Reverse auctions

Related Projects
21

Nobody clicks on ads. They are rather harmless decorations that pay the bills.

Your attention is yours. Use it as you choose — If you hand it over to others Don’t go trying to put them in prison over it. It is your shortcoming.

Generally a political cause cannot buy converts. If for example the ACLU or a Gun control group buys a bunch of time on the Rush Limbaugh program, It is money well wasted. Rush has an audience, and when you advertise you are trying to reach that audience because your message is like minded and you think they will listen to you, and carry your message forward… Absolutely his audience can be rented… It works as well as it works, and if it is done poorly listeners will go elsewhere. The Chances that the advertiser is going to corrupt the host into teaching something 180 degrees from what he has always taught without his audience seeing right through it and going elsewhere is 0… It just doesn’t work that way. People listen to what they want to listen to and If they hear stuff they hate, they don’t pay attention or they leave.

Attention absolutely may be rented. If you are interested in buying a blender, and amazon puts a blender in front of you, most folks are going to look at it. They are showing you exactly what you are looking for… You may not look but that is because you are being stubborn. If they put an ad for something totally different than a blender, most folks will ignore it. Ignore it or not, the advertiser rented an attempt to gain your audience and thus if you clicked or ignored, you did that because the page rented your attention to the advertiser.

To say renting attention cannot be done then turn around and attempt to ban it because it is corrupting the system is oxymoronical as an argument.

It is idiotic to think people are so stupid that their vote can be bought with a commercial, and it is insanely tyrannical to ban political advertising entirely because you think people are so stupid… Double down the stupidity when nearly every post you propose banning sponsorship entirely.

A ton of media wouldn’t exist at all without sponsorship… Trade magazines etc don’t have enough audience to be profitable, but they oven carry the news that really matters – that effects the supply chains and how they operate…

To raise the argument to a deeper level. Your claim that we Lose democracy because of sponsorship is silly. The government has always been sold out — And Advertising is about 15th in line at the “politician for sale” auction.

In many cases advertising is good in that it saves me time and money. (amazon showing me a blender I am likely to buy)I some cases it is annoying, because I have to run an ad blocker software or ignore things that don’t interest me. … But rarely does it corrupt anything in any significant measure. I am not a receptive audience to ideas that I am not receptive to, nor is anybody else. That is just some crazy idea you made up.

22

Nope, sponsorship is the reason someone needs money to run for office, its a filter. No one gets to run without the sponsor nets pre-approval, we lose both the vital but limited representantion and steward effects to politicians having to be bought bonded with dirt and keep back room promises before they ever are allowed in front of an audience. Its way worse than a constant jerrymandering of mindshare.

What you’re in favor of is why the average kid will graduate highschool with diabetes or pre diabetes. Half the so-called republican revolution was based on thinking they had a captive audience stuck in the car with AM radio, again propagandistic manipulation designed to defeat the public interest.

Media needs to take money from its legitimate end users or that conflit of intetest just ends up pimping out and productizing the entire population if this most basic conflict is allowed to spread unchecked. Sponsorship in a short time corrupts absolutely.

And even in the case of retailers I can’t trust then if that conflict is allowed, because I again cease to be the customer and become a product to be exploited. Under the principles of agency, and they really do apply here, they are implied, we would have a breach. And this also sets up the whole ad industry where which if allowed has an interest in trying to pit the interests of buyers and sellers against each other. Getting rid of this layer that also drives graft would align the interests of buyers and sellers and yield a huge increase in value and quality and good will.

Half of law is spent on getting rid of conflicts of interest. There is no more basic conflict of interest than sponsorship. Look at crap like the American Legislative exchange counsel or the practice of allowing interlocking boards. Business interests need a permanent and comprehensive demotion, we have to end this trade first bs.

  1. Provide a replacement for sponsored/censor systems with non profit open DAO’s like SAFE.

  2. Provide dissuasive taxes that make sponsor systems prohibitively expensive.

  3. Educate people about the real costs of sponsorship with loss of basic rights, surveilance tendency, market corruption, and downward spiral in quality of life and standard of living.

  4. Get rid of its legal manifestations Santa Clara- Buckley- Citizens- anti neutrality- inter locking boards. And establish stiff civil and criminal penalties with a new department for enforcement. Let the fines be in set percentages of future profit years.

