Frank Hecker

Generally agree with this but 100% against showing your cohost plus status in your profile, even less so showing how many. Even if it's optional, really really really don't like the kinda class symbol that ends up being, even if it's because they did a good thing. No golden eggbugs.

For better or worse I'm also of the opinion that, until we fix capitalism as a whole and while that should be a priority, if you've got enough money that you get to pick and choose your luxury expenses then you have some duty to try and spend it more responsibly. More money to people doing what they love and/or making the world better, less directly to awful people and big companies trying to eat the world. Yes no ethical consumption and all that, but people have used that as a hand wave enough before throwing their money directly to bad people for tiny dopamine hits that I've long stopped caring. Paying cohost monthly instead of say, a streaming subscription (or worse, paid youtube), is an excellent example of that.

Man I have super mixed feelings about this

Carnegie's fundamental point (the wealthy should distribute their wealth downward) is obviously correct and I have no objection to that

but my objection is with people becoming that rich in the first place? Especially when luck is by far the dominant determinant for that (including Carnegie himself given your provided context). I know that's a direct contraction with one of his core points (capitalism is here to stay) but do we really want a system where our leaders are ultimately determined by chance? It sounds like Carnegie was mostly not an asshole (well sort of, you know what they say about it being impossible to become that rich without massive exploitation and I refuse to believe he was an exception) but you can't hardly read the news without tripping over a story about the modern hyper wealthy being assholes who barely pretend to be philanthropic

And also if wealth distribution was like, even a LITTLE bit more even, people would have far more freedom to support causes and networks they care about. Carnegie is clearly not accounting for people who barely have enough for survival

So while I do get the idea of noblesse oblige it sounds like it would be far more optimized as an anarchic, socialist system. Which maybe he wouldn't even necessarily object to if that was suggested to him, idk, he's dead

I've wondered about whether public broadcasting provides a model for Cohost. But public broadcasting relies heavily on a combination of government support and grant money, neither of which are readily available to Cohost. And paid ads ("underwriting") are also important to public broadcasting, with the advantage of a locality nexus which Cohost doesn't have.

Would changing Cohost's legal status from worker-owned co-op (I think that's the current structure) to a tax-exempt organization help attract grants/donations? I don't know. I have seen people complain that Beats Time and some extra Eggbug emojji aren't worth the cost of Plus, and maybe they'd be happier paying if Cohost were legally non-profit (which in the US isn't quite the same thing as not-for-profit). But I imagine some people are paying for Plus because they like supporting a co-op.