s numerical share of the its interactive legitimate end user base. This is the equivalent of one-person-one vote. It only takes influence from legitimate end users and this only in relation to the merit of the actual ideas submitted. The charters of such organizations would have them forever seeking to improve and refine this relationship. The best formats for these entities may be DAOs, full end user ownership (like a credit union) or non-profit. The aim is not profit for the owners or higher compensation for executives (which are distractive or a conflict) but unbiased info for the public. Accountable media is by definition ad free, as ads and sponsorship of necessity dis-empower by converting legitimate end users into products creating the most basic and pernicious conflict of interest especially when such media entities are allowed to aggregate.

Insisting on accountable media is how we regain our quality of life and how we get rid of the common enslavement enclosure mentality that sponsored media pushes by design. Sponsorship is the problem, it reduces empowered citizens to enslaved productized consumers. Accountable media is the solution. It’s also the end of useless supply side society and all of the idiotic lies and excuses supply side society uses sponsored media to spew. It can be the end of the huge market for outright lies and misrepresentation. It’s a crucial part of having transparent states that don’t feel compelled and entitled to engage in utilitarian dirty hand politics. Accountable media can be the return of functional journalism and better power sharing arrangements much closer to distributed democratized ideals. Imagine less cynical more engaged electorates.

Steps to Accountable Media:

  1. Spread ideas and education about accountable media
  2. Implement the enabling technology designed to displace sponsorship
  3. Heavy tax penalties for sponsorship, tax credits for accountable media
  4. Civil penalties for sponsorship- properly defining it as collusion and conspiracy
  5. Changing of state constitutions and criminal codes to reflect the criminalization of sponsorship with mandatory felony penalties
  6. Void trade agreements with nations that engage in sponsorship

Money is not speech and corporations are not people, they do not have rights, not even against each other. Attempting to push money as speech and corporate person-hood agendas should lead to imprisonment. Systematic attempts to dis-empower the public have to be recognized as crime and prosecuted.

Terrorism is just another Face of Sponsorship

Sounds like a bunch of tyranny to me. Here’s a massive list of things you cannot do or we will throw you in jail!

I prefer transparency and freedom…

The truth is that trade groups do have a really good idea what effects their industries and ought to be allowed to tell the world about their point of view just and much as any other entity…

I do like the idea of a cryptocurrency pools to support media as infrastructure… People and companies could invest in journalism for the betterment of their communities, and the journalist could be rewarded based on how well their journalism met the objectives of the pool… So long as everyone knows where the pool money comes from media can be taken with the appropriate grains of salt.


We disagree, I don’t think that goes quite far enough. The teeth in the steps above would come as people were eased off sponsorship. They would be there to keep progress from being lost. But I don’t want to soften this, to me sponsorship leads to slavery, its completely inevitable. Its hilarious to see these lawyers in my country on racing bicycles in spandex that is all dolled up with corporate trash- yep they are contenders.

I noted that you mentioned the freedom of contract elsewhere where freedom is further by bargaining away freedoms. I remember all the historical uproar over a sovereign restricting the freedom of contract. Now I know the charitable way to construe contracts is a private law, or promises meant to make the world more predictable or trustable. But today we have states focused on good faith dealings in contracts and calling everything that isn’t void sharp dealing. We have focus on freedom from contract, even if historically and so far total freedom from contract hasn’t worked. Contract can enclose or imprison- is natural tendency because we are not omniscient, or it can free. The kind of contract has to be limited it we are to tend toward freedom in aggregate-GPL is an example.

But look at the word. The word contract itself implies a kind of contracting, a restricting of freedoms. In the American South at the end the South was arguing with Lincoln for a freedom to oppress. But that idea is inimical to the idea of freedom in every way. That idea boils down to might makes right arguments. There is no right to rule based on private wealth or might or chance. There is not right or entitlement to rule period. Every attack on equality always aims at superficial equality. They will deny intrinsic equality and want to say that one person can tie their shoes better than another so should be allowed to rule for that reason and suggest that this at least imparts some absolutely necessary order to determine who can tell who what to do. But its exactly this we are trying to get away from. We want horizontal speech vice vertical speech and in the beginning a breaking of the wealth megaphone with a system that ensures speech is at least bottom up is needed.


Look at

What is so evil about that?

And how is your model going to provide similar media? Why ought they be excluded from the marketplace of ideas?

My argument is just because people are allowed to be free, that doesn’t mean we ought to force them to exercise those freedoms. You on the other hand are arguing against freedom of association, and freedom of speech.

