If we want to get rid of terrorism we have to get rid of conflict interest based media. Conflict media or sponsored media is the key enabler that allows money to lead people around by the nose through terror. It only plausible with the filter in place. Media should only take money and influence from the legitimate end users it exists to serve, should be illegal for it to take money from other sources. Alternatively we can do non for profit DAOs to replace the media. We only need an info and communication system we can do the analysis in the community.
I think I will build a DAO just to sponsor the things you don’t want sponsored.
Nobody could stop me. And once it is in the wild it will be impossible to shut down, censor or destroy…
Terrorists will have DAOs too.
Just because you have a new hammer, not everything is a nail…
No magic oppression of evil will come out of the new magic bullet… A bullet is still a bullet. It is morally agnostic.
I want to invest in your DAO. I’m sure Warren will do, as soon as he makes sure he can do it anonymously
I really don’t understand the link between these 2. If I have a newspaper, and a car-company is buying ads in it. What’s the problem with that? I need it, otherwise I would have to ask my readers to pay much and much more for the newspaper. You’ve made some other topics as well about sponsorship. I think you’re really way to much negative about it.
But, on the other hand? Why would you need a DAO? If SAFEnet get’s big enough, bloggers, producers, writers etc. can make money on their projects using the 10% of the Farming they make. No need for sponsorship.
The need for sponsorship is two sided.
If I make a machine to sort fruit by size and grade for example, how do I get customers to find me? I find a publication that is read by the audience that would be interested in my product and I sponsor it…
99.95 percent of the time I as a sponsor would have Zero interest in manipulating the content of the publication. I just want to get my message in front of the appropriate audience, and the publication I choose to sponsor has the appropriate audience.
This kind of sponsorship is good for the economy and it is good for the readers of the publication – If you are a fruit packer, you ought to know what products are available to do your job more efficiently… It is a win, win…
The alternative to sponsorship as a method for your customers finding you is for salespeople to obtain leads and store them in a database somehow. Usually this happens by purchasing leads from other companies in overlapping businesses. Then the data is stored in a centralized system… And the salespeople don’t really guard it with their lives as most everyone in the database isn’t even a real customer…
Seems to me that running an ad sponsoring a trade magazine is much less intrusive.
But Warren would prefer there where no such thing as businesses from my understanding of most all of his posts… So this is par for the course… I would like to hear his idea for an alternative method of my sizer machines finding their way to customers…
And that if that became the dominant form media and info exchange we’d get sanity back and end rule by money. The example you cite seem harmless enough but in aggregate over time we end up with sponsored law and institutions that respond to nothing but bribery and in effect sponsored judiciary, executive and legislature and regulatory bodies. All of that follows from sponsored media. Sponsorship is also the road to a collapsing economy over low profit efficiency with high prices and wages too low to buy stuff.
@jreighley Well as you know I don’t think mass aggregate sponsorship is about sales at all but censorship, spin and propaganda. I’ve mentioned level playing field non conflict (non sponsored, non sponsored optimized) search as a way for people to find out about products. But as you also know I would like nothing more than a level playing field that would give small competitors a chance. Especially for the kind of people who devote time thinking about solutions like SAFe.
Yes, a point you repeat over and over again like it is gospel despite the fact that there is Zero evidence to back your claim…
Sponsors advertise to put products in front of customers. Period. The only time they pull back is when their customer are offended and lose appetite for the product being sponsored. That isn’t censorship – that is the movement of the audience making the investment in advertising a bad investment.
Just because you repeat the same point over and over again doesn’t make them an ounce more true… You are a lousy hypnotist.
Its self evident. Alternatively look around. But there is also a ton of evidence for it. Check out that text book “the sponsor.”
Nope. It really isn’t. See my examples above. Refute them.
That is why nobody gets you. You may get it and assume everyone is on the same page. But nobody is even in the same book as you…
That’s simply not the case. Its pretty much obvious to anyone who gives it any thought. Again look at the link in the pop corn time injunction thread op. That long time broad cast exec shared the exact same opinion and then apparently so did Bill Moyers after having read the book. There is no editorial firewall, it was only ever going to be temporary where sponship was aloud, and been long ago replaced by pure spin, censorship, and drowing out.
Take a look at Fox News, pure and utter sponsored garbage. Same now for Forbes, CNET, NYT. WA PO for much longer and WSJ and Fortune, USA Today, Associated Press were always junk. Stuff isnt even tabloid level anymore. But there are also plenty of sponsored journals with the same dynamic. Because of the sponsor element that never should have been part of public media but Nixon put it in, the same can be said for NPR and PBS. NPR has become trash. The BBC as well. Same dynamic. If Aljazzira was better for a while it only showed that even a state owned tool was superior to sponsored trash.
I don’t think advertisers drive fox news programming at all.
Fox news producers news that the right wing people want to hear. MSNBC makes the news left wing people want to see. If you want to reach right wing folks you advertise on the channel that reaches that audience. If you want to reach left wing folks you advertise on the other. If you don’t care you advertise on either.
Your contention says that if the Koch bros advertized on MSNBC it would veer right and if Soros advertized on Fox it would veer left. And there is zero evidence that that would happen.
The ads would be money well wasted as the network is happy to take whatever is offered, NONE of them are hurting for cash if they aren’t hurting for audience. But the audinece totally ignored anything it doesn’t want to believe. So the ads would reach deaf ears.
All media is hurting because the internet killed it’s main revenue model. People don’t subscribe like they used to, thus less money to pay salaries, more centralization, less competion, less need to excel - and less talent flowing into poor paying journalist jobs.
