I.e. the usual tragedy of the commons. Things were all fun when they were irrelevant. Then the Internet started to matter, and the exploiters came, fucking everything up.
I.e. the usual tragedy of the commons. Things were all fun when they were irrelevant. Then the Internet started to matter, and the exploiters came, fucking everything up.
if you think they arent organizing to protect their interests and expand their political influence, that honestly comes across as naive with the information available today.
[1] http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--Tb_z5Fcz...
[2] http://cds.y5f6s2q6.hwcdn.net/25541/sx2xsdjns30fwy0557v4.jpe...
[3] http://www.yellowstonepartners.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/0...
Real life isn't a movie. Move on.
A) The only media concentration chart depicted was largely centered on television-heavy media conglomerates... so no mention of newspaper-heavy conglomerates like Gannett and McClatchy. Food and banking are not quite related to this discussion.
B) The television-heavy media conglomerates depicted were very United States-centric. So no mention of (as an example) Bertelsmann. (Internationally, you'll also find many state-sponsored media outlets... not sure how those should be represented here).
One other counterpoint: there is a bit of a trend towards greater ownership diversity (of a sort) in the newspaper market, at least in the United States. Individual businessmen have snapped up several papers in the last few years (http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/columnist/rieder/2013/08...), ala Bezos famously buying the Washington Post.
Straw man:
>irrefutable proof of an organized conspiracy to go all "1984" on the internet? Real life isn't a movie.