On Jun 21, 2005, at 8:26 AM, David Gerard wrote:
Andrew Lih (andrew.lih(a)gmail.com) [050621 17:00]:
On 6/21/05, Stirling Newberry
<stirling.newberry(a)xigenics.net> wrote:
>
http://www.bopnews.com/archives/003730.html#3730
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.