No, it's people deciding what will and won't receive funding. It's not that much different from today, where people vote with their money. The number of votes w

No, it's people deciding what will and won't receive funding. It's not that much different from today, where people vote with their money. The number of votes would just be the same for everyone. It could even result in better investment, since the voting process would guarantee some level of demand for the product as well. You don't really need competition if anyone can influence the organization by making propositions, debating issues and voting. If there's a problem with the media, you can propose a fix for it. That's already much better than what we have today, where very few rich people own most of the media and therefore decide what most people think and talk about. Even if you need competition, it can be done in such a system. There's no reason there couldn't be multiple competing collectively owned, democratic banks, newspapers, etc. Capitalism is not a requirement for markets. You don't need everyone to vote on everything. You just need the process to be open to everyone and fully transparent. If any small group were to start abusing the process, it would immediately be visible and fixable. People would notice and start voting against the group. Mostly they would vote on things that interest and affect them. If that's not enough, you could have randomized voting duty on issues that need it.