|
-
Why Charging Money for Disclosure-Related Information is Wrong
I’m rather new to the TOT forums, and the disclosure community, but I feel that the issue of charging money or putting up a paywall for disclosure-related information demands further discourse. I’m going to leave names out of this post, as it’s not my intention to levy personal attacks upon anyone, but the actions of public figures requires public examination.
Any representative of truth, who attempts to stifle conversation or deflect valid discussion, by unfairly demonizing their opposition as negative or venomous, should be viewed with intense scrutiny. Alternatively, anyone who is legitimately attempting to start a flame war, openly insult and name-call, or be disruptive should be handled by the forum moderators. From what I’ve seen thus far, the TOT moderators do an excellent job with this, and I appreciate their dedication to keeping the forum clean.
However, when disclosure representatives sardonically respond to valid questions with “face-palm” emoticons, and state that it’s not possible to have a public discussion anymore, then I believe the discerning public should be extra careful with their information.
Charging for Disclosure
I have noticed that there is a growing voice, on this forum and elsewhere, advocating against putting disclosure-related information behind a paywall. I believe that charging money for this kind of information only harms a community that is interested in truth, and that we should openly oppose those who operate this way. There are numerous reasons why this information should be free.
First, if an informant or messenger, in any way, is charging money for their information then they are immediately setting themselves up with a conflict of interests. There is good reason why this is strictly prohibited in areas where the integrity of the data is supreme.
When the individual stands to gain financially then there is an incentive to maximize the profit accrued with their material. This can result in information piecemeal, whereby the data is unnecessarily released over an extended period of time to maximize monetary gain. This harms the community, because it uselessly delays the truth.
Second, when money in involved, it also sets up a scenario whereby the messenger may bias or slightly alter the information to extend the shelf-life of their product. Common examples are cliffhangers or teasers. The audience is strung along in such a way that they are eager to hand over more money in the future to know what happens next. This is harmful to the community because this incentivizes the presenting party to embellish their data and make it more exciting. When the story is more dramatic then there is more money to be made. This undermines the integrity and validity of any disclosed information that becomes public in this manner.
The “They must pay their bills” Argument
The most common argument that I’ve read on these forums and elsewhere for the disclosure paywall, is that the individuals who vet whistleblowers, or are whistleblowers themselves, must put food on their table somehow, and that this justifies their position. I do not believe that this argument holds up under close inspection for the following reasons.
To begin with, I’ve found it difficult to believe that earth-side representatives of supposed advanced space-faring civilizations require my money to put food on their table. Are these whistleblower's stories not filled with space-age technology of transportation, teleportation, age regression, and interdimensional communications? I really have to ask, that if their stories are true, then why are these groups leaving their representatives to face the poor-house unless those of us in the community support them with our money?
Am I really supposed to believe that groups with incredibly advanced technologies are unable to properly support their earth-side allies with, at the very least, basic living amenities like food and shelter? This is a rather large hang-up I have with a few of the narratives that are going around this forum and others. Be aware and discern for yourselves.
For those individuals who are not direct representatives of supposed space-faring groups, the “must pay their bills” argument also doesn’t make much sense. The cost of disseminating information in the technological internet age is next to nothing. Gone are the days where it required a large overhead to spread our message in a printed newsletter, or in a professionally video recorded studio for television. We live in the era of free websites, free forums, and free radio-style podcasting. If anyone claims that their overhead is too high to manage a website or blog, then they are ignorant, uninformed, or lying to you.
Recording videos that require a studio, sound and light equipment, editing software, and the whole works is a rather inefficient form of communication. That is, unless the primary goal isn’t the dissemination of information at all, but instead the goal is entertainment.
It’s unlikely you will ever hear whether or not this is true directly from these individuals, but it’s something that we should all at the very least consider when engaging with their material. If the goal is indeed entertainment, then I actually don’t have any issue charging for content. However, I do have an issue when this content is marketed as part of the truth and disclosure movement.
Equal Energy Exchange
I firmly believe that the community should consciously be aware of any author’s intent before any money is exchanged. This is important so that a clear interpretation of the material is available. If the author is forthcoming about the presentation being entertainment, then it eliminates the possibility for abuse since it is clear what is being sold.
As an example, when someone purchases a surfboard, the buyer understands that he is paying for the future entertainment to be had over the lifespan of the object. There is an equal exchange of energy here:
Seller Monetary Gain +1
Buyer Entertainment +1
However, in regards to selling disclosure, if the intent and purpose of the activity is to inform as many people as possible, then not only does this prohibit an equal exchange of energy, but it actually undermines the process in favor of the seller:
Seller Monetary Gain +1
Seller Information Dissemination Goal +1
Buyer Accesses Data +1
The author not only monetarily gains, but also achieves the goal of dissemination, while the audience is presented with data that doesn’t really have any further use, like in the example with the surfboard. The individuals that have placed themselves before the public as messengers of truth should be held to a high standard. If we fail to do this, if we fail to consider exploitative behavior, then we have only ourselves to blame for the consequences.