Liberals says “Let us be your tyrants”… Conservatives say “We can make this tyranny more efficient” Both are wrong. But you are very wrong on this one.

#5 is not really a fair example. Its a trade tool that markets to pros. If there are any ads there its going to be their friends possibly doing the ads. Its a tool to try to help facilitate a service. Imagine for lawyers, these are people not likely to get fooled or start getting born with thicker and thicker layers of wool over their eyes- wool they should have a choice about with default opt out. There is a conflict of interest with but its about as close to minimal as to seem innocuous. Commercial as it is its still hard not to approve of The could become a trade group social media cooperative with little change in format. But stuff like Fox news where the whole point is to mislead people about everything that matters with the occasional loss leader- shut that down in a heart beat. The Media Fairness Act, much as it goads the right, isn’t even in the same galaxy goading relative to where we need to go with accountable media. We need to get rid of the state and industry ability to propagandize- period.

Nor should we allow people to profit from them not exercising those freedoms. Happy to be the sadist that locks up such sadists. Some things need to be understood as crime with a zero tolerance response. Let me not mince words, if someone was born to take advantage of others in predatory ways, in underhanded ways, I can’t say C’est la vie, I see it as identical to preying on children. Maybe its a kind of parentalism but I think such people either need bullet in the head or need to be locked up for life. If that precludes someone’s whole political philosophy, so what. At the same time I get a glimmering about not wanting to get caught up in karmic entanglements etc., and to an extent I see the value in red light zones.
But puffing needs to end as does caveat emptor, no more excuses from lazy or elitist courts, society rots on this stuff. Although I get that in some cases the sales experience can ad to the overall experience, but not enough to justify fraud.

And if you’re wondering, I think white collar crime leads to blue collar crime and probably needs stiffer penalties than even the violent stuff because it unleashes torrents of violence. Assuming penalties dissuade- and only for their dissuasive effect.


Oh, so trade mags are exempt? Why? They are still sponsored. You said sponsorship should be illegal. It’s legal to advertise to Pro’s but not shmoes? Who determines who is a pro and who’s a shmoe? Some centralized corruptible authority, I assume?? Probably some centralized authority that is corruptible.

Tyranny is tyranny. “Oh, I only wanted to be a tyrant against folks like Fox” Still leaves you as with a tyranny. And eventually the tyrant of the day decides that you are the lying villain that belongs in prison.

Tis what it is. If that is your politics, at least we know not to elect you…


Sponsorship is still a basic conflict of interest, even for trade mags.


You are assuming that media is intended to be neutral. That is impossible.

I on the other hand realize that everyone has an interest, and it is better that they put it out front and center. There are lots of perspectives out there and they all deserve to be heard, if we are to have an intelligent discussion. Frankly the people who have their businesses in the game have a better understanding of most issues than anyone else.

Stories aren’t going to be heard without sponsorship, and that makes the electorate dumber.

People aren’t dumb who watch MSNBC and Fox News. It is clear as day that they are both biased as hell. People watch those channels because they want to hear what they want to hear. Sponsors have very little to do with it. Both Networks give their audience exactly what their itching ears wants to hear. If sponsors want to tickle the same ears, they pay the network, If not they don’t.

Do you think if all the conservative leaning companies bought advertising on MSNBC and if all the liberal leaning companies bought time on Fox the networks would switch ideologies? Unlikely. The advertisers only care about getting their own message out. They don’t give a crap what content baits people into watching their ads, so long as the audience hears their ad.


Of most issues involving their businesses and often through a capitalistic lens or a bias for a system that isn’t working for most of Earth’s population or simply isn’t good enough or sustainable.

Yeah I’ve heard that argument leveled by Morris Berman and others against the Social Libertarians. Oh these people aren’t having the wool pulled over their eyes, like the Social Libertarians say they want their Mercedes. But they happen to be wrong.

What you put forth is the stories people tell themselves to feel better. Its part of a package where the whole mantra is money is power and people with money have a right to rule how ever they see fit and to what ever extent. To me the GOP is absolutely dead with the US population and it knows it, but it continues to wage war on that population and to stay in the game it has to rig elections, not just with gerrymandering but with vote suppression, non enforcement of voter rights laws, ballot tampering, miscounting and relying on shill politicians who are in their place because they are bought and paid and placed with the help of an owned media and because there are likely pictures of them floating around in compromising positions. And no I don’t accept at all that its about selling products, its about censorship. Its about stuff like ALEC. Its about controlling the range of candidates with sponsor corrupted media and then using money is speech idiocy to select the greatest evil.

