The Internet is a landscape... not a business.

Speech, association, politics, mutual assistance (charity), etc...
are transactions between humans that pre-date the commercial transaction.

The first ICT was perhaps a bird call constructed out of a leaf made by a hunter to notify his mates of where the prey was…

And the first journalism was Ooga running into camp and announcing she’d just seen the first spring sprout on a favorite berry bush.

And if the message was false, misleading or dangerous… the onus certainly didn’t fall upon the air through which the information was transmitted!

There was no gatekeeper, no intermediary…

ICT AND JOURNALISM were BOTH strictly peer-to-peer.

The same could be said for politics and charity within the hunter-gatherer world... peer-to-peer.

The commercial transaction (and the creation of money, trade tokens, etc) arose with the need for interaction within or between larger or multiple 'social organisms'... an important and needed development.

At its root, a civilization (or any social organism) is a product of individual and group decisions (ideas+actions) operating within the confines of the physical environment and natural law.

Money was developed originally as a technology for the allocation of excess social energy where complexity (and loss of various forms of proximity) required conventions beyond the less formalized methods of a hunter-gatherer group.

I believe this suggest some re-thinking about the nature of money and capital (and capital creation) but that's another story...

The point here is that the nature of this "social energy" in a scaled organism requires that the exchange of this energy NOT be bound by transaction costs or other complications (like carrier censorship) IN AREAS RELATED TO COMMONS-DEDICATED FUNCTIONS ESPECIALLY...

These particular areas of exchange actually pre-date the need for or existence of the commercial transaction and require special attention.

This problem (which extends also into the political participation sphere especially) is directly linked to neglected scaling issues in this new landscape... and the capabilities required for Commons-oriented transactions in that space... and why that requires a viable, simple and secure MICRO-transaction.

A needed institution for a pragmatic approach to solution:

The Commons-dedicated Account Network:

A self-supporting , Commons-owned neutral network of accounts for both political and charitable monetary contribution... which for fundamental reasons of scale must allow a viable micro-transaction* (think x-box points for action in the Commons).

(I note that journalism is often a for-profit enterprise and that this presents a complicating factor. I believe this is an addressable issue.)

Re-Igniting the Enlightenment: On Building Landscapes for Decision
http://culturalengineer.blogspot.com/2010/12/re-igniting-enl...

LinkedIn
http://www.linkedin.com/in/culturalengineer

I also suggest that such a distributed account network should own and maintain its own cloud and bank(s)... giving it a certain independence and resilience.

*Re the potentials of the networked political microtransaction:

"A full 90 members of Congress who voted to bailout Wall Street in 2008 failed to support financial reform reining in the banks that drove our economy off a cliff. But when you examine campaign contribution data, it's really no surprise that these particular lawmakers voted to mortgage our economic future to Big Finance: This election cycle, they've raked in over $48.8 million from the financial establishment." ("Crony Capitalism: Wall Street's Favorite Politicians", Zach Carter, ourfuture.org)

I don't like the way money is controlling politics either. Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire...

$48.8 million? It's disgusting how these special interests can network their money!

$48.8 million is less than 35 cents per registered voter...
It's just a matter of implementing the technologies to harvest other sides of the debate..

Most people NEVER give to a cause or campaign. It's a hassle and unless you're giving substantial bucks you feel pretty impotent anyway.

It doesn't need to be that way. Its just a matter of catalyzing the network.

From google's blog:
Governments shouldn’t have a monopoly on Internet governance
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/12/governments-shouldnt-...

Just trying out ideas!