I too would not want to accept nature's constraints in all cases, it's just the "get the word out" case where I think it's a well placed boundary. One could st

I too would not want to accept nature's constraints in all cases, it's just the "get the word out" case where I think it's a well placed boundary. One could still put a lot of work into crafting their message, but if propagation beyond earshot could only be achieved with the unpaidfor consent of the propagator... I think we'd find that the human way of doing it for a million years actually outperforms the internet in most areas that matter (that is, supposing that once the issue authentically had your attention you could then use the internet to confirm/correct whatever memetic mutations accrued and get the story straight--word of mouth for notification, computers for replication). I don't expect it to solve greed, I just want to be able to hear myself think so that I can more clearly think about how I'll interfere with greed in non-advertising dimensions.