Props for an evenhanded technical discussion.

However the very nature of the discussion also got me thinking about some of the underlying cultural phenomenon that inform the growing discussion on the technology itself.

In essense there is this dichotomy, there is a love of big corporate cultural content, yet there is an undying hatered of those creating institutions. This creates a dilemma, as you cannot separate the art (commissoned or otherwise) from the artist and still have “unadultered” content.

This is the space in which the technical discussions take place as they search for balance. Yet left unspoken, on both sides of the debate, is the fact that viewers of big content, by seeking such institutional reforms, are admitting that they are still beholden (on the cultural level at least) to these institutions.

Not that this is a very deep insight, but its all I could think about during your discussion, and its an area that receives no discussion, there is a deep irony in an anti-corporate crusade broadcast (as in tweeted) over corporately held media platoforms, a sidelong admission that the anti-corporate rant is in reality only a half-hearted play agianst certian targeted corporations.

This to me hits at the very center of much of the current politics in both its “traditional” (ie like your work at your think tank) and “extreme” forms (ie OWS), and perhaps too close to the center as this seems to be a touchy issue for both sides, as if neither side wants to admit how much they actually need the other. So to outside, mostly off the grid, observers like myself this all looks like a couple rabidly fighting out their tense marrige in public.