On the ethics of taking money to write, I say take it if there are no conditions and it's disclosed. I am literally paying you right now to write. I do it gladly. Nobody has any misunderstanding about it. Writers deserve to be paid.
But even so the ethics are always tricky. You probably have some vague awareness that if you go full Bill Kristol or Jen Rubin all your subscribers are gone. So even if you aren't explicitly shilling, potential "corruption" is always there, even if it is only subtle.
Even if no money is involved, just the loss of followers or standing can keep people from saying the what they see as the truth. As Emmerson said, "as soon as he has once acted or spoken with eclat, he is a committed person, watched by the sympathy or the hatred of hundreds, whose affections must now enter into his account."
That's part of how the botnets influence people, through an elaborate preference falsification. "Everyone thinks the other thing, you are the crazy one".
But anyway. Since the potential is always there, even when not acted on... In the words of Wyatt Earp in Tombstone, "Already have a guilty conscience, might as well have the money too."
I'm going to say take the money, just disclose it. And never, ever say something you don't actually believe. Credibility is everything. That's why they want to buy it so badly. If you lose your credibility as a honest voice, you're a laughing stock.
Look at the aforementioned Jen Rubin or Bill Kristol. The right openly mocks them, but the left doesn't want them either. They're worse than irrelevant, they are pitiable.
Good points, and I'd say sure, John, you deserve to cash in, esp after what was done to you with Right Wing News website. Jay, you are right about Kristol and Rubin. Personally, I would add my favorite whipping boy, the squishy, TDS afflicted Jonah Goldberg. Look at how the media used these two patsy, turncoat "Republicans", Liz Cheney and Adam Kinsinger, to propagate the lying "bipartisan" description of the ludicrous Jan 6 committee.
It isn't just the Internet. The media in general went from a general information source to an advertising and influencing source. The legacy / corporate media is no longer independent. It is owned and operated by the corporatocracy that is aligned with the establishment administrative state.
Over 50% of the population are afflicted with low capability for emotional regulation. These are people that can be made hysterical, fearful, anxious, etc. It is the natural human condition. The news media used to be a calming influence delivering the pragmatic and factual story. Not only did the news media stop being the calming influence, but it shifted 180 degrees in fomenting hysteria, fear and anxiety... as a call to action for those with low capability to regulate their emotions (mostly female).
The Internet just amplifies what was already happening.
We have met the enemy, and it isn't the Internet, it is the media.
Add to that, as just one example, that NGOs have paid I told millions of dollars to legacy media outlets to push “climate change “ as an apocalyptic event. At certain papers surely television, those NGOs paid the salaries of people whose sole job was to write and talk about and promote propaganda about “climate change” and the so called “energy transition.”
In the end, read books, and sharpen your BS detector.
On the ethics of taking money to write, I say take it if there are no conditions and it's disclosed. I am literally paying you right now to write. I do it gladly. Nobody has any misunderstanding about it. Writers deserve to be paid.
But even so the ethics are always tricky. You probably have some vague awareness that if you go full Bill Kristol or Jen Rubin all your subscribers are gone. So even if you aren't explicitly shilling, potential "corruption" is always there, even if it is only subtle.
Even if no money is involved, just the loss of followers or standing can keep people from saying the what they see as the truth. As Emmerson said, "as soon as he has once acted or spoken with eclat, he is a committed person, watched by the sympathy or the hatred of hundreds, whose affections must now enter into his account."
That's part of how the botnets influence people, through an elaborate preference falsification. "Everyone thinks the other thing, you are the crazy one".
But anyway. Since the potential is always there, even when not acted on... In the words of Wyatt Earp in Tombstone, "Already have a guilty conscience, might as well have the money too."
I'm going to say take the money, just disclose it. And never, ever say something you don't actually believe. Credibility is everything. That's why they want to buy it so badly. If you lose your credibility as a honest voice, you're a laughing stock.
Look at the aforementioned Jen Rubin or Bill Kristol. The right openly mocks them, but the left doesn't want them either. They're worse than irrelevant, they are pitiable.
Good points, and I'd say sure, John, you deserve to cash in, esp after what was done to you with Right Wing News website. Jay, you are right about Kristol and Rubin. Personally, I would add my favorite whipping boy, the squishy, TDS afflicted Jonah Goldberg. Look at how the media used these two patsy, turncoat "Republicans", Liz Cheney and Adam Kinsinger, to propagate the lying "bipartisan" description of the ludicrous Jan 6 committee.
It isn't just the Internet. The media in general went from a general information source to an advertising and influencing source. The legacy / corporate media is no longer independent. It is owned and operated by the corporatocracy that is aligned with the establishment administrative state.
Over 50% of the population are afflicted with low capability for emotional regulation. These are people that can be made hysterical, fearful, anxious, etc. It is the natural human condition. The news media used to be a calming influence delivering the pragmatic and factual story. Not only did the news media stop being the calming influence, but it shifted 180 degrees in fomenting hysteria, fear and anxiety... as a call to action for those with low capability to regulate their emotions (mostly female).
The Internet just amplifies what was already happening.
We have met the enemy, and it isn't the Internet, it is the media.
Add to that, as just one example, that NGOs have paid I told millions of dollars to legacy media outlets to push “climate change “ as an apocalyptic event. At certain papers surely television, those NGOs paid the salaries of people whose sole job was to write and talk about and promote propaganda about “climate change” and the so called “energy transition.”
In the end, read books, and sharpen your BS detector.