3 ms·
Of course there is the small detail of removing agency from the internet user at that point. Maybe I don't want to support local/regional news or maybe that ext
by d_k_h 2y ago
Of course there is the small detail of removing agency from the internet user at that point. Maybe I don't want to support local/regional news or maybe that extra fee is going to make the access untenable for me.
Beyond that it would devolve into a scenario where entities would begin trying to game whatever system is created to get a cut of the pie.
Forced support is not the answer.
- dredmorbius 2y agoAn additional element of my user fee / tax-based support, and one that strongly distinguishes it from a flat-fee assessment as with the BBC or German public broadcasting is that it should be strongly progressive. For a tax assessment this would be based on wealth (e.g., property tax) and/or income. For an ISP-based assessment, the allocation might be more challenging, but a differentiation between business and residential usage (with a higher assessment for businesses, again on a progressive scale), and differentiated rates probably on a neighbourhood / metro region basis (so that a household on the Upper West Side and one in Julesburg, CO, would pay widely differing rates), is what I have in mind. Rationale is that the wealthy have already benefitted mightily from such access, and the poor should not be denied access to media: news, entertainment, books, music, video, whatever. You say "forced". I say enlighted common weal.
- sooheon 2y ago> the poor should not be denied access to media: news, entertainment, books, music, video, whatever. The poor are not denied access this currently. Everything in your argument hinges on the claim that government funded and directed media will be superior to the status quo. Why?