Knowledge is valuable. But how valuable?

Institutions have monetized information in acceptable ways such as private education and intellectual property (IP). But is it right to put a price on knowledge? And who has the power to choose which types of information are acceptable to monetize?

One could argue that by putting a price on information, it benefits only those who are wealthy enough to be privileged to access that information. Does this mean that others are kept ignorant if they are not as lucky?

Do news channels have the right to monetize information?

One example of how information is monetized is the rise of online subscription services for news media. Many newspaper websites are now accessible only through a paid subscription.

It’s understandable that the consumption of news has changed dramatically these past decades. With the decrease in sales of print copies, and the shift towards distribution of news through internet channels, news outlets must pivot and find ways to reach their audience. If readers want news from the internet, news agencies must sell ad space and charge subscriptions, or lose revenue and go out of business. Nowadays, it’s not sustainable for news agencies to give away their news for free.

There must be a way to make a profit from knowledge and information, but without guarding it from people who have a right to know. As citizens, we have the right to be informed about the world, but it must be made possible in the first place for news agencies to run their business.

To be equitable, there must be a way to fund a new sources’ operations without overcharging readers.

Should education be free?

Is private education better than public education? Is a degree from an Ivy League college more valuable than any other college?

Some Ivy League graduates will spend half their lives paying off their tuition fees. But an impressive degree next to their name will sometimes give them an edge over the competition in the job market.

In a private education system, only the very wealthy can benefit from the information. And in a lot of cases, only the very wealthy can choose who can benefit from it, for example, by selecting those who can receive scholarships and academic grants.

Higher education generates more knowledgeable citizens, which spurs economic development, and boosts the economy. Countries that invest the most in both public and private education have a higher GDP and economic output.

It’s easy to believe that the most expensive college degree leads to careers with the highest salaries. This is why professors and experts are highly paid. They have the knowledge that they can teach, which in most societies are highly valued.

Yes, education should be free up to a certain point. At the same time, institutions have the right to charge fees in exchange for knowledge. Education is like any other investment, you have to put in the money to reap the benefits.

Should knowledge be affordable?

So far, we’ve seen news agencies and educational institutions charge fees for their services. The reality is that people must capitalize on knowledge to make a living that they desire for themselves.

To keep a business running, you must have the information in the first place by investing in research and development. This is how your business is sustainable and is able to continue offering your products and services.

Information, especially when it’s valuable, permits competition. And when you get competition, you also get a resulting increase in price. In this way, information can become very expensive.

Can there be a system where those who can afford knowledge, do so, but in a way that allows them to spread that information to others? The dissemination of knowledge is a step towards creating a situation where everyone wins.

Knowledge is more valuable if there is a price on it. Knowledge that you can later use to improve your financial situation, health and well being is highly sought after. It follows that there is inequality because not everyone can afford it. Is there a better solution than saying that it’s just the reality and we have to accept it?

One can argue that information should be readily available for anyone’s consumption, especially if it’s information that could save your life. Imagine what could happen if we were kept in ignorance, or those with power are selective over what we can know and what we can’t know.

Should the elite have all the power to make decisions over what is permissible to know and what isn’t? This is one of the reasons why laws such as the freedom of information act serve its purpose. These laws guard our right to know and deter those in power from corruption.

Can what we know hurt us?

Are we better off being in the dark, because ignorance is bliss?

Sometimes we are kept ignorant for political reasons. There are some types of information that are kept secret for reasons of national security. However, when that information is kept secret only to allow others to continue fueling corruption, that is when information leaks lead to scandal and controversy.

When information is bartered and sold to the highest bidder, it encourages a breeding ground for spies and criminals. Selling state or trade secrets is a crime that leads to lawsuits, fines, and jail time.

So yes, knowledge has a great, and sometimes criminal, value, especially if it’s illegal knowledge.

There are laws against stealing information and trade secrets. There are laws to protect IP. IP permits the right to make a profit out of knowledge, and to protect that right.

Being entrusted with knowledge means being responsible for equal opportunity

People have the right to monetize information, but should be responsible for spreading some of that information freely. We have realized that it is a disadvantage for society to safeguard information only for those who are wealthy enough to afford it. However, there are some strides towards making access to knowledge equitable. For example, open access journals provide research articles at no cost to readers.

It is idealistic to believe that information should be free for everyone to benefit from, regardless of their income and economic status. But maybe it’s fair to say that knowledge is available to those who know how to look for it.

In an ideal world, the selling of knowledge is done with the understanding that it will be used for good and for improving societal conditions.

In an ideal world, there would be no fees to access knowledge. Those who wish to would be able to benefit from it, without restrictions.

We have to strike a balance between releasing and safeguarding information in these three situations: 1) business owners must be able to capitalize on their discoveries, which can include products and services; 2) safety, security and privacy must be upheld with regards to confidential information, and 3) knowledge is for everyone, especially when it is knowledge that will increase quality of life and health.

People who are entrusted with knowledge must be the first ones to uphold equal opportunity and fairness. Only when this standard is set can people have the right to monetize information.