Thanks for taking the time to read and respond. I’m sorry you missed the point so completely, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you did it on purpose, since you’re hiding behind a brand new alias and referring to “clients” which I’ll bet don’t exist.

1. The only thing you need to take away is that people should have control of our personal data and share it (or not) as we wish. That’s a human right, and a possibility that becomes obvious once you realize that Facebook and all the other honeypots aren’t doing anything magical in return for our private information. The fact that they abuse the data is merely an additional motivation. But it doesn’t change the basic dynamic: there’s a simply better way.

2. I have absolutely nothing against advertising; it’s a necessary component of a free market economy. I just believe that advertising needs to be a free exchange that values the perspectives of both parties. (Context-only-based Adwords is a great example IMHO.) My proposal establishes a framework where that agreement can happen. Or where I can pay a small amount if I choose and have no advertisng at all.

3. The “digital highway” (BTW 1990 called and wants its terminology back) is not owned by anyone. With the advent of the cloud and RESTful services, computing power can be arranged in virtually unlimited ways. The one I’ve proposed is not revolutionary or fantastical in at all. You may disagree — with facts please— if you wish.

You may also believe that the current system is fine, which is your prerogative, but insulting me as a “doofus” is not. You’re a troll and not a very good one.

Also, not that it matters but yes I’m a fan of Bernie and Occupy too. Actively arguing for the status quo exposes you as a shill. I won’t even ask you what your idea is, because clearly you’re too lazy/incapable to have one.

What’s your real name and job? Do you have any credibility?