In short you WAY oversimplify the issues to a rather irrelevant point. Sponsorship is the least of the problems.
SAFE and other crytpocurrencies has the potential to create a new revenue model, to rebuild the media industry, which would be a good thing.
There is no oversimplification at all. Fox fired two of its lead anchors because they tried to expose RBst and Monsanto said no. The jack ass court sided with side with Monsanto’s bribery over the crucial public health issue. Its much worse than that none of them will risk the slightest offense against any possible sponsor. Plus there is the nonsense of interlocking boards. They say what their sponsor masters tell them to. Weapons maker GE had a PR problem so the American crack heads allowed it to buy NBC just like in the name of lower rates they insanely let Charter buy TW for 55 billion for even more media consolidation. A tiny number of firms make up the majority of the market for easy sponsor control. A decade ago the US ranked 28th or so in press freedom in the developing world, wouldn’t be surprised if it were rank 80 today. Its as free as Patacki trying to say Snowden forefeited his right to speech, that he was guilty until proven innocent because of the entitled admin.
Some podunk fox station in tampa, Allegedly. The case has been overturned and thrown out…
The censorship method used was not “treat of loss of advertizing dollars” it was threat of litigation. Companies have the right to sue and that right was used. That has very little to do with advertizing dollars. If Monsanto doesn’t advertize I am positive that the commerical slots will be filled with other products…
But a lawsuit costs tons and tons of money to defend yourself against even if you are innocent… I would argue that when somebody files a legal threat chances are it is the legal threat that causes censorship not advertizing dollars…
But you can spin the case to fit your narrative. I still say your position is 99 percent bogus. And that where it happens it is about 1 percent of the problem…
Do you really get your news at foxnews anyway? I suspect you don’t You get it from MSNBC and Huffington post. Just as sponsored. Why don’t you want fox? Because you don’t want to hear the story the way you don’t want to hear it. The audience drives the content, not the advertizers.
Wrong, it was covered by the documentary- the Fox execs were worried about loss of ad dollars and proceeded to fire when the so called journalists would not back down. Could have been worried about a pharma block boycott.
I dont pay attention to Huffington Post, AOL bought it and its becoming Fox. MSNBC is questionable because MS and GE are a huge conflict beyond even sponsorship. Also these firms are driven by the profit first idiocy and are actually totally compliant to their real customers (sponsors) individually and as a group and are also profit first which means they are also about getting people to pay more for the lowest collusive quality possible.
These entities never intentionally act in the public
interest, selling the lie of Iraq 2 would have been impossible without their collusion. Think of MSNBC in this context.
Oh, Okay. I see, Mosanto censored and now everyone loves them…
Oh wait? Somebody made a documentary against them? How did that happen? I thought you said they where powerful censors, bribing the media so the public couldn’t know… ?? How did that happen??
I am sure your “documentary” was way more credible than the news stories I read about the issue. But all of my sources cited litiagation threats as being used. Litigation money doesn’t come back when you spend it. Advertising dollars come back a few weeks later when your sales people sell the slot to somebody else.
There is no such thing as unbiased media. If they publish something that doesn’t piss Warren (or Josh) off enough to keep his interest, they don’t have an audience. In 99.9995 percent of the cases. I buy an ad, and I have zero editioral control over the publication I buy from. But that makes for a boring story. As such media has always been biased and always will. II can make a “documentary” that pushes whatever viewpoint I would like. I am sure that there is a salesguy or two pissed about losing his commission. But the fact he pleaded his case doesn’t mean that his argument was the reason for whatever happened.
So a documentarian is going to sensationalize the .0005 percent to make warren make a case to ban the other 99.9995 of legitimate activity… He will make that assertion every other post or so.
Nope we have better alternatives. Mainstream destructive sponsored media runs on the fortune 1000. Arguement isnt coherant. Take a good look at the American Legislative Counsel. That entity would be gone in a day without the cover of sponsored media. Its sponsorship in action.
By the way no more blatent conflict that sponsor graffetti on public city busses- pure corruption and a further corruption of tax power.
Yes, but you would rather the busses don’t run or that the publishers don’t publish.
There are competing publications out there that publish differing views. You have no trouble hearing what you hear to be so irked about it all… If you undercut the business model and the revenue model you will get even worse media.
Governments are inherently corrupt. Nothing is going to change that aside from routing around them to minimize our need for them.
If you have central control hackers will always do what they can to gain access to the central controls. You can say “Ban hackers” but they already did that and hackers don’t care…
You run around saying “Ban sponsorship” and it is equally silly. If you have centralized controls people will naturally attempt to wield the powers of those controls via whatever means they have available to them.
That is utter nonsense about the busses, it a function of tax evasion by the rich. Its never about service or no service or lower cost, its about undue influence, corruption, inappropriate public endorsement and goverment acting like act like a business- about the worst kind.
As for media reliability and quality its gotten worse with increasing sponsorship and consolidation.
As for the outrageous conflict of interest. its basic agency not to allow it. The media is the publics agent, it shouldnt be getting outbid for its own agent and its common sense that agent should only take money from its rightful end users. Sponsored media is always inferior, never leads to lower cost or higher qualiry or better selection. Even force re-peddling like Netflix, its obvious and the public always preferred the quality public infrastructure to private toll roads, save fore the well off who like exclusive toll roads sometimes slowing others to enable their premium exclusion game.
What do you expect?
Governments are corrupt. Government run buses will also be corrupt.
Your solution is “ban corruption”
Which is silly to the 10th degree. Meaningless… Because even if you can ban one method of corruption it will just flow to the next channel.
You gotta end centralized control if you want to end corruption. Period. That means routing governments out of most of what they do.