It's one of many big elephants in the room as the age of information clashes with privacy concerns and ideals. Why would I pay for content that I am already getting for free right now? The question was extrapolated by Bitcoin expert and author of The Internet of Money Andreas Antonopoulos who recently spoke at the Los Angeles Bitcoin meet up. Speaking with Joe Rogan, stand up comedian and host of the Joe Rogan Experience, Antonopoulous stated:
"You don't get it for free...you're paying. You're paying in microviolations of your privacy. If the payment is worth less than two or three dollars, which means that they can't collect it with a credit card, what they're doing is they're selling your data to advertisers. They're selling your identity, your demographic and your data to advertisers. You're having to give up things. You don't have to give them up at that moment. You've given them up previously when you registered for the thing and verified your email and then verified your age and your gender and provided all of this demographic information. Which they then parcel off and give to the advertisers. But you're still paying for the content. You're paying by the fact that you can no longer engage with the web without it being filtered to what they think you want and who they think you are. So you are getting this highly filtered, pigeonholed view of content. They do that using your information to present what they think you would like to watch based on what they've sold to the advertisers. You're no longer a customer, you're the product. The customer is the advertising agency. Where if you sell content directly, you reestablish the relationship of who is the creator and who is the customer and consumer of this content and you cut out the two middlemen.
What has essentially happened is that Youtube, Facebook, Twitter and other popular social media networks solicit and present themselves as an open commons for content creation by their users. It is the users and members of those communities that give these social media networks their value, not the availability, functionality or mere existence of these platforms. As humanity is now witnessing on a continual basis, the status quo for the popular social media platforms is one of underhanded censorship using nontransparent algorithms and abuse of their customers. Facebook routinely changes its algorithms to funnel content towards official narratives and away from exposing the corrupt nature of the corporate power structure and all its manifestations in banking, politics, medicine, human rights, crime, war and other areas. Twitter routinely censors accounts that dare to speak the truth to and expose those same power structures. YouTube has also jumped on the censorship bandwagon by introducing an 'ad inappropriate' policy in which the platform will now scrutinize its users for their content and withdraw monetization features if violated. Yet like, Twitter and Facebook, YouTube's policies for what constitutes a violation are vague and subject to controversy. For example, among other basic topics, YouTube lists the follow off-limit content:
"Controversial or sensitive subjects and events, including subjects related to war, political conflicts, natural disasters and tragedies, even if graphic imagery is not shown"
With the advent of 'social justice warriors', Facebook and Twitter have taken on a dangerous new tone and layer of language censorship and debate refereeing. For example, discussing Hillary Clinton's Wikileaks emails could be considered sexist and grounds for the banning of one's account. Limiting language equates to restricting the dimension and resolution of thought. Canceling true discussion around uncomfortable topics humanity faces only serves to empower the corrupt power structure while eroding truth and liberty in a time it is desperately needed.
""I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." -Evelyn Beatrice Hall