Why does the frequency of a the offense matter? If murder were occurring at a rate less than that of cyber bullying, would we want to decriminalize murder? I am just not sure I see the connection between the rate of occurrence and the need to regulate. I will also point at that no matter the rate of occurrence, if it is happening to you, it is 100%.
As for the 1st Amendment implications, that is why we have SCOTUS. I feel fairly confident that laws can be crafted that adequately protect our liberties.
A lack of criminal charge should not preclude a test for civil liability. The standards for determining guilt and responsibility are different. While it may not be possible to prove that the principals broke the law in a criminal proceeding, there may be enough evidence break the shield of the LLC . Perhaps they will be willing to settle out of court?
It's not a matter of hiding. It is the simple cost of mining the data. I was 4th level engineer on several verizon platforms in the past. Getting at customer call records is always somewhat labor intensive and is usually not readily available to a call center rep. A request typically went from the call center, to a Project Manager, to an engineer, and then back.
I will agree with you that the process should be flatter. But since it isn't, the cost of providing the service is real, at least with the way these systems are designed today and the requisite engineer's time. I doubt that verizon will agree to incur these costs and not pass them along to its customers.
I will also point out that if you sign up for monthly itemized billing, the fee is much less than the $40 one-time charge (perhaps only a couple of dollars a month, I don't really remember exactly). It is when you agree to non-itemized billing that the data remains upstream and needs to captured for a request.
Unfortunately, the People have to cast their ballots with a certain degree of intelligence. Otherwise, democracy can be as evil as any totalitarian regime. You really can't blame the government without blaming the People. Americans have become so paranoid (thank you, media) and so scared of every little offense that we are quickly becoming a nation of wimps, looking at government to protect us from every hurtful word or nasty glance, even at the expense of our most treasured liberties. Orwell was right on - only government will not be using the TVs to watch us, they ARE using our computers....
Advertising is one of the most researched fields; there are a gazillion studies. Pricing for advertisements is a science all to itself. A company's marketing budget isn't spent based on whim and fancy. I would much rather place an advert in the print version of the NYT than on her web site. If they can drive print subscription numbers with this paywall, they will have done well. I have no doubt that driving subs to print was a major consideration when defining the structure of the paywall. My hats off to them. I, for one, took the bait. I get a free copy mon to fri at the office. I now subscribe to the Sunday to get the paper and access to the web site. I had cancelled the sunday over a year ago to save a tree. Now I will save a couple of dollars.
If what you want is a world where all the information is filtered through a company funded by (and beholden to) advertisers alone, then you are the one drinking the Coke. You should feel that fizz in your brain right now. I will wager you bought GOLD from that company Glenn Beck was hawking, too. You know, there is difference between FREE and FREEDOM, my friend. And nothing is EVER free. If you prefer to have some account executive at Chevron or Proctor & Gamble decide what is news for you, then so be it. I would rather chip in a buck a week and have the editor accountable to ME.
The vast majority of major newspapers are NOT free. From the NY Times to the Wash Post to the TORONTO SUN. Don't pull one poor example like the PennySaver out of the hat and think that convinces anyone. It only make you look more duplicitous.
Ummmm, you know TV news deliver 1/40th of the information a traditional local newspaper does. Everything is a sound byte. I guess that will satisfy a nerfball, but it doesn't come close to being worth what you pay for it. Which is nothing. Which is why every week you will hear them read through the first half of the first paragraph of a NY Times article. But I guess that is good enough for you.
Except you are avoiding the obvious FACT that papers are shuttering all across America BECAUSE the AD REVENUE is NOT ENOUGH to sustain them. What part of WENT OUT OF BUSINESS don't you understand? Advertiser would LOVE for us to have only a HANDFUL of news outlets to go to instead of the THOUSANDS of individual city and local papers - they reach everyone easily, and ADs become too expensive for the little guy. BUT we NEED those local voices. It would be NICE if advertisers would support them all. It would be nice if they could survive. BUT THEY AREN'T. The newspapers ARE going broke. And unless I am missing something, they are the only non-sound-byte source of news left in this country - unless you think all we need are a bunch of hearsay bloggers.
There was always a cost to a newspaper. Adverts never covered the full cost of production. When the advertisers are paying fully for the content, I wouldn't trust it anymore. You would never get the dirt on Proctor & Gamble, that's for sure. For the press to be independent, the people who want and need the information need to be paying a fair share. Otherwise you have a press much like the one we have today -- a "free" press that is totally beholden to the corporate giants. Newspapers used to break stories and uncover the slime. Today, they print the press releases. As I said, you get what you pay for.
There was always a cost to a newspaper. Adverts never covered the full cost of production. When the advertisers are paying fully for the content, I wouldn't trust it anymore. You would never get the dirt on Proctor & Gamble, that's for sure. For the press to be independent, the people who want and need the information need to be paying a fair share. Otherwise you have a press much like the one we have today -- a "free" press that is totally beholden to the corporate giants. Newspapers used to break stories and uncover the slime. Today, the print the press releases. As I said, you get what you pay for.
I guess in a world where we get everything for free, we won't need a salary. We can all troll around picking at and taking the fruits of other's labor, and freely give to others everything we create. Of course, until that Utopia is born, the journalists and publishers of NYT have decided it would be nice to get compensated for their work. In that regard, they are much like me. I prefer my paycheck every two weeks, and don't be late with it. Mike seems to believe that he (always) has THE business model that will work for Every industry - including those he knows little or nothing about. But apparently nobody quite trusts Mike and his models, or else he would be running everything from The Recording Industry to the Telecom Giants, from the NYTimes to Chevron. Hell, let's just vote Mike 'King of the World' - then maybe we will have his vision of Utopia where everything is free, and the leprechauns magically make the pot of Gold appear. Or maybe not. I have lived in SF and Denver the past 10 years, and both cities once had at least two marginally impressive newspapers. Today, both have a single piece of cr&p that calls itself a newspaper. We are ALL less better off for our penny pinching. Sometimes you really get what you pay for.