Big news organizations/corporations are trying to impose censorship

[dschis]

America is not necessarily the bastion of free press as they claim

The various news agencies are presently trying to "manage" content. This reeks of the record industry's ill-conceived attempts to go after individuals who download music without paying for it, or the efforts by the AP in 2008 to get a popular website to remove AP content because they thought the site was using too much of their material.
This is indeed the clash between the new "link economy" and the old "content economy."
Links can be more valuable than content on the web. Links are routinely employed and monetized. In other words. The more you people click links, you can grab audience, show ads and make money.
By that reasoning, anyone who attempts to limit public exposure of their content is being short-sighted. There is more money to be made by spreading your work as widely as possible across the web, than by restricting it to those who can afford to pay for its use.
But most publishers aren't ready to accept that idea. For them, the issue is still about regaining control over their on line content, and receiving compensation from people who they believe are abusing the notion of fair use.
However there is a darker side This is way for any entity governments, corporation and individuals to actually control the news and hence the kitchen table issues which that shape our society. One can see from the general degradation of morals to see that.

[patrice]

1. I had not thought about this: The effort to control is PROOF that they are the opposite of what

they claim to be, because freedom, i.e. lack of control, would result in a more viable/profitable business model.

Haven't been focused on this issue much; thanks for posting!

:hi:

[JustAnotherGen]

2. Different Take

From an online publisher that targets Single women over the age of 35 . . . i.e. Those Invisible Without Worth In America. In order to give free content - you have to have advertisers. My challenge?

I can't get White House Black Market to allow me to 'affiliate' because my content is 'inappropriate'. Ditto Neiman Marcus. Ditto quite a few other retailers that my single friends (as well as target) can actually afford to shop at.

I don't know - was it the article about the Paycheck Fairness Act and why it's so very important to a single woman who doesn't have a man to foot half her bill towards her elder years? Maybe it was the one about some men being undateable? Or maybe it was just the age? The marital status in a 'matrimaniacal' world? The No Marriage Approach to life?


So why does ONE publisher charge a fee? She can't get advertisers.

And as an aside: I'm anti advertising. It's why Cosmo tells women they are fat and Glamour has convinced them to carve themselves up with plastic surgery.

As well, I LIKE being able to tell the writers: Go ahead and slam the cosmetic and fashion companies. Lets get right in their faces and tell them they sell cheap junk made from slave labor.



Edited to Add: The greater issue here is . . . they charge a fee - but they STILL have advertising. So the consumer is basically now PAYING to get fed the advertisers B.S. One way or the other folks. There ought not be 'double dipping'.

Now look up . . . see - you can't do that when you have an advertising driven business model.

[snot]

3. It's not that simple.

Content has to be paid for somehow. I'm a content creator, and I can't live on nothing.

Would you rather have content paid for by the citizens who are willing to subscribe (e.g., public media, The New Yorker), or by commercially- or politically-motivated owners or advertisers (e.g., Fox News)?

For a really brilliant summary of our current media landscape, I highly recommend this video: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13062.htm
Volumes have been written on every point it touches on; but it pulls the details together exceptionally well.