Are there any good alternatives for musical artists who want to make money off their work, want to embrace technology (vs fight it) and don't already have a massive audience like Radiohead? If you have that audience, asking people to "pay what you want" seems to work (and really well). But it seems like an entire revenue stream (music sales) is drying up in favor of tours. That doesn't bode well for artists, or for fans who want to see affordable live music. But it seems like the demand is there, and people will buy music if there is any easy way to do so. So is there a middleman who doesn't suck up most of the profit?

Its both, and it is crucial to understand that. It is also "pay workers a living wage" or "run out of consumers to buy your products".

The problem is the people with money are only concerned with making more money and having more power. Jobs will go away, and rather than innovate we'll have a very painful growth period in which some people will fall through the massive cracks in the system and be left there.

If we actually care about one another (or more cynically want to avoid the potentially violent unrest that can accompany mass unemployment) we need to do at a minimum make sure everyone is taken care of. I'd say we need to find a way to make everyone feel useful and productive. To do that, we need to rethink how we spend human effort and to what end. If we evolve technologically to the point that jobs aren't about catering the whims of the wealthy or subsistence - why not explore creating an economy of exploration and human evolution? Why not pour our wealth into educating people and increase the number of people who can play a part in helping us live longer, explore the universe, and enjoy life more? Let's replace menial jobs with scientists and artists.

Because left to their own devices, the kings of capital will let the workers replaced by robots starve and rot.

O'Keefe's antics are not trustworthy, and they are not journalism. He selectively edits his videos to make whatever point he wanted to.

In a March 2011 interview with O'Keefe, NPR journalist Bob Garfield described the ACORN scam: "So let's just recap for a moment the ACORN scenario. You lie to get into – the offices. You lie, subsequently, about the lie you told to get into the offices. You edit the pimp shot into the trailer to create the illusion that you were somehow wearing it during your sting. You go on television wearing the same pimp outfit and let interviewers observe, uncorrected, that that’s what you were wearing when you confronted the ACORN employees. If your journalistic technique is the lie, why should we believe anything you have to say?"

"Yes, it is different in the sense, that there are other ways to commit immigration fraud. But every single person, who sneaks across the border illegally is a fraudster."
You'd be hard pressed to find a lawyer who agrees with that. Now people who break immigration laws to cross the border can utilize fraud once they are here (false documents, stolen identity, etc). But its like saying everyone who breaks into a home steals a TV set. It happens sometimes, it is made easier by breaking in, but they are not the same thing.

More importantly you are side stepping my point and arguing semantics. The article is about fighting people who prey on those so desperate to go to another country they will risk anything. So when you quote someone who (ironically) has committed fraud in several senses of the word and try to change the subject, don't expect much trust for what you're selling.

Daily Caller? James O'Keefe? Not the most reliable sources. Also: immigration fraud is different from sneaking across the border: (http://www.ag.ny.gov/feature/immigration-services-fraud). These are the people who prey on immigrants, not the immigrants themselves.

Methods are improving and materials are improving. As costs continue to drop and more materials become available, look around your home and ask: What objects could be replaced with replicas made of metal, ceramics, even advanced composites of wood or stone. A composite maplewood desk. A custom designed set of steel silverware. Porcelain plates. Ceramic bowls. Iron composite free weights. I have a painting I purchased at an art museum. It would be neat to be able to snap a photo, get home and have a replica suit of armor. Surely this won't cover everything, but certain kinds of objects will simply be available now, whether or not you purchased them directly (simply by having the materials necessary). It will be interesting to see how the market reacts, but in terms of the products that get replaced, to the innovations that build on top of this.

Because it's either shut up or burn a person's livelihood to the ground? Nice straw man. How about when someone does something shitty, we complain about it and take action to directly address it.

A congress critter has actively worked to harm a cause you care deeply about (one as central to democracy's function as a free and open internet). But shame on anyone expressing their opinion or looking for a way to push back. If anything is the new PC - it is the outrage police.

"The Internet Association represents America’s leading Internet companies and their global community of users." - Their members are companies that would hurt without Net Neutrality.

Irrelevant? Feel cuddled? At least two lesbian couples have come forward and revealed doctors refused to treat their infants because of their sexuality. Imagine going to the doctor and suddenly being told you have to find a new one because your doctor "prayed over it" and decided he/she could not treat you. Hurt and confused you decide to go to a restaurant and grab some lunch, only to be asked to leave. These are real problems faced by real people, and "it doesn't affect me" is not a reason to dismiss them. I mean, if these are such non issues, then surely you won't mind if I choose not to serve Christians in any of my businesses? Of course not, because Christians are already smugly relying on their superior numbers to make that a non starter. This is part of the reason why it is important to care about the rights of the minority - because they cannot leverage the market to fight back.

This shouldn't be marked informative, it is misleading. This law differs in several substantial ways from the laws at play in other states (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/30/connecticut-indiana-boycott-lgbt_n_6969684.html). However even if they were equivalent laws on the books in other states - then they too would be examples of the religious right exerting influence.

This is another power grab by the religious right. It is connected to their efforts to restrict sex (through access to contraception, sex education, abortion, etc) and control the lives of Americans in the bedroom. But you know what? Every article, every boycott and every protest is pushing them back. Similar bills are stalling or failing. The outrage at actions like these are causing more and more Americans to leave their religion in disgust. The more we drag this bullshit into the light, the more the theocrats feel the heat.

Let's find examples of it working, and let that encourage more companies to engage over twitter. Because the common thread here is these are all companies that deserve criticism.

It isn't helped by people like you minimizing the problem and making it seem frivolous. This particular example just seems silly - the article doesn't reference where the jokes went "too far" so I can't speak to that. But spouting bullshit like "reverse privilege" and shouting down women who complain is problematic. Women who complain about *anything* - but especially tech - online are subjected to threats and harassment that men are far far far FAR less likely to encounter. As always the story isn't about some women (and only some - look at the tweets there are plenty of women who find it funny) who object to dick jokes. It is about the way those women are treated as a result of sharing their opinion.