3 ms·

The danger of possible outlets for alternative voices controlled more and more by big corporations is at least as bad as the privacy implications. So there mus

The danger of possible outlets for alternative voices controlled more and more by big corporations is at least as bad as the privacy implications. So there must be a tradeoff if we wan't privacy, but we also want to have publishing outlets independent of big corporations. There is currently no perfect solution where we can have total privacy and also little publishers can sustain themselves. I'm saying that we must find a balance where we have some of both. Having 100% of one while giving up the other is not the answer.

Kalium 8y ago
> The danger of possible outlets for alternative voices controlled more and more by big corporations is at least as bad as the privacy implications. I understand why you feel that way. A diversity of voices is critically important for our society! These are the people who hold the powerful to account, who give voice to the voiceless. Their continued existence, as a group, are essential to a functioning modern democracy. We need to have them. You are absolutely, completely right about their importance! > So there must be a tradeoff if we wan't privacy, but we also want to have publishing outlets independent of big corporations. There is currently no perfect solution where we can have total privacy and also little publishers can sustain themselves. I understand why you believe this. At the same time, it strikes me as perhaps excessively entrenched in extant business models and takes on faith that there can be no other approaches. Right now, I think you will find that a substantial portion of the public agrees with you. A balance, a set of tradeoffs, around privacy and online advertising can and must be found. The popular balance is likely to be the one of privacy first, and advertising just has to suck it up. Which, while a balance, is clearly not the one you want. > Having 100% of one while giving up the other is not the answer. I understand why you feel this way. Having a diversity of voices, large and small, independent and otherwise is very important! It's worth bearing in mind that not everyone is likely to want to be required to surrender their personal privacy for your notion of viewpoint diversity in publishers. After all, whatever balance is struck will apply to large corporations just as readily as small, scrappy, alternative, independent voices. It's definitely worth considering that alternatives that do not set up a conflict between user privacy and revenue may be possible. There is genuine innovation going on in this area, as well as age-old subscription models - and people like me can and do have subscriptions. I, personally, maintain several. As for those who don't adapt... well. My heart goes out to them. But my wallet does not.

Kalium 8y ago

> The danger of possible outlets for alternative voices controlled more and more by big corporations is at least as bad as the privacy implications. I understand why you feel that way. A diversity of voices is critically important for our society! These are the people who hold the powerful to account, who give voice to the voiceless. Their continued existence, as a group, are essential to a functioning modern democracy. We need to have them. You are absolutely, completely right about their importance! > So there must be a tradeoff if we wan't privacy, but we also want to have publishing outlets independent of big corporations. There is currently no perfect solution where we can have total privacy and also little publishers can sustain themselves. I understand why you believe this. At the same time, it strikes me as perhaps excessively entrenched in extant business models and takes on faith that there can be no other approaches. Right now, I think you will find that a substantial portion of the public agrees with you. A balance, a set of tradeoffs, around privacy and online advertising can and must be found. The popular balance is likely to be the one of privacy first, and advertising just has to suck it up. Which, while a balance, is clearly not the one you want. > Having 100% of one while giving up the other is not the answer. I understand why you feel this way. Having a diversity of voices, large and small, independent and otherwise is very important! It's worth bearing in mind that not everyone is likely to want to be required to surrender their personal privacy for your notion of viewpoint diversity in publishers. After all, whatever balance is struck will apply to large corporations just as readily as small, scrappy, alternative, independent voices. It's definitely worth considering that alternatives that do not set up a conflict between user privacy and revenue may be possible. There is genuine innovation going on in this area, as well as age-old subscription models - and people like me can and do have subscriptions. I, personally, maintain several. As for those who don't adapt... well. My heart goes out to them. But my wallet does not.