Why is this so hard to understand? I truly don't get it.
Alternative media are upset about 'demonetization'. They shouldn't be.

In the linked interview, Elizabeth Vos compares common carriers like Youtube and Amazon to toll roads.

"Imagine if a private company owned all the highways and they could close down the highways any time they felt like it."

Backwards.

In fact MANY highways are owned by corporations who charge tolls for driving on the road. Those highways are NOT closed when the company feels like it, and NOT closed to people with the wrong beliefs. Those corporations WANT YOUR MONEY, and your money is still green even if you're not green.

The web has been built under the reverse expectation. Everyone expects to use it FOR FREE, or even worse, expects to BE PAID FOR USING IT. This should tell you the whole story, but obviously the 'independent media' don't understand the story.

When you're the customer, the corporation doesn't want to exclude you for your VIEWS, because it WANTS YOUR MONEY. You may be excluded from the highway for repeated violations of traffic laws, but those are CRIMINAL ACTIONS that stand a chance of ACTUALLY INJURING OR KILLING the other customers.

When you're the product, you're subject to quality control. The carrier wants to insure that its real customers are seeing only the type of content they want to be associated with. The real customers are GLOBALIST CORPORATIONS who have good reason to want independent views silenced.

Emerson had it right as usual (but not quite always...)

If you are wise, you will dread a prosperity which only loads you with more. ... For every benefit you receive, a tax is levied.

When you chant "Taxation is theft" and create a government with ZERO TAX, you shouldn't be surprised that the government, deprived of normal income, functions by debt and theft. When you chant "Net Neutrality", you shouldn't be surprised that the people who actually pay for the Net (NSA, CIA) are getting everything they want.

Later: It's certainly possible to run a publication without corporate advertising. The two publications I quote most often, Aberree (1955 to 1965) and Collectible Auto (1984 to now, still going strong) survived mostly on subscriptions. I like both of them specifically because they're INDEPENDENT. CA tried ads in its first year, then gave up. Aberree had ads from people who were part of their subscriber base. Astrologers and other peddlers of harmless hooey, all known to the subscribers and authors. Closed circle.

When you know your customers and give them what they want, they will pay for the service.

THIS SHOULD NOT BE MYSTERIOUS OR SURPRISING.

Labels: Aberree, the broken circle

  ¶ 1:43 AM