5 ms·

"I would argue that your browser should be helping you safely, securely, and easily make purchases of content and services across the web." It's tragic that th

by gue5t 11y ago

"I would argue that your browser should be helping you safely, securely, and easily make purchases of content and services across the web." It's tragic that the author's highest desire for what was envisioned as a global hyperlinked information system is to make it into a more efficient virtual-reality strip mall. We already pay for every byte of data that moves across the wire. Infrastructure and upkeep costs are why ISPs are actual businesses. The right answer to the current problem of asymmetry in communication pairings is peer-to-peer content distribution, which spreads costs much more evenly while decreasing latency by bringing data closer to edges of the network. You support Wikipedia-over-IPFS by flipping a switch in your settings to help host it, rather than doling out a handful of USD to the incessant baleful banners of Jimmy Wales' face. Meanwhile, the right answers to the costs of content creation are universal income and voluntary sponsorship, not DRM, paywalls, and moneyware.

edanm 11y ago
I'm not saying you're wrong, but if your plan for dealing with content creation on the web includes overhauling the economic system of the world, then you may have a mismatch between the size of the problem and the size of the solution.
ised 11y ago
"Wikipedia-over-IPFS" Interesting example. I have Wikipedia as a local database on my own secondary storage. As long as there are mirrors of the data dumps, I only occasionally need an internetwork. (To download data dumps.)
fraserharris 11y ago
It's tragic that the author's highest desire [is to be able to pay for content]. We already pay for [network connectivity]. Meanwhile, the right answers to the cost of content creation are [a form of social welfare].
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  Meanwhile, the right answers to the cost of content creation are [a form of communism]. Indeed, those dirty reds and their communist system of... voluntary patronage. But, then again, maybe you're right on UBI. It has been espoused by known communists like Thomas Paine, Milton Friedman and F.A. von Hayek.
  - fraserharris 11y ago
    You are correct. I've corrected it to socialism. Its a forced redistribution of wealth. My point is the gaping logical flaw in the original post. How is this the top comment?
    - Kenji 11y ago
      I accidentally liked it. I wanted to press the dislike button. You are right, I can't believe he suggests universal income as a way to solve the ad problem. Absolutely ludicrous. Problem: Content creators struggle to monetize their stuff and people are sick and tired of ads. Solution: Socialism. No, that's not how economy works. Either more valuable content should be created or else some sites will die, it's economic evolution if you want.
    - kuschku 11y ago
      Which is not bad – it’s a desirable system for a civilized society.
    - gue5t 11y ago
      What precisely is the logical flaw? My line of thought was that it's productive to delineate the costs borne by those who wish to create and share digital objects into two categories: costs of designing/making the thing and costs for producing copies. The latter can easily be defrayed with appropriate network technologies, which is along the lines of the original intent of the Web as a platform for sharing information; the former requires some change in how we fund creative work. I think it's productive to address them separately, as their relative scales are vastly different for digital objects compared to physical ones. Since the incremental costs of producing additional copies of physical objects are so high, it's easy to absorb design costs into the price paid for each copy, but for digital objects this makes much less sense. I am advocating a humanitarian system of patronage of the arts, yes. I think it's worthwhile to have faith in the ability of people to self-actualize when their basic needs are met, and I'm hoping we can thereby support creative endeavors of modest scale, like writing articles for the Web. A coercive system like communism has been shown to not work for various reasons, but socialist basic income on top of a relatively free market seems viable.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
Navarr 11y ago
Like code, sometimes you have to make things work before you can do them right. That's definitely what we're going to have here. Voluntary sponsorship relies on communism which, supposedly, does not work ^TM. Universal Income would be fantastic but we're not there yet. We need something in the interim, because conservative values will never allow for a universal income.
s73v3r 11y ago
"We already pay for every byte of data that moves across the wire" You're paying for that byte to get from Point A to Point B. You haven't paid for the creation of that byte, though. "The right answer to the current problem of asymmetry in communication pairings is peer-to-peer content distribution" Again, that helps with the cost of sending that byte somewhere. It does absolutely nothing for the cost of creating that byte (writing the article, drawing the cartoon, creating the song, etc) in the first place. "Meanwhile, the right answers to the costs of content creation are universal income and voluntary sponsorship, not DRM, paywalls, and moneyware." Are they? I mean, why do you feel entitled to read someone's content without paying for it?
- mahranch 11y ago
  > You're paying for that byte to get from Point A to Point B. You haven't paid for the creation of that byte, though. I don't know why you were downmodded but this is absolutely correct. Just because I bought a car and paid for its gas doesn't mean when I get to the theater, the movie should be free. Better yet, it's like buying a TV then expecting all the stations, including pay-per-view channels to be free. You bought the TV, not the content that gets displayed on the TV. You can watch the free channels but guess what pays for those free channels? Yep, ads. Ads subsidize (pays for) your free content. That content isn't actually free at all, the ad companies paid for it. And they're allowing you to see it in exchange for seeing their ad. > Are they? I mean, why do you feel entitled to read someone's content without paying for it? Amen. Why is everyone suddenly so entitled? Makes my skin crawl to see people so naive about how the world works.
  - s73v3r 11y ago
    "I don't know why you were downmodded but this is absolutely correct." Because nobody likes to talk about actually creating things. They feel like everything should be free, because costs of replication are low.
digi_owl 11y ago
> It's tragic that the author's highest desire for what was envisioned as a global hyperlinked information system is to make it into a more efficient virtual-reality strip mall. That has basically been the dream of every exec out there since the .com boom. Cory Doctorow touch on this: https://vimeo.com/10457689 https://vimeo.com/10457689
oldmanjay 11y ago
I can't imagine why the right answer to content creation is universal income, but I can certainly recognize a dogmatic statement offered as a conclusion when I see one.

