On Jun 21, 2005, at 8:26 AM, David Gerard wrote:
Andrew Lih (andrew.lih@gmail.com) [050621 17:00]:
On 6/21/05, Stirling Newberry stirling.newberry@xigenics.net wrote:
How annoying. I thought it was a marvellous experiment, and was surprised how non-crap the results were. (e.g. beter than Indymedia, though that's not hard).
It's a first pass. The reality of the internet is that there is soemthing of value - namely access to channel and link equity, which isn't valued in terms of money, but which is scarce. The problem is how to negotiate boht the width and the access to the channe; without the most usual way of managing scarcity - id est an abstract exchange market. The LA Times failed to do this, and got the expected results.