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
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: http://www.niemanlab.org/2017/07/first-look-medias-topic-com-is-leaning-on-v... 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. 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. (?)