I look at the media, all of the useless mainstream media, and its all one message to the population: work a lot harder for fraud like austerity. In CA the news is full of public employees have pensions and private workers don’t so public employee pensions should be forfeit. The message should be unionize all big firms or convert them to full employee ownership. Instead the message is kill yourselves for a parasite class of wealthy non contributors or net negative contributors. Its lower corporate taxes and de-fund schools when they are already funded at the lowest levels in 80 years. That useless media meant to censor, spin and completely misinform never argues for that. Instead they constantly try to undermine people.

We need to yank the charters of all these useless big media firms and liquidate their IP. Its good precedent. Call it media freedom. AT&T now is claiming that it won’t pursue gigabit internet now or even mediocre standards. My response is: fine will break you into a million pieces and find a way to make sure the name can’t be revived.

What we have is a supervisor society, a disciplinarian society where the so called employer is increasingly encroaching into people’s lives. Society for the sake of business is not society but rather something that should be put out of its misery. Business is meant to serve society not rule it.

So no, sponsorship is the biggest conflict of interest that rots society at its core, its the deepest most insidious expression of money as pure power. It leads to a locked down toll road filled spied upon society with no opportunity and ever increasing oppression. US freedom of the press is probably toward close to the bottom in the developed world. Its had a huge fall with 6 firms controlling the constant barrage of money message with occasional fake loss leaders. Sponsorship consolidates. You can’t have sponsorship and keep democratic society for long. Wanting to keep sponsorship is what is behind the efforts to turn the net into cable.


Why in the world do you post on the MaidSAFE forum? Are we not building a platform that anyone can use without permission? Even if you had your way, there will be absolutely no way to enforce it once MaidSAFE is finished. Nobody will need a "charter’ to do anything.

Most countries are not run by Kim Jung Ill There is no such thing as a licence or “charter” to use the first amendment. That includes sponsorship.

You say sponsorship is the greatest evil, But you provide zero scientific evidence. You are just spewing talking points. I say neither the viewers nor the media provider care who the sponsors are. Is Rush Limbaugh Rush Limbaugh because his sponsors told him what to say? Not a chance. His sponsors pay him because he has a huge audience that they want to place their product in the ears of. Sponsorship has nothing to do with the content of the show. They don’t bring Limbaugh listeners. They don’t change his message. Quite frankly they are irrelevant.


Rush most assuredly have had to backtrack numerous time when sponsors have threatened him. Goes double for Glenn Beck. So that show the influence. These firms get all their money from sponsors, and in other cases its almost all their money. The sponsors are their only customers and they exists to help sponsors and the sponsor class exploit the public.

Sponsorship is defacto censorship. And honestly these sponsored media systems have for 20 years been bringing the public nothing but bad news and all of it aimed at getting them to accept scams like austerity, work more for less and less etc.


I would call those times exceptions rather than the rule.

I am pretty certain the backtracking is about losing audience more than sponsorship… If you have audience you will have a new sponsor next week…

And instead you propose the real thing. It doesn’t matter though. MaidSAFE and technologies like it will make folks like you irrelevant.


That would be great. But its not just me. I came across some George Carlin video today where he was covering the “you’re owned” bit. Its not a media that serves us. Even where we pay a subscription the sponsors are the customers and we are the product. I’d like systems that outright replace the media. I think we need word of mouth analysis even with the telephone effect. We don’t need the money filter.


I would support Cryptocurrencies that support media. That is something that is needed. Newpapers have been killed by the internet - because there is no way to easily collect dimes and quarters… Now there is a way to collect dimes and quarters.

I also think it is in the public’s interest to have media that tells the whole story in a non-sensational way. You could create pools of crytpocurrency that would reward journalists for producing media that is fair, balanced and complete… Sponsors could invest in that cryptocurrency. You could have mutliple cyptocurrencies that reward journalists according to whatever metric the sponsors choose to pay for… So long as the agendas and payouts where transparent, you would get better media, and a clearer picture of who was biased and who was fair.

My model doesn’'t oppress anyone, and build a better media… Your model is a list of “Thou shall nots”…


It still gives sponsors veto power. The idea of sponsor and transparency seem impossible to reconcile. I dont think the distraction and influence of sponsor money has a role. As for matching cutomers and buyers that can be done with honest ad free unsponsored search, initiated when an end user chooses to search for an actual product.


