Uhm...
Doesn't this all look like, basically, company shares? Doesn't this mean that the problem has just been shifted but potentially not solved ?
Uhm...
Doesn't this all look like, basically, company shares? Doesn't this mean that the problem has just been shifted but potentially not solved ?
The "good news", such as it is, is that that part of the article is bullshit. They won't grant you the holders a say in the paper's editorial processes. That control will instead reside with the person actually funding the paper, which will be...
...the billionaire Joseph Lubin. Meaning they've already got the same issue that the Denver Post suffered.
It's not obvious when ownership is a thousand pseudonymous private keys when there's a conflict of interest. If a random article about a random company looks a little more negative than it should be, who knows if the current pseudonymous owners are shorting that company?
Publicly-disclosed ownership of the media by the rich has a ton of disadvantages, yes. But I don't the blockchain solving any of those disadvantages, and I see it introducing a new one that is specifically avoided by publicly-disclosed ownership by the rich.
I'm not arguing for this blockchain solution, I think it makes things worse exactly as you said.
[1]https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/07/the-d...
[2] http://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-ceo-jeff-bezos-joins-p...
(Which isn't to say everyone knows that either—a lot of people seem to take the Times equally seriously—but solving the problem of bad-faith media existing is another one entirely, and quite probably the answer is it shouldn't be solved at all.)