I have too much time on my hands in case you're wondering (alas, alas,
   the government's strategy for dealing with me doesn't work against
   someone with autism)
   There exists a five year grace period for nonprofits to become viable,
   until the Public Support Test needs to be fulfilled. 5/6 of First
   Look's money comes from... Omidyar so far. (how is he so rich and yet
   failed to figure out a viable strategy for First Look???)
   Recently First Look has been reorganized a bit. Well, as a media
   publication on the media says about it:
   [1]http://www.niemanlab.org/2017/07/first-look-medias-topic-com-is-lean
   ing-on-video-and-illustrations-to-tell-stories-and-break-out-of-the-new
   s-cycle/
   Topic.com is the product of First Look Media’s titular entertainment
   studio, Topic, which officially went live earlier this year. Unlike the
   nonprofit operations at First Look Media, like The Intercept, Topic and
   its related operations are charged with building the company’s revenue
   operations in part by financing and distributing independent projects
   such as the documentary Nobody Speaks, which follows the Hulk Hogan
   trial that helped take down Gawker. The documentary premiered on
   Netflix this month. Topic itself is platform-agnostic: its productions
   will live on a variety of platforms, including movie theater screens,
   podcast apps, television, and, of course, Facebook and Twitter.
   ---
   Looking at the staff of the for-profit First Look shows that it shares
   no (or nearly no) staff with the non-profit first look.
   Based on what I've read, I can guess that First Look and First Look are
   unrelated organizations.
   From what I can tell, news organizations cannot fund their own
   operations (unless as a foundation, maybe) unless *squints* it is
   selling advertisements that further its program service like... a bar
   association magazine to quote: "A bar association publishes a legal
   journal containing opinions of the county court, articles of
   professional interest to lawyers, advertisements for products and
   services used by the legal profession, and legal notices. The legal
   notices are published to satisfy state laws requiring publication of
   notices in connection with legal proceedings, such as the
   administration of estates and actions to quiet title to real property."
   So it isn't hard to see how First Look and First Look are unrelated in
   a purely irrational sense. Recently First Look began asking for
   donations (strangest public charity, hid their address on their website
   for a long time).
   Of course, public support requires essentially at least a third of all
   money come from individuals providing less than 2% each. An interesting
   question is if Pierre Omidyar offered to triple everyone's donations
   (+200%), and had a few friends donate a few thousand dollars each that
   he wouldn't triple. Would it qualify as public support? Probably. All
   this seems very elaborate and rather silly.
   Let's look at the ACLU. It uh. Has a related nonprofit foundation to
   fund itself and it's affiliates.
   Anyway, mimicry is stupid, but informed mimicry can improve one's own
   survival function. I've said something about orienting the network of
   privacy non-profits towards actually accomplishing things. You know
   SuperPACs have a wink-wink relationship with their candidate.
   And here is the reorganization of First Look, they hide the truth
   through some pretty sophisticated means. You want to improve privacy,
   create devices under the control of the public? Here's the blueprint.
   Get a bunch of people together who are on the same page. Create
   for-profit and non-profit corporations who aren't related. The designs
   and code must be open-source to prevent co-option and unnecessary risk
   that corporation could dominate and render the others irrelevant.
   Pretty short blueprint huh? Wonder why no one hasn't come up with this
   before... oh wait. Credit goes to Omidyar. The people in charge of your
   freedom are not on your side. Only you can manufacture freedom.
   P.S. /dev/random losing entropy when it is used only makes sense if the
   output is linear with the state. (?)

References

   1. http://www.niemanlab.org/2017/07/first-look-medias-topic-com-is-leaning-on-video-and-illustrations-to-tell-stories-and-break-out-of-the-news-cycle/