6 ms·

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

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.
- fraserharris 11y ago
  You are creating a delineation to in order to obfuscate that you want to deprive content creators the option of charging you directly for their work. The unit costs of digital copies are irrelevant when the alternative, patronage, doesn't covering the fixed costs of designing/making. Instead, you want society to bear that cost because ... anything on the internet should be free.
- s73v3r 11y ago
  "What precisely is the logical flaw?" That instead of having the people who are consuming and enjoying the content pay for it, that the entire economic system needs to be overhauled. I'm not opposed to UBI, but that is clearly not the solution to the problem here, especially because there is no way in hell that UBI will be even close to reality in most nations, let alone the US.
vezzy-fnord 11y ago
Socialism defined as the "forced redistribution of wealth" is a highly revisionist view, and makes little sense. It would retroactively make almost all governments throughout history and in the present be socialist (via land laws and taxation), in addition to most political ideologies, even ones firmly right and capitalist. In fact, it is completely devoid of meaning. You're going to have to make an actual case, rather than just engage in red-baiting.
- fraserharris 11y ago
  I was defining UBI as a forced redistribution of wealth. For your benefit, i've corrected socialism to social welfare.
  - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
    That is nominally correct, but it's not a "socialist" policy in the slightest. What's interesting about UBI is actually how syncretic it is, being supported by elements coming from all sides of the political compass.
Elhana 11y ago
It is already fucked up situation that I have to pay for a movie, which ends up being complete crap, but with millions spent on ads, and I have no way to get my money back. As soon as I see random site asking for money before I even see a content, I just close the page and find another with roughly the same content. Just ask nicely and maybe I'll disable adblock or donate if I feel like the content was worth it.
- s73v3r 11y ago
  "Just ask nicely and maybe I'll disable adblock or donate if I feel like the content was worth it." No you won't. You'll think, "Maybe I'll do it tomorrow," or, "You know, I didn't really enjoy it that much," as you go back to the site every day. Your statement is just like the people who put a rating for one star on an app, and say, "I'll change it after I've used it if I like it," or, "One Star until Feature X is implemented," when Feature X was never promised as part of the app. And then when the change is made, the rating is never changed.
  - Elhana 11y ago
    I've disabled adblock on some sites, that are really useful to me, like TV series calendar and donated to some sites that I read often, I bought indie games I liked, but I'm not going to pay to some random blog I accidentally landed from some random link once and never came back again. Proposed micro transaction model won't make me pay for it anyway. Why someone feels entitled to my money, just because they facerolled their keyboard for a half an hour? Sometimes it feels like authors should actually pay me for reading/installing that pile of garbage they call "content".
    - s73v3r 11y ago
      "Why someone feels entitled to my money, just because they facerolled their keyboard for a half an hour?" They're not the ones feeling entitled. You read their content. You used the product of their labor. Isn't the entire basis of Capitalism that you pay for the product of other people's labor? "Sometimes it feels like authors should actually pay me for reading/installing that pile of garbage they call "content"." And yet, you're still reading it.

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.

fraserharris 11y ago
You are creating a delineation to in order to obfuscate that you want to deprive content creators the option of charging you directly for their work. The unit costs of digital copies are irrelevant when the alternative, patronage, doesn't covering the fixed costs of designing/making. Instead, you want society to bear that cost because ... anything on the internet should be free.
s73v3r 11y ago
"What precisely is the logical flaw?" That instead of having the people who are consuming and enjoying the content pay for it, that the entire economic system needs to be overhauled. I'm not opposed to UBI, but that is clearly not the solution to the problem here, especially because there is no way in hell that UBI will be even close to reality in most nations, let alone the US.

vezzy-fnord 11y ago

Socialism defined as the "forced redistribution of wealth" is a highly revisionist view, and makes little sense. It would retroactively make almost all governments throughout history and in the present be socialist (via land laws and taxation), in addition to most political ideologies, even ones firmly right and capitalist. In fact, it is completely devoid of meaning. You're going to have to make an actual case, rather than just engage in red-baiting.

fraserharris 11y ago
I was defining UBI as a forced redistribution of wealth. For your benefit, i've corrected socialism to social welfare.
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  That is nominally correct, but it's not a "socialist" policy in the slightest. What's interesting about UBI is actually how syncretic it is, being supported by elements coming from all sides of the political compass.

Elhana 11y ago

It is already fucked up situation that I have to pay for a movie, which ends up being complete crap, but with millions spent on ads, and I have no way to get my money back. As soon as I see random site asking for money before I even see a content, I just close the page and find another with roughly the same content. Just ask nicely and maybe I'll disable adblock or donate if I feel like the content was worth it.

s73v3r 11y ago
"Just ask nicely and maybe I'll disable adblock or donate if I feel like the content was worth it." No you won't. You'll think, "Maybe I'll do it tomorrow," or, "You know, I didn't really enjoy it that much," as you go back to the site every day. Your statement is just like the people who put a rating for one star on an app, and say, "I'll change it after I've used it if I like it," or, "One Star until Feature X is implemented," when Feature X was never promised as part of the app. And then when the change is made, the rating is never changed.
- Elhana 11y ago
  I've disabled adblock on some sites, that are really useful to me, like TV series calendar and donated to some sites that I read often, I bought indie games I liked, but I'm not going to pay to some random blog I accidentally landed from some random link once and never came back again. Proposed micro transaction model won't make me pay for it anyway. Why someone feels entitled to my money, just because they facerolled their keyboard for a half an hour? Sometimes it feels like authors should actually pay me for reading/installing that pile of garbage they call "content".
  - s73v3r 11y ago
    "Why someone feels entitled to my money, just because they facerolled their keyboard for a half an hour?" They're not the ones feeling entitled. You read their content. You used the product of their labor. Isn't the entire basis of Capitalism that you pay for the product of other people's labor? "Sometimes it feels like authors should actually pay me for reading/installing that pile of garbage they call "content"." And yet, you're still reading it.