It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


F.T.C. Floats "Drudge Tax"

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 10:38 AM
FTC Float Drudge Tax

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is seeking ways to "reinvent" journalism, and that's a cause for concern. According to a May 24 draft proposal, the agency thinks government should be at the center of a media overhaul. The bureaucracy sees it as a problem that the Internet has introduced a wealth of information options to consumers, forcing media companies to adapt and experiment to meet changing market needs. FTC's policy staff fears this new reality.
"There are reasons for concern that experimentation may not produce a robust and sustainable business model for commercial journalism," the report states. With no faith that the market will work things out for the better, government thinks it must come to the rescue.
The ideas being batted around to save the industry share a common theme: They are designed to empower bureaucrats, not consumers. For instance, one proposal would, "Allow news organizations to agree jointly on a mechanism to require news aggregators and others to pay for the use of online content, perhaps through the use of copyright licenses."
In other words, government policy would encourage a tax on websites like the Drudge Report, a must-read source for the news links of the day, so that the agency can redistribute the funds collected to various newspapers. Such a tax would hit other news aggregators, such as Digg, Fark and Reddit, which not only gather links, but provide a forum for a lively and entertaining discussion of the issues raised by the stories. Fostering a robust public-policy debate, not saving a particular business model, should be the goal of journalism in the first place.

I find this to be a bit disturbing, especially the "redistribute the funds" argument presented in the article. Once the door is opened to begin taxing websites I believe we'll see a flood of it. Theoretically, ATS would not be immune from this as it has news aggregator functions.


posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 03:10 PM
i saw this today......

they government needs to keep its hands off. with the current coverage the liberal news channels and newspapers give pro obama this and that.

why do they think they need to mess with it any further other than to silence the voice of his critics.

and agian if this was gwbs adminstration theres no way in hell they would let him do it.

posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 03:29 PM
I think this is another example of why the citizens of the USA are so distressed with their federal government.

I fear for the people of the USA. They are being pushed into violence and rebellion. If I were a citizen of the States, I would organise a political movement with a very radical agenda:

1. Professional lobbyists would be banned. All U.S. citizens lobbying for foreign governments would be arrested and the activity forbidden as treason. All foreign citizens seeking to lobby the US. Federal government would be arrested and deported.

2. Multi-national corporations would be banned from doing business in the USA. Only US owned companies would be allowed to do business within the borders of the USA, and only US owned companies would be able to import foreign made products into the States.

... I could go on, but it really should be someone rising up in the USA ready to cry "Danger, Will Robinson!" etc.

posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 04:10 PM
The sad truth is that ATS would certainly be included in this tax unless they drop the "breaking news" features. Maybe that couldn't even save them. Government is really getting beyond intrusive.

posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 04:39 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 04:53 PM
Well that was surreal. A claim that ATS posts were used against a poster in a court of law? Then, an immediate deletion of the post?

Either way, I hope ATS remains safe from government taxation. I see no benefit to "redistributing wealth" to news sources and I sure don't want to pay a subscription fee to this site.


log in