Bribery (money) is not free speech!

If you don’t agree that bribery is free and protected speech then you also don’t agree that money is speech.

You can talk to yourself all you want, but other than that speech is rarely free…

On nearly any platform publishing costs money. The fact that an author must pay a publisher does not make his work any less “speech”.

We dont need publishers any more.

Not true if you want an audience.

My ISP charges me every month to publish my blog.

SAFE on mesh or efforts like it will replace that model in the near future.

It doesn’t work that way. Radio didn’t replace Newspapers and Television didn’t replace radio. Maidsafe isn’t going to replace all publishing in one fell swoop. If you want people to see you message you must get it into places frequented by people who would be receptive to hearing it. Just posting it on a blog in some obscure corner of the internet doesn’t count as “published” any more than paying to self publish then leaving the books stacked in your garage counts.

Beyond that, Using SAFE isn’t exactly free either. You must pay to put.

Radio, TV and newspaper are going to die, we are going to kill them off deliberately although they were already dying because obsolete.

The put charge is totally nominal, matches storage contributed.

That’s not how it works either. If the audience moves to MaidSAFE, the content providers will too.

FoxNews will be on MaidSAFE. And there is nothing you can do to stop it.

People are not going to wander all over the TinFoil hat fruited plain of blogsphere to figure out what is up with the world. They are going to go to aggregators and reporters that they trust and get content there— Those content providers are going to continue to need a business model where they can put food on the table and fuel in the Jet.

Open source platforms help entrepreneurs by reducing the barriers to entry and needed capital to come into business, but it does not “kill the incumbents” It reduces the incumbent’s operating costs as well.

Fox isn’t going to exist. We are moving to a transparent world they will be less than redundant, they already are but it will be too obvious. The aggregations systems will be automated and sorted by stuff like end user factor tree up voting. The content providers are going out of business because they won’t be able to compete with popcorn time of SAFE. Sponsorship is going to die. Sponsorship won’t work on SAFE. Taxes will survive.

You way overestimate the power of transparency.

The purpose of MSNBC and Foxnews isn’t to inform the public. The purpose is to tell itching ears what they want to ear.

For example, the Former Secretary of State intentionally circumvented the laws so that her emails where not of public record. We don’t need any transparency at all to know that is true. Those who care care and those who don’t don’t. One team watches one channel, the other watches the other. Transparency will not change that one ounce.

Politics is all about the game, not the truth. The media is about serving a market, not the truth. That market won’t be hassled with the facts. Nobody cares about the facts unless they are handy to their cause.

That is the acusation leveled at libertatian socialist like Chomsky about there being no false consciousness, that people really are that shallow.

But I think people who are asleep can be roused. French Revolution was such a case. There was a very nasty period afterward so those who rouse have to do it with the lessons of history in mind.

Sorry I cant blame Hillary in our non transparent current culture after what happened with Petreaus and Monica, And whatevery they would have found would have gone to Fox and the idiot house Republicans.

Transparency – Gets a “who cares” from you too.

Point made.

Nobody cares about the facts. Its all a game.

If you want your message in front of an audience you need to find and audience and pay to get your message in front of it. MaidSAFE doesn’t change that.

We disagree. But society needs to become less extractive and accurate info systems are key.

Do you have an alternate plan that make the a market for all the “transparency” you think is going to change the world? You already said you didn’t care to have certain truths (Patraues and Monica) paraded around. Do you really expect anyone to go seeking facts to undermine their worldview?

That’s not what I am suggesting. Simply that this intentionally opaque current environment readily punishes lessening of secracy. They punish whistle blowers and say you are stupid if you get caught. That is not transparency. And Hilary was calling the loudest to extradite Assange. If that wasnt simply the obligatory rhetoric of corruption…

64% of Americans dislike Snowden.

You are still evading my question. How do you get your content in front of an audience that cares unless you pay to do so? There are all kinds of rhetoric and reports all over the blogshere (Many of them just plain old bogus) Audience does not magically appear. Audiences rarely care about things they don’t care about, no matter how right their opponents may be. If you want to be heard, you must get your message in front of an audience that already exists.

Its mainly memes. That is what talking points are about. But talking points are much weaker because they work against people’s self interest. Remember all that neuro fad bs about negative thoughts are much stronger and stick like velcro. Well a simple search, for positive word hits vs negative (haven’t done it lately and I know the Google trends stats have been screwed with to protect mindshare lies, what not marketing fads…) will show positive term us out numbering negative by 3 to 1. Send memes that actually align with self interest.

Its like that Why Nations Fail book. At the heart was the understanding that conservative fear based ideology leads to slavery and that extractive political and economic systems imply each other and always colapse- and its a nuclear era etc. Also despite the capitalist rhetoric that tries to justify the capitalist’s share by citing tech raising all boats they point out that extractive conservative systems cant handle tech disruption and so the have a kind of phoney growth where they always end up suppressing tech and were only ever interested in it for extractive vice inclusive ends. But since the authors come out of places like George Mason they have to tip toe arround their message. You arent suppose to challenge worthless bavkward elite power too quickly. You also have to soft peddle and revision certian parts of history and claim your goal is incentivising hard work by other people to be compatible with the plantation mindset.

Hilarious example of fully qualified Drs and nurses in India supposedlt not wanting to work enough (probably because they know the actual effectiveness of drug pushing medicine) but still being supported by the state with most people instead seeking alt med treatment instead. In short they couldnt be HMOd so they tried to incentivise by putting in time clocks to be punched 3x per day tov restrict money unless they worked wage slave hours and the Indian med pros said **** you and tore that shit out.

So in short an incentive is not working against self interest with enclosure and the memes that stick and spread are the ones that truely align with self interest lik “the 1%” and a SAFE enabled blogsphere will be a much more effucient vector for the memes to fix the global narrative and radically accelerate the collapse of extractive wage slave enclosure based systems. Peoplw like the Kochs that use their wealth against people are going to lose that wealth. They’d be better off making sure that basic issue homestead is lavish enough because they will need it.

Still didn’t answer the question. Who is going to listen to messages they don’t care to listen to? How are they going to find them?

I have never send a meme and changed my mind. I have seen memes and unsubcribed the annoying know-it-all closed minded idiot that posted it.

But people believe what they care to believe, and they support who they choose to support. By and large the facts are ignored that don’t fall into line with what people choose to believe in the first place.

The Koch brother and other politicos the like don’t make stuff up. They take a compelling argument and put it in front of an audience that is likely to believe such an argument. Most politcal rhetoric is omission of the counterargument, not the invalidly of the argument itself. Tell people what they want to hear, and they will listen.

Look up Nader’s book “unstoppable” on forming left right coalitions. He seems to have a recent record of refuting that defeatist line of logic. There is your answer. Also the OWS people mobilized, over came efforts to silence them and stayed non violent. People are ready to change their mindsets.

OWS was totally ineffective in my book.

Nobody outside their circle had any idea what they where protesting.

They put on a good show, but only for their own enjoyment.

It isn’t defeatist logic. It’s reality. You demonstrate it yourself by discarding my argument and making up new ones over and over again. You don’t want to hear what I say, so you pretend you didn’t hear it and change the topic.

Everyone has a belief structure that they filter the world through. Even when things are transparent as day, they discard what does not fit the narrative that they support.

MSNBC and FOXnews exist because people want to hear what people want to hear. People who want to hear those things don’t exist because Fox news or MSNBC made them that way. No magic new media is going to make people throw the lenses of their worldview away so that they can go learn why they have always been wrong. There just isn’t a market for that…