Paywall Divides the Community
My final observation with this posting is that erecting any form of monetary barrier for the TRUTH, ultimately leads to a divided community. This promotes the status quo with the have and the have-nots. Even when the fee is comparatively low, this still prevents access for those who have no disposable income. Some services, such as GAIAMTV require a credit card, which immediately discounts a substantial audience from all over the globe.
It’s unfortunate, that even on these forums, there are those who sardonically mock posters for being unable to spend a few dollars for information; as if to imply that this somehow makes them unworthy. I find these types of responses rather saddening, and I would urge everyone to stand up against this kind behavior.
In conclusion, as advocates and seekers of truth, we should do our best to avoid systems that disenfranchise those who are less fortunate. Disclosure is a very important thing, and we should actively speak up against actions that may lead to abuse. You don’t have to look very far to see certain disclosure “personalities” ask for large sums of money, which only resulted in a black whole. We should be diligent about investigating the integrity of the information that is being presented, and we should openly and earnestly discuss the issues, even if they make some groups uncomfortable.
Thanks for reading,
Just my 2c
Last edited by bstuart, 17th June 2015 at 20:08.
-
The Following 15 Users Say Thank You to bstuart For This Useful Post:
Amenjo (17th June 2015), Aragorn (17th June 2015), Cearna (17th June 2015), CeeTee9 (17th June 2015), Chester (17th June 2015), Frances (22nd June 2015), Gemma (17th June 2015), grannyfranny (17th June 2015), Joanna (17th June 2015), Liberty (24th June 2015), Myst (18th June 2015), sandy (17th June 2015), SmokeyJoe1952 (17th June 2015), Wind (19th June 2015), Woody (17th June 2015)
-
I appreciate your OP, and in 6 years of sharing information and evidence without advertizing or monetary gain because disclosure is important to humanity. But I believe everyone that works should be paid for their efforts. How is laboring for disclosure any different than paying for any other service? I would love to purchase better equipment to produce even better proofs and being of low income it's not possible. Please understand that I totally get what your saying but I also feel why shouldn't front line field investigations be compensated? The big time names in ufology do not support us and none is asking how they can help yet always mention they appreciate the efforts put forth. If money was not a problem I would make field investigation a full time endeavor but I don't see a way to get the support that is needed to go full time. My last thought and have thought of this many times, how would I handle getting footage that proves the ETS are visiting here, ie the so called definitive proof. There is much value in proof that shows beyond a doubt imho.
Last edited by mojo, 17th June 2015 at 02:03.
-
The Following 16 Users Say Thank You to mojo For This Useful Post:
Alan (18th June 2015), Aragorn (17th June 2015), bstuart (17th June 2015), Cearna (17th June 2015), Chester (17th June 2015), DaRkViPeR (17th June 2015), Frances (22nd June 2015), GCS1103 (18th June 2015), GoodETxSG (17th June 2015), grannyfranny (17th June 2015), Gretchen (17th June 2015), Joanna (17th June 2015), Liberty (24th June 2015), modwiz (17th June 2015), Spiral of Light (18th June 2015), Woody (17th June 2015)
-
If the goal is to disseminate information to as large an audience as possible, with the highest amount of integrity, then achieving wide distribution is the reward for the effort involved. There are many successful non-profit organizations that operate in exactly this way. I believe that it's imperative that disclosure retain it's integrity for the reasons I stated in the original post.
Alternatively, if the primary goal is to instead make a living or a career out researching and content creation, then this is something slightly different. It can still fit into something like a non-profit, and I have no issue with individuals pursuing this so long as they are upfront about their motives. The use of something like google adverts is a great way to make a bit of money while keeping content free. However, my issue arises when individuals claim that they are presenting material, for the betterment and enlightenment of humanity, and then surrounding their information with a wall requiring paid admittance. It's a contradiction and easily abused.
Last edited by bstuart, 17th June 2015 at 02:24.
-
The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to bstuart For This Useful Post:
Aragorn (17th June 2015), Cearna (17th June 2015), CeeTee9 (17th June 2015), Chester (17th June 2015), grannyfranny (17th June 2015), Joanna (17th June 2015), Liberty (24th June 2015), sandy (17th June 2015), SmokeyJoe1952 (17th June 2015), Woody (17th June 2015)
-