Industry moguls now think that web revenue from advertising is not enough.
Fox News, the New York Times, and a plethora of others have decided to start charging for their online services in 2011.
I'm here to tell you why that's a bad idea and a dangerous precedent.
The internet is based, in most countries, on the precedence of easier communication. That was the original intent of the creation of the net: faster and easier communication with people further and further across the globe. To do so, we're charged a set amount (depends on what country you live in) to be able to access these means of internet communications; be it instant message, social network, or email.
We go to sites like the Times and
gulp Fox to gather opinions and facts about the events of the day to share them via web communications.
Let's face it, without television and the internet we wouldn't have a clue about the reality and gravity of the earthquake in Haiti if all we knew about it was a picture and a few paragraphs in a newspaper.
There's more to it in these mediums. Yes, I said mediums; the proper pluralization is media, but we've changed the definition of media over the past decade.
I feel media is now synonymous with tabloids and crappy magazines that profile starlets and harlots. I don't care about those.
I care about mediums.
The mediums which you use to be part of the world and be in the know about how the government is screwing you out of your rights, how other governments are turning blind eyes to genocide and terrorism, and how you don't stand a chance in changing a damn thing from your couch.
How you've been sold the idea of freedom when all you do is live in a world of privilege.
You were given privilege with our public works system, our government's regulations of industry and their "standards."
You're given these based on the contingent that you educate yourself, you contribute to society and live by their rules.
Make no mistake, that is privilege and not freedom.
You stop paying your taxes; you don't stop at red lights; you don't tip your waitress; you're susceptible to lose those privileges.
A judge and any other writer will say you lose your freedom.
But aren't we at the point where we see through that idea anymore?
Hasn't the 8 years of George W Bush, the wars that've taken longer than those against the Germans and Japanese, the economic collapse and the effects of natural disasters [that will go unnamed] taught us anything about the world that we actually live in?
That we pledge and promise millions and millions in aid and compassion, but only deliver slivers of those numbers, of those promises?
Apparently those facts, those opinions, as dissenting and as mudslinging as many of those might be, the sad truth is, are all necessary to continue the continuity of our governing body.
The days when one side bends to the will of George Bush and later blames him for everything that's gone wrong and the days when the other side simply refuses to cooperate in the governing process, these are the days where the people who suffer are the nation's citizens.
Closing off ideas, opinions, facts, and truth are just other ways to spin your side of the story to those that will blindly believe what you say.
You, a giant in the medium in which you operate, are turning into nothing more than a catchy, niche based company; a tabloid.
Spreading nothing but crap about celebrities and trying desperately to interweave that tactic and style into politics.
Make no mistake, I'm not just talking about Fox News in this piece. I'm talking about you too New York Times Co.
Freedom isn't free. But I can always read about those that have died in it's name somewhere else. That's the beauty of the internet. Good luck on your endeavor to take that privilege from us.