I think this article is high-minded and moralistic. I feel conflicted after reading it because while I sympathize with the plight that journalists face, I also

I think this article is high-minded and moralistic. I feel conflicted after reading it because while I sympathize with the plight that journalists face, I also just see so many problems with this author’s analysis and questions. There is a fundamental distinction between the internet and radio/broadcast television in that the usable spectrum of airwaves is a finite public resource. If I’m broadcasting on 700 AM then you’re not. The licensing and regulatory structure that is (debatably) appropriate for public broadcast has no application to the internet. There is room for everyone to publish what they want. The advertising model is not broken. The wealth of information and services available to users at zero monetary cost is a miracle of the “free-market free-for-all” and is most beneficial to those with the least amount of disposable income. Coining “surveillance capitalism” as a pejorative term to describe the success of this model is ridiculous. > While it’s true that public service media like Wikipedia have had to share the landscape with increasingly sophisticated commercial companies, it’s also true that they fill a void in the marketplace. Wikipedia is not a “public service” media organization. The author uses the same term to describe the BBC. If that were the case, then the sale of every internet-connected device would be taxed to fund Wikipedia and the organization would be run by the government. Instead Wikipedia is funded by voluntary donations from millions of individuals. The fact that it fills a void in the marketplace is a testament to the success of the free market approach to the internet. > We’ve grown so used to the idea that social media is damaging our democracies that we’ve thought very little about how we might build new networks to strengthen societies. Built into this is the assumption that social media is doing more damage than or is more susceptible to malevolent influence than state-run news organizations or the monopolistic broadcast and print publications of the 20th century and I reject that. If you don’t like Twitter and Facebook, then stop using them. Asking the government to get involved is the least productive thing anyone can do. Increased regulation will only serve to further cement the current crop of companies in their dominant position and we don’t need any more Quaeros. [The alternatives](https://readup.com https://readup.com) are out there, you just have to be willing to put in the effort to find them and be an active participant instead of passive consumer.