3 ms·

What you're suggesting comes down to rich people having disproportionally more say. Taking money out of the equation democratizes speech and makes sure everyon

What you're suggesting comes down to rich people having disproportionally more say. Taking money out of the equation democratizes speech and makes sure everyone has a say, not just the Peter Thiels that can buy printing presses.

jevoten 5y ago
But taking money out of the equation for only some, and not others, takes us even further from democratization of speech.
- 8note 5y ago
  Properly, the government needs to fund the publication of speech by every citizen, so anyone can spend as much as Peter Thiel can
  - salawat 5y ago
    Square one. What the government giveth, it can take away. See Canada.
salawat 5y ago
Info propagation isn't free. Even at the atomic unit, you and someone to listen to you, requires the organization of participants to scale beyond triviality. Realistically, within the societal framework we operate in, there isn't really feasible decoupling of funds from access to anplification. You're not safe relying on government subsidy, because, well, square one.