My model doesn’t give the sponsor veto power. They don’t even get to control where their money goes – they only get to donate to the pool that pays based on the criteria which they desire.

But if my sponsor wants to 100% fund a message they are FREE to do so. And that is absolutely fine. Because often times Journalists don’t give a crap about lots of things that matter.


Right money continues to control everything and perfectly translate into power so that people born into the world with out a lot of it are property of (or will soon be) those who arbitrarily have say over concentrations of it. Its the same as people getting a hold of a loaded guns and holding a crowd hostage. Such people literally hijack societies with their bribery and blood money.

The proper thing is to recognize that money is a coercive force, it is not free speech or anything like speech (that notion is a malicious conflation) and limit the damage it does in censoring other peoples voices. If one has no political voice one will be over a barrel over wealth. If one has a political voice one will never have to worry about wealth or play kiss ass games, as Tyler fretted they most certainly can vote themselves a share of the wealth as that’s key part of the reason we’d want democracy and power sharing. But yes this being able to vote themselves a share of the wealth is a requisite of democratic systems at the very least so that people can grow with enough independence to develop the maturity to exercise their rights and cultivate them in coming generations.

Its also necessary to check a certain kind of ignorant entitled privilege from forming among the wealthy where they get all inflated thinking they were the key component, that it was their blood sweat and innovation which did. Its as Obama said “they didn’t earn it,” and why its generally called unearned income in the tax code. We need higher wages and much lower profits, and better yet a better wealth distribution mechanism.


You talk a lot, but offer no proof.

It is easy to cast accusation on nameless faceless evil rich people, But when presented with specific people it is much harder to make a case.

I still contend that who sponsors what make little difference in anything. And you have yet to present an ounce of scientific evidence otherwise… .

The truth is nobody cares who sponsors what, and sponsors tend not to care what they sponsor. 99.999 percent of the time their only agenda is to sell their own product. Not to manipulate politics. Unless the content they are sponsoring is interfering with their ability to sell their product they seriously could care less…

But you can keep blustering on. Nobody is listening to the conversation but the two of us.


That old Rothschild said something to the effect of let me control the currency and I will control the land. Actually the legend its he wasn’t that polite about it. In essence he was saying that in the end all power reduces to money. But every tax, every voucher and every well meaning crypto currency effort is an attempt to reverse this notion. People are tired of oppressive hierarchy. It can’t justify its existence anymore.

The pop historian Dan Carlin interviews the academic Gwyn Dyer in an interview called the Dyer Perspective (or outlook) and he suggests that the historical outlook strongly suggest that these hierarchies are unstable and will lead to more WWII type conflicts and that our only hope possibly is getting back to more horizontal communication. He’s talking about tech like the internet. From an anthropological perspective that seems to be the model of communication we evolved on. Groups of 100 or so people without hierarchy living in what amounted to extended families without much conflict. It was the lines from low tech agriculture and cities that lead to all this leader and follow the leader nonsense that has become so dangerous and intolerable.

Tech like ProjectSAFE is worse than useless if its just going to reinforce a status qua that is killing us.
Utter bullshit like: we can’t afford Social Security. Exactly which moron’s can’t afford it? Its only a media that is utterly broken and at the heart of the problem that could spew such filth. Even if one doesn’t agree with the way Social Security works the compulsion is a replacement that implies no quality of life decrease for the average person. Those who think the its valid to try to prey on others and try to justify it with survival of the fittest BS and actually feel entitled to act that way need to be locked up and made an example of. That’s freedom.


Crytpocurrencies will undermine debt as a money… This is a two edged sword. There are lots of things that we cannot afford that we have been affording by printing money… That won’t work…

The bright side of this is that there are a lot of things that have gotten progressively more and more expensive because we have been paying for them with made up money… Military actions, exponentially growing health care costs, exponentially growing college education costs – Since we cannot make up money anymore, those costs cannot continue to raise… Those things will return to a price that the market can support with real money - not made up money…

There is no question and never has been a question that the current economic policies and systems where not sustainable. They have been talking about eliminating national debts and so forth for the last 40 years. This unsustainable system will die not because of some evil plot, but simply because that which cannot be sustained will not be sustained…

Luckily technology will replace it. Capital will continue to flow without the corrupt and thieving banks.

It is the Governments and central banks that are corrupt though not the advertisers. They are a minuscule little crumb of a problem, if they are indeed a problem at all. Irrelevant in the whole scheme of things.