Is there something new media output captures that other kind of outputs may not with such effectiveness. The freedom it gives, still, may enable a certain depth of exploration. But what is its utility. In new media one, as the viewer, tends to get entertainment value from a sheer mass of available input, available quickly, and with the capacity to be passed over quickly.
This is not necessarily a negative, there is utility in my mind, in gathering large amounts of bites and textures of information. In terms of wanting facts to the extent that they may exist, nothing seems to beat established media, but that texturing of new media, which may be captured in long articles in traditional media, is seemingly more native to new media.
But can one texture insights. Possibly, if one is looking at something fleeting and changing, or possibly even more if one is looking at something that does not generate facts. Or even more specifically if it is something that may not, by its nature, do such a thing.
It is a bit like this: what is it that freedom of speech protections are supposed to produce ? Nothing perhaps, but they enable something. They enable something over time. That is they remove the time factor from production.
Something may happen in the future, at least we know we are not stopping it from happening, because these Constitutional words are timeless to an extent until they are changed (they were clear in the beginning). Thus they enable potential. Is there any kind of determinism in saying something will not happen that may have happened if speech is not protected ?
So what do we make of this astonishing appearance of free speech machines from the Internet, especially in the past few years. Can we expect a more vibrant future. Here I find a word that describes a general positivity to the production from free speech protections. Already we note the vibrancy in tech products to cater for the productions of new media.
But is there value in the points of new media output, rather than the effect of the aggregate. I believe the point of free speech protection were precisely to protect the individual. The points are roughly the individual. But it is from the actions of the individual that effect has in the past come.
But can there be a textured future of many points. If the base is free then perhaps that is an increased vibrancy, rather than simply activity. But is there not a value to texture. There is surely a value to anything, but it needs a certain rallying around to make it an effect. That is indeed the individual does not exist in a vacuum. But does not new media provide such a context.
But that is a more subtle sense of value, subtle in the difficulty in valuing it. But here we touch on that long term sense of things. That is we look at value as something that can have a life over time. A textured existence, though, rather than a point like something we can value.
Output gets generally valued and in direct relation to money via expression in companies, partly from the extension in time a company gives (raising issues of how much a company should remain true to its foundational values, if it can, to take full advantage of this). So can we come back to this idea of a new media company as something different.
We can certainly see something founded on texturing as having a certain potential: but we see here the strength on freeing the points, so it comes down to the same thing, over time. We can ask if such companies are enabled to remain true to their foundational values. Again what value is inherently flickers, if I can put it like that, in the great expression in the market, things are valued for many reasons, what we might call those inputs that change value.
However we noted strands, that is a continuity somewhere, which may reflect something harder. So can a new media company give continuity. Continuity may be dependant on things that cannot be controlled, except to the extent they can be enabled. Which is why I see strength where the points are free (there seem to be a number of ways to enable this and this itself may and already may be a value generating factor, if such is the case).
We can also touch on the freedom that reduction of inputs may bring, we have the counterexample, to the extent we have any counterexamples, in the run up to the crisis. And do we have the example now...? To enable freedom and its continuation one sometimes needs a certain kind of textured action, as well as words, but maybe such things are rare, unless that which does it, is also free, at least.
So we see various strands of difference in aggregations of value. Whether that continues or not, is itself an interesting question and may reflect on what it is that new media content becomes. Unless freedom is such that it becomes that question of the enabling potential of words and indeed words about words, and perhaps with added vibrancy.
