Are pro spam comments not spam? Who argues in favor of spam? Who favors system degradation unless payment and lack of ethics are involved? Who conflate a system meant to free us from spam with spam? Is there a need to cite spam to reinforce spam? Is it different nics to cite the same spam messages or buttress reps for the point of spam advocacy? Its a kind of spam lobby based on taking up a chunk of the sites attentional bandwidth. But its always an argument for end user helplessness and dis-empowerment.
This is where a truly anonymous section could be helpful. Stuff would stand on its merits. One has to presume ad firms understand their business model can be made to go away if this type of tech succeeds in an unbroken way. They would presumably have a strong obvious financial interest in trying to taint the forums of firms that are trying to build this stuff. Of course the builders of such tech aren’t likely to be swayed and successful counter example to their sponsor media models will sooner or later catch and spread. Still, they’d presumably like to use these forms to slow the inevitable by giving these firms the impression that their enthusiasts and likely strident supporters are spam friendly or highly in favor of compromising the product in strategic ways. They’d like to convince the visitors to these sites that stopping spam and sponsorship isn’t practical or desirable. Its pr management for interests that are contrary to free speech. Its going to be a group of people or one person with several nics that befriends others and is generally supportive but always looking to inject the spam or sponsor friendly angle. Its crap like discuss which is a filter and a threat of disclosure to make sure vital things don’t get communicated, keep it fake- its an industry itself and an old one.
Maidsafe and other firms are attempting to build systems that preserve and enhance the volume and quality of communication between minds. Presumably at some point these minds will be woven together with links that are so strong and noise free that it will be a truly distributed instant situation. But it may be that minds are already connected but that is a notion that is not compatible with egoistic selfish notions of private property and basing everything on these notions. Choosing distributed systems means re-distribution or better distribution- it means empowerment. We see centralization, decentralization and distributed in organic systems but we prefer the distributed horizontal to keep our volition, we don’t like the hive or borg models, we don’t like the concentration models, we like the open models. We don’t like the coercive ad/sponsor driven media/medium models where some centralized power gets to interrupt, preempt and enclose you and pay wall you- and select all your so-called in the pocket leaders- and even wants you to pay them for selecting them on your behalf so they can act against your interests.
We need systems that don’t steal time and attention (excuses about voluntary are nonsense) and we need systems that only take money and influence from legitimate end users. These are preconditions to having lasting free society