1 Like
23

Don’t trust anybody.

if you do you are a fool.

I 100 percent guarentee if you had no sponsorship you would still have crooks in office… Because being in office is the only place where you can easily get away with being a crook.

Your solution oppresses me. And that makes you just as evil as them.

I ought to be free to sell my products, and I ought to be free to pay for the publication of media that attracts the interest of people who may be interested in my products.

Your crooked politicians are no excuse for you taking away my freedom.

1 Like
24

And yet once again I don’t think our positions are that far apart. Amazon amazingly has the ability to get goods to me at their bulk prime rate in under 24 hrs with accurate arrival time prediction.

With proper transparency and conflict removal and proper privacy abstraction I am very happy to let them track and analyse my purchases on a default opt in basis, and I am more then willing to tell them what my preferences are and what I like and more than happy to try reverse auction powered auto shopping and happy if they sell their demo info for feed back on better products and services (conflict wise its better if they offer it for free or in kind to suppliers- remember the direction money flow) All that is in line with a good level playing field agent and a trade relationship based on mutual respect and aligned interests.

But I am also ok with an open source DAO system that makes this happen at cost or as close to it as possible. I do tend to see all but a corporations earliest investors as a conflict of interest and would rather have wholly employee owned (excluding often superflous management) or not for profit.

1 Like
25

Why should you have to opt in? If you are running a service, it is your job to know what you have done for your customers and what they like and what they don’t like.

If you do business with anyone, you have inherently given them permission to remember the business interactions that you have had with them.

You cannot legislate ignorance. And that is what you do when you tell businesses they can only know what they have done if the customer agrees that they can know what they have done. It is a two party transaction and BOTH parties have the right to remember what they have done and why.

26

Business doesn’t even have a right to exist = private property is verboten = Stalinism.

27

@jreighly no peoples private data is private, their is no default sharp dealing eula in favor of business.

@janitor, no businesses are paper entities if that and just as no state has a right to exist no business does either. Rights, to the extent that they exist and have validity are vested in the people unseverable and inalienable.

28

The only place that Businesses lack the right to exist is in Warren Fantasyland.

There is no shortage of judicial precedent protecting commerce and our rights to engage in it.

Reality is reality. If you argue from your fantasyland your argurements are all absolutely irrelvant to those of us who live in the real world with real laws.

I engage in business, and there is no way the goverment can force me to forget who I sold to, who I tried to sell to and failed, etc. To pretend they can is ridiculous. To argue that businesses have no rights is simular to saying the first amendment doesn’t apply to newspapers. Silliness beyond comprehension.

29

Correct…if you mean businesses/Corporations - not if you mean free trade I think

Wrong…I’d say, therefore so is the leap to Stalinism.

Correct I’d say…

Wrong…there is no such right…rights are for individual people, not organisations, businesses etc.
Just felt Warren may need some moral support… :smiley:

.

2 Likes
30

That is a bizarre and nonsensical statement.
“State” has no rights because it’s not a person. Only people have rights. Also state is based on coercion and violence.

This has nothing to do with businesses who are people utilizing their property to perform for-profit activities which can be used (or not) on an entirely voluntary basis.

So what is a baker or shoemaker if not a business?
GFC…

31

Care to site a legal precedent for such an assertion? Otherwise you are just as far into fantasyland as warren.

32

There is no fantasy land here. You trying to make a case for corporate welfare based on some sort of necessary profit? The public can boycott, and it can choose not to use a business so that it goes under. The people exercising their rights through the vehicle of the state can kill a business out right, by yanking its charter, or injuncting it in any action they see fit for the public interest. They can break up a business, and they can and do levy special taxes and restrict access to territories.

@janitor That corporate fictitious personhood bs is going away. The silly redundant notion of corporate rights was taking the notion that one business would have recourse against another way too far. Rights are vested in the public period.

33

On the contrary, it is an eminently ordinary and sensible statement. :smiley:

That’s it…

Yeah…everybody keeps telling me that for some reason, whatever the conversation…even when I’m advocating de-centralising it, I’m a Statist apparently. :smiley:

It’s the same basic thing,both are made up of individuals (with rights), the entity itself has no fundamental right to exist,as it is an institution, organisation, idea, whatever. the people have the right to trade freely, but the business entity does not have a right to exist - this is reserved for people.

the Baker and the Shoemaker are people…with rights
Their bakery business or cobbler’s shop does not have a right to exist…just doesn’t (and for very good reasons). :smiley:

1 Like
34

You are the one asserting that such a right exists. The burden of proof is on you to produce the evidence of this supposed “Right”. It’s the same old God argument thing really…

2 Likes
35

The right exists within the legal framework that we live in now. It really isn’t debatable. Businesses are protected by law.

