"In an interview with the Guardian, Tim Berners-Lee proposes a bill of rights for the web.
His plan is part of a wider initiative, The Web We Want, a campaign for a 'free open and truly global Internet.'
Berners-Lee suggests that governments need an increased understanding of technology, and a revisiting of legal issues such as copyright law.
More controversially he proposes removal of US control of IANA claiming "The removal of the explicit link to the US department of commerce is long overdue. The US can't have a global place in the running of something which is so non-national". He sees the web at risk of fragmentation into "national silos" if people do not fight for the web.
There is potential overlap here with Article 19 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights , which states,'Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.' Would an internet bill of rights be successful in nations where the principles of the UDHR are ignored ?
Given the anarchic evolution of the internet, is it possible or desirable to attempt to control it in any way?"
I'm not sure where I come down on what the particular financial structure should be.
I do know that I'm willing to support the site (at least in its current form) financially, but only under the condition that it be free for others to use, regardless of payment. I know that others can't or won't pay up, or want to be anonymous... and that's fine with me. Their voices should be welcome here too, and in equal volume to those who pay.
I'm iffy on the idea of extra services. I can't help but feel like it has the potential to create two classes of users, even if the features aren't "core." But I could be wrong.
I'm sure I'm not the only one willing to open their wallet simply because it means the site continues to exist.
Ouch, totally commented on the wrong post. Do mod this down.
I think you are totally spot on with your comment here on this post. Because it has everything to do with "the web we want", and it translates in essence to a charity that in his charter purports to uphold "freedom of speach, and belief and freedom from want and fear".
Soylent news has the opportunity to set an example (and with "freedom of want" I certainly see the need for proper remuneration to those who should be paid).