h a l f b a k e r yVeni, vedi, fish velocipede
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Don't want to see explosions and bared bosoms? Others do, and would likely be willing to pay you for the privilege. Why waste the resource? Sign up with this service and - as with a filter - the sex and violence will be kept off your TV. There's an added step, however. The content you've rejected
is sent to other TV viewers, who receive it at a discount. You get a portion of their fees, and perhaps commissions from the advertisers also.
[I didn't flesh this out enough when I posted it, and a lot of you had good questions/comments. Please see my annotation of July 19 for more information on how this idea would work.]
[link]
|
| |
Sounds vaguely pornographic, but at this point in the night, cannot quantify how. To each his own. |
|
| |
You could be quite mischevious and redirect coverage of non-pornographic things to throw a spanner in the works ... |
|
| |
What form will other viewers recieve this redirected filtered sex and violence? |
|
| |
A seperate channel that is basically a screwed up montage of T&A, Glocks and stabbing murders? |
|
| |
Or maybe inserted randomly into other shows (like Tyler Durden's projector antics in Fight Club)? |
|
| |
Well, it works like this, you see: Cable subscribers get all kinds of programs they don't want to watch. They're paying for these programs but don't want them. A filter removes but wastes them. That's inefficient. You could trade viewing rights for cash, pay-for-view credits, or reduced cable fees at your end. The shows that are most rejected are offered on a discounted Sex & Violence Channel, a 24/7 orgy of chainsaw killings and wet t-shirts. This service is offered cheap to - oh, fraternity houses and such. S&V subscribers' fees would pay filterers' compensation. Another source of revenue would be advertisers, who might be persuaded to pay a premium for the extra assurance that their ads were being watched. TV is not zero-sum, I know; my suggestion is that treating it as if it *were* zero-sum might open up new efficiencies for families, fratboys, cable companies, and advertisers all. |
|
| |
waugsqueke: But everyone doesn't get the same. Cable providers sell different packages with more or fewer channels. Some folks have no cable. Those who receive more would distribute their refuse to those who receive less. |
|
| |
To Everyone: A lot of good criticisms here. I have to confess that the idea isn't all worked out in my own head. |
|
| |