I think this is an awesome idea and find your enthusiasm inspiring. If you do get to a point where you think you could use volunteer article writers, I might be interested in helping out with that if I have time. I really liked what you said about people wanting to connect and keep each other safe.

Thanks Marisa! I will be sure to contact you first when I get this site ready for content.

In a world where government “allows” access to certain groups with a press pass or license, what does free market journalism depend on?

It will depend on support from the audience and/or people around the citizen journalist.

What channels exist between journalist and audience? Who controls them/censors them?

The only censoring will be up to the services provided and possibly/eventually the government if acts like SOPA or Net Neutrality pass.

How is free market journalism sustained/guaranteed throughout the entire chain of broadcast and consumption? For example consider what makes a video stream possible — Journalist: video capable broadcast device, web stream software, internet service provider, domain registrar, data storage provider, web site provider (host); Audience: device cabable of consuming video, software capable of consuming video, ISP, domain registrar, client.

I do not think there is a guarantee. Citizen journalists have a modicum of protection from the powers that be through broadcasting to a huge audience of witnesses, but what happens when the power is cut? I think citizen journalists will experience a higher level of risk than traditional journalists, which is why I respect them so much.

But more to the point of your question, I think they will unfortunately be heavily reliant on these different technologies that may be controlled by corporate interests or the government. If any link in that chain is regulated, it will become increasingly difficult to be a citizen journalist, or at least one that can live broadcast. When that time comes I imagine independent services will step in to fill the void.

I think there are many philosophical, and practical questions surrounding this chain and acknowledging them might procure ways to subvert them. How does one simplify and protect the connection between audience and journalist?

I think that opportunity will protect the chain for the most part. Just like the torrents continue to subvert the anti-file sharing movement, someone will find a way to get around the regulations that will arise as more people get their voices out there. At least I hope so.

I think there are many philosophical, and practical questions surrounding this chain and acknowledging them might procure ways to subvert them. How does one simplify and protect the connection between audience and journalist?

When it comes to grammar, perhaps my comments were less out of desperation for perfection than you think. I believe that it is the idea of need which is often misused; the word is only a conveyance for the idea. I now regret that I used the word “word” so many times. The focus of my comments was on the ideas behind the words, not the words themselves. I was not complaining that the word-choice did not correspond to the idea being expressed, rather, I was complaining that the idea being expressed did not correspond to reality; but I suggested than an alternative idea in its place would. I think it is likely that, like so many others, Rich really believed in the idea of need in that moment when he wrote the word “need”. It is the idea of need, the idea of ‘must be’, that is often used inaccurately, I care less about the word. If it is pointed out that the idea of need is fallacious, in context, then one might see that the idea of want would be accurate instead. But one did not believe in want when one was writing “need.” One was so close, but not there.

When it comes to ideas, you are correct, my comments are written in a desperation for perfection, a desperation caused by the great happiness it gives me. For me, Philosophy is the discovery of reality. What is this? What is that? I am curious, so I ask and I answer. But fractals and acid trips you say? That is a silly way to measure reality.

Perhaps you _should_ have used ‘want’ instead of ‘need’. Fine. When I read that, I’m put off by what I perceive as a desperation for perfection. Philosophy is like fractals and acid trips. Obsess over perfection and all you’ll get is depressed.

In other words: who care? Who?

There are so many different avenues for pursuing knowledge. I think many people avoid pursuing the question of god due to all of the reasons you stated. But there is limited time and energy to pursue every subject with passion. I think some people do make the choice not to go as far as I have with epistemology and metaphysics because their priorities (and circumstances) are different.

Some people would rather put their energy towards other avenues rather than the basic questions about existence. I find it hard to find fault with that because I avoid a lot of knowledge out of fear or because I place my energy towards other intellectual pursuits.

Of course it is frustrating and sometimes down right infuriating when said people end up having power over your life. I feel terrible for children raised in environments with parents that do not have a solid epistemological and metaphysical knowledge. It’s difficult for me to fault the parents for that either because their knowledge is highly decided by circumstance.

I had the luck of the draw to have friends and other avenues to light my passion for philosophy. Most people do not. That has hard for me to come to terms with because it takes away my hate and my hate was most of the energy I had for the longest time to keep going. But slowly I find myself motivated by other emotions.