Back to my example Does the first amendment apply to newpapers? By your contention those are businesses and thus have no rights. The Courts disagree over and over and over again. Thus the right exists. At least in the real world…

You can have your fantasyland where the courts rule otherwise, but it is made up world irrelevant to realistic discussion.

36

I’m debating it…

I don’t know as I’m not American. Please sketch out the details,so I understand your point. I’m tentatively thinking this is related to free speech, but as I say I really don’t have enough to go on.
So, I’m getting that in America, such a right for businesses/Corporations to exist…exists.
I will ask once more…can you provide the evidence for this?

37

Yes, the first amendment says government cannot interfere with our freedom of speech.

Judicial precedent applies this to businesses like the New York times etc. As such, your contention that Businesses do not have rights does not hold water, at least in most of the western world.

I would ague that the burden of proof always falls on the tyrant… People are free do whatever they wish, lest a tyrant stops them. Saying businesses do not have rights ignores the obvious fact that businesses are run by people, and that people have rights to make a living and engage in commerce.

38

OK, when you mentioned the Newspaper business in particular, I thought it must be related to Freedom of Speech…which makes me suspect this is going to be some exception based on this principle, rather than the rule…but we’ll see

mmmmm…do you mean the New York Times can’t be prevented from printing stories, due to Freedom of Speech? OK, but what does this have to do with the New York Times having this mythical “Right to Exist”? Surely the ruling would have been based on the basic premise that Newspapers have the right to print stories,not that the business has a right to exist?

As,such, that wasn;t my contention - it was that they do not have the specific right to exist. You have presented no contrary evidence to my actual contention still.

You can argue that all you want, but the accepted logic is that the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim for something’s existence.

No, they aren’t and it’s often by agreement, not tyranny :smiley:

Yes they do,but businesses don’t have the right to exist. As I’ve asked twice now and you have not provided the evidence to support your claim, then I can only assume that it is yourself, rather than Warren that inhabits the fantasy land :smiley:

2 Likes
39

Are you arguing just to Argue? How many dumb arguments can you guys string together?

Preventing or Causing the New York times “Not to exist” inherently interferes with it’s right to publish…

Companies are Sanctioned by law and thus have a right to exist. Period. That Reality. Not philosophy or fantasyland utopia.

You may have a different definition or “Right” But it if it isn’t established law and precedent , it is fantasyland stuff…

Moreover, if I hang a sign, or a website, and start selling products or services, My business exists. It doesn’t need permission to exist. It just is. People sell things. therefore businesses exist. Governments can ban them, and they will continue to exist, because people need to do commerce to survive.

Telling me that I must forget my business interactions is like telling rivers that they must flow uphill. Good luck with that. It just doesn’t work that way. There are two parties to a transaction, both those parties are a party, and as such they experienced what they experienced.

40

I think the point of difference here is that some would say that people have rights, not businesses. And that businesses may be constructed according to law, but that is about how people may do business, not about giving rights to some new entity that is not a person. That’s my position too, and not just an arbitrary one as I’ll explain. I think it’s very important.

The way I see it is that law establishes rights agreed amongst people, for people. Law gives a person the right to create and operate a business (or not), it doesn’t give this right to a business! Why do I think this is important?

When rights are given to corporations, which I think has been attempted in the U.S., I think it is a misapplication of the real meaning of a right. And an attempt by those in charge of corporations to gain rights beyond those of the rest of the population. This is why IMO it is not just a mistake to think of corporations having rights, but dangerous, because it undermines the whole idea and purpose of rights.

The point of rights is to ensure everyone has some basic freedoms, not to give some more freedoms than others.

So it is important that people have rights to do business, and that the business itself is just regulated by law.

You can insist on calling this a business with rights, in which case I’ll just disagree with you - and suggest this is dangerous thinking.

On the one hand this is just a different interpretation of what rights are, in the other it has very profound implications.

2 Likes