by gue5t 11y ago

edanm 11y ago

I'm not saying you're wrong, but if your plan for dealing with content creation on the web includes overhauling the economic system of the world, then you may have a mismatch between the size of the problem and the size of the solution.

ised 11y ago

"Wikipedia-over-IPFS" Interesting example. I have Wikipedia as a local database on my own secondary storage. As long as there are mirrors of the data dumps, I only occasionally need an internetwork. (To download data dumps.)

fraserharris 11y ago

It's tragic that the author's highest desire [is to be able to pay for content]. We already pay for [network connectivity]. Meanwhile, the right answers to the cost of content creation are [a form of social welfare].

vezzy-fnord 11y ago
Meanwhile, the right answers to the cost of content creation are [a form of communism]. Indeed, those dirty reds and their communist system of... voluntary patronage. But, then again, maybe you're right on UBI. It has been espoused by known communists like Thomas Paine, Milton Friedman and F.A. von Hayek.
- fraserharris 11y ago
  You are correct. I've corrected it to socialism. Its a forced redistribution of wealth. My point is the gaping logical flaw in the original post. How is this the top comment?
  - Kenji 11y ago
    I accidentally liked it. I wanted to press the dislike button. You are right, I can't believe he suggests universal income as a way to solve the ad problem. Absolutely ludicrous. Problem: Content creators struggle to monetize their stuff and people are sick and tired of ads. Solution: Socialism. No, that's not how economy works. Either more valuable content should be created or else some sites will die, it's economic evolution if you want.
  - kuschku 11y ago
    Which is not bad – it’s a desirable system for a civilized society.
  - gue5t 11y ago
    What precisely is the logical flaw? My line of thought was that it's productive to delineate the costs borne by those who wish to create and share digital objects into two categories: costs of designing/making the thing and costs for producing copies. The latter can easily be defrayed with appropriate network technologies, which is along the lines of the original intent of the Web as a platform for sharing information; the former requires some change in how we fund creative work. I think it's productive to address them separately, as their relative scales are vastly different for digital objects compared to physical ones. Since the incremental costs of producing additional copies of physical objects are so high, it's easy to absorb design costs into the price paid for each copy, but for digital objects this makes much less sense. I am advocating a humanitarian system of patronage of the arts, yes. I think it's worthwhile to have faith in the ability of people to self-actualize when their basic needs are met, and I'm hoping we can thereby support creative endeavors of modest scale, like writing articles for the Web. A coercive system like communism has been shown to not work for various reasons, but socialist basic income on top of a relatively free market seems viable.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

Navarr 11y ago

Like code, sometimes you have to make things work before you can do them right. That's definitely what we're going to have here. Voluntary sponsorship relies on communism which, supposedly, does not work ^TM. Universal Income would be fantastic but we're not there yet. We need something in the interim, because conservative values will never allow for a universal income.

s73v3r 11y ago

"We already pay for every byte of data that moves across the wire" You're paying for that byte to get from Point A to Point B. You haven't paid for the creation of that byte, though. "The right answer to the current problem of asymmetry in communication pairings is peer-to-peer content distribution" Again, that helps with the cost of sending that byte somewhere. It does absolutely nothing for the cost of creating that byte (writing the article, drawing the cartoon, creating the song, etc) in the first place. "Meanwhile, the right answers to the costs of content creation are universal income and voluntary sponsorship, not DRM, paywalls, and moneyware." Are they? I mean, why do you feel entitled to read someone's content without paying for it?

mahranch 11y ago
> You're paying for that byte to get from Point A to Point B. You haven't paid for the creation of that byte, though. I don't know why you were downmodded but this is absolutely correct. Just because I bought a car and paid for its gas doesn't mean when I get to the theater, the movie should be free. Better yet, it's like buying a TV then expecting all the stations, including pay-per-view channels to be free. You bought the TV, not the content that gets displayed on the TV. You can watch the free channels but guess what pays for those free channels? Yep, ads. Ads subsidize (pays for) your free content. That content isn't actually free at all, the ad companies paid for it. And they're allowing you to see it in exchange for seeing their ad. > Are they? I mean, why do you feel entitled to read someone's content without paying for it? Amen. Why is everyone suddenly so entitled? Makes my skin crawl to see people so naive about how the world works.
- s73v3r 11y ago
  "I don't know why you were downmodded but this is absolutely correct." Because nobody likes to talk about actually creating things. They feel like everything should be free, because costs of replication are low.

digi_owl 11y ago

> It's tragic that the author's highest desire for what was envisioned as a global hyperlinked information system is to make it into a more efficient virtual-reality strip mall. That has basically been the dream of every exec out there since the .com boom. Cory Doctorow touch on this: https://vimeo.com/10457689 https://vimeo.com/10457689

oldmanjay 11y ago

I can't imagine why the right answer to content creation is universal income, but I can certainly recognize a dogmatic statement offered as a conclusion when I see one.