3 ms·
This is shifting the goal posts. The point is we have a media that's already well under the thumb of 'rich people', to use the phrase of the person I originally
by TangoTrotFox 8y ago
This is shifting the goal posts. The point is we have a media that's already well under the thumb of 'rich people', to use the phrase of the person I originally responded to. And so comparing any idea to an ideal of an independent media free of this control is rather disingenuous.
For your shift, is anonymizing control in exchange for a clear ledger of control a bad deal? I'm not sure. Seems like an interesting idea at least, and given the current state of our media I'm more than happy to see any idea trying to change the game.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- unclebucknasty 8y agoYou have a good point, but that doesn't make this proposal any more viable. >given the current state of our media I'm more than happy to see any idea trying to change the game. Sounds like an intuitive statement until you really think about it for a second. Then, you realize that it's a reckless and possibly dangerous approach to problem-solving. If you start down the solution path by asking the question "how could things get any worse?", then it's very likely that you'll find out.