Robonomics

Ufology Does Not Owe You a Living: The Personal Grievance at the Center of the Disclosure Economy This piece circulating argues there should be more money in ufology, that researchers and creators in the field are systematically undercompensated, and that the audience's reluctance to pay constitutes a moral failure. The original article is right about one thing: there is a pattern in this community of using ‘grift’ to police almost any attempt at monetization, and creators will burn out if all serious work is expected to be free - but the argument is built on a personal memoir of poverty followed by a transposition of that experience onto the field as a whole. It's the wrong diagnosis. The framing presents a personal career problem as a structural problem of an entire field, and the rhetorical move at the center of the piece is what produces most of the disclosure economy's actual pathologies. Compensation for serious work is legitimate. Books, papers, documented archives, original investigations, sustained research. Nobody serious disputes that researchers should be paid for the work they produce. But the argument under examination is different. It says: I chose to build a career in this field, the career is not paying me what I want, and the audience that will not fund it at the level I require is failing the cause. That is a personal grievance with the market for a niche. It is the same grievance that opera professionals could make, that indie documentary filmmakers could make, that working poets could make, that academic philosophers could make. None of them make it, because the niche reality of those fields is treated as a fact about the world rather than a moral demand on the audience. The piece sidesteps that comparison by elevating the topic. The entire load-bearing premise is one phrase. "The most important topic in human history." If you accept that elevation, audience indifference becomes a moral failure and the rest of the argument follows. If you reject the elevation, the argument collapses to: I picked a niche, please pay more. That elevation is not the audience's responsibility to accept. It is the writer's responsibility to demonstrate. The way you demonstrate the importance of work in a research field is by producing work that survives scrutiny. Writing essays asserting the importance and asking why the money has not followed does not accomplish it. But there is a deeper issue underneath all of this. A field has to decide what it is. A research field is organized around verifiable output. The economic structures that grow up around it, books, conferences, institutional positions, are delivery formats for the underlying work. The optimization function is truth-tracking. A content category is organized around audience attention. The economic structures that grow up around it, subscriptions, engagement metrics, agency representation, are extraction mechanisms. The optimization function is reach. You cannot run the first as if it were the second without the second consuming the first. That is the actual structural problem of the disclosure economy, and it is not solved by demanding the audience pay more. It is produced, in significant part, by exactly the agency model the Pursuing X reply positions as the answer. An agency is not a champion of the field. An agency is a service vendor whose product is client revenue growth. Its incentives optimize for whatever performs in the feed. Cliffhangers perform. Indefinitely deferred revelation performs. Confirmable claims that turn out wrong do not perform, because they close the loop. The monetized drip is what the agency model produces when you point it at a research topic. It is also a model with a structural interest in the question never resolving, because resolution collapses engagement. That is not a conspiracy claim. It is the math of the business model. Agencies amplify whoever pays them. They do not select based on rigor, originality, or contribution. The figures who get the agency treatment are the figures who already monetize well enough to afford the fees. That is the opposite of supporting the people doing the most important work. Adjacent serious fields do not have this layer for a reason. Science journalism has editors and outlets. Academic research has institutions and peer review. None of them have a sector of agencies whose product is to build a business around a figure in the field. When that sector forms inside a field, it is a sign the field has begun to organize around personality and brand rather than around work product. The question for ufology is what it wants to be. If it is a research field, the model is books, papers, archives, documented investigations, free distribution of the underlying evidence with paid premium formats around it. If ufology is a content category organized around audience revenue, then the agency model is the natural endpoint, and the field will produce exactly what every other content category organized around audience revenue produces. Optimized cliffhangers. Permanent unresolution. A class of intermediaries whose financial outcomes depend on the question never closing. That is what the disclosure economy is. The argument that there should be more money in it is an argument for accelerating exactly the dynamic that has hollowed the field out. The personal grievance is not the audience's problem. The framing that converts personal grievance into moral demand on the audience is the field's actual problem. The agency layer that monetizes the framing is the most refined expression of it. The structural point holds in every case. Choosing a niche means accepting the economics of the niche. Producing important work in that niche may or may not be rewarded by the market. The audience that does not pay enough to sustain the career one wanted is doing nothing wrong. It is making the ordinary decisions audiences make. If anything, the Strieber case strengthens the argument rather than weakening it. He has done the work. He has the credentials. He has built the monetization layer. He has the demonstrable output. And he is still struggling. That is what the niche economically supports. The field is doing what fields do. The writer who chose it is responsible for that choice.

Big Tech companies are sprinting forward, building data centers as fast as they can, sometimes using eminent domain to seize the land by force, making their AI more and more powerful, expanding the technology at lightening speed with no guardrails of any kind at all. Yet none of these tech gurus or any of their apologists have even attempted to explain what exactly all of the millions of people who lose their jobs, and the increasing numbers who lose their homes, all sacrificed on the AI altar, are supposed to do. How does society support millions of unemployed and displaced people? What becomes of a society where algorithms and machines do everything, and a few people become trillionaires while millions more lose everything? There is no answer to any of this. They aren’t even attempting to answer it. Instead we’re simply told that China exists and we have to “beat them” in some unspecified way, in order to achieve some unspecified goal. We’re going to obliterate entire industries, entire categories of jobs all at once, and the only justification anyone can give is “China.” It’s madness.

how grotesque is the expression “earn a living”

💆‍♂️ Dan Farah & Hal Puthoff are at it again! Attempting to fool the world into thinking the U.S GoV ISN'T hiding Advanced Technology but IS hiding "Aliens"

CIA seized 40 boxes of JFK and MK-ULTRA files that were being processed by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) for declassification.

🧵THREAD: The White House Press team is actively denying my correspondent from obtaining White House Press Credentials. This has been going on for over a month. Our team has asked every question as to why this is happening. We even issued a legal inquiry to the WH legal counsel about this issue regarding temporary press credentials. WH Press Team Response: “I don't think we will be able to accommodate you anytime in the near future.” Followed by: “What do you plan on covering?” We are now facing radio silence from the White House Press team.

CIA seized 40 boxes of JFK and MK-ULTRA files that were being processed by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) for declassification.