Thanks for holding on to, and sharing, your optimistic vision through both the toughening news and financial trends. I can't remember the last CwF+RtB story, but perhaps 2017 can be the year this community brainstorms on how best to apply that principle to Techdirt. As a multi-year Insider shop subscriber, I challenge all in the loyal community to join me. If you're a fan connected to this site, what better reason to buy than the well being of this outlet? Consider the $5/mo Watercooler level if you can. It's just five bucks and it would give Mike and team a bit of certainty about future revenues. I count my subscription as a most worthwhile expenditure. Cheers to all in 2017!
I started subscribing annually to TD several years ago and view it as some of my best spent money. I encourage everyone to chip in if they can so that the great work consistently published here can be sustained.
We live in a post-factual world where everyone is entitled to their own facts. Tweet it if it matches the message. No one doing the tweeting cares if it's true. Heck, it wouldn't surprise me if a Trump flunky had penned and placed the story.
I fear that we will be trading one onerous rent collector for another. Broadband providers will really start turning the screws once everyone sees the writing on the wall for the traditional TV subscription bundle. Think usage caps are low and tiered bandwidth priced too high? Just wait. Until real broadband competition emerges, US consumers should be prepared to keep over-paying.
I admire Professor Lessig's passion, but I think his premise is somewhat flawed. We definitely need campaign finance reform, and I'd love to see Citizens United overturned in some fashion. However, while money can sway elections, it does so to a far lesser degree than other factors.
Number one is gerrymandering. The number of uncontested congressional seats is nauseating. There is no need for contests, or the money to run them, where districts have been designed for guaranteed victory by one party or the other. This far outpaces the influence money has in federal elections.
High profile spending does not always deliver results. The billionaire republican spending in 2008 and 2012 could not keep Obama from the White House. Further, for every Koch or Adelson, there's a Soros or Pritzker to balance the equation. These wealthy individuals clearly have out-sized influence that needs to be curbed, but they can't guarantee an outcome.
Most complaints about campaign money center around the national elections. However, state and local elections often carry greater impact (see gerrymandering above). These elections are numerous and small, often decided by a few thousand voters, and can be more difficult to systematically influence with a horde of cash.
I'm happy to see Professor Lessig continue to highlight the excess in campaign spending, but I don't see reform as a panacea or even the biggest problem in the political arena.
I think it's time to divide countries into two categories: information based and mis-information based. Information based countries would be: U.S. (I hope), Canada, Australia, Japan, South Korea, etc. Mis-information based societies would be: China, North Korea, Argentina and EU countries, along with any others where information tends to be centrally controlled. Then information based companies could craft strategies to deal with each group, or decide to avoid the mis-information group entirely.
I'll second Mr. Oizo's observation. I have a Toshiba android tablet running version 4.0 (Ice Cream Sandwich) with five browser apps installed because none of them surf the entire web well. They all crash after visiting a handful of sites. Dolphin seems "best", but recent updates to Chrome have improved that experience greatly.