yes, its fundamentally down to incentives. I suspect that some of our intuitions on how a market place of idea works, are ill suited to the environment we have

yes, its fundamentally down to incentives. I suspect that some of our intuitions on how a market place of idea works, are ill suited to the environment we have been building up. This links back to our discussion, because American laws on free speech (and most laws on Free speech), do not build out for complex eventualities. Eventualities such as a media conglomerate being created, or the proliferation of emotional journalism to grab eyeballs and thus winning advertising revenue. The current situation isnt ideal for a market place of ideas - or for the kind of high minded ideas we want to see prevail (I admit a bias). The current situation is completely legal though. I think the lesson is that after some point, either economic growth or information growth, market forces that sell junk food, dominate the market place. Here’s my conundrum. it may be, that at some point, you cannot avoid a big brother scenario. You just need someone to ensure that you can’t sell cigarettes to kids. But this is the path that leads to every thought police debacle ever seen. Ideally there would be some way to ensure that there is a free and frank exchange of ideas, without the network being overwhelmed by spam, fraud, or emotional manipulation. Hmm, You know what - I think there is something that can be done. Break up major networks. Fund regional newspapers through private and public support. Essentially, we are trying to reduce the power of a single network gaining leverage over other players, and ensuring that smaller players have a way of existing in this market place. … I feel like I have reinvented the wheel. This is anti-monopoly or